...life can be translucent

Menu

Are traditional teachings a lacking knowledge?

J

jesed

Guest
Hi Cris
I had doubt many days about the words in this post. I hope it would be for something possitive

1.- First, I want to enphatize that I have a great respect for your work. This is not "just words", is a real respect. I read your web site and your post frecuently

2.- I hope this words won't be understanding like an atack, neither to you nor to your's work. There are meant to built a dialogue, a fair interchange

3.- This expression is my starting point: "The 'traditional' I Ching is a product of our brains, common across the species, but operating in the LOCAL context of ancient China"

5.- There are several levels in Yi Jing, several uses, several contexts (as you called). Some are what you had called "local context", some are what you had called "universal context". This is part of the traditional teaching.

6.- The way Macrocosmical and Microcosmical "contexts" interact (what you had called XOR) is part of traditional teaching also.

7.- The "Binary Secuence" is one of the most important tools of traditional teaching.

8.- The Houses are powerfull tools for spiritual development. And there is not 1 way to order the Houses: a) As Macrocosmical Context, b) as microcosmical context, c) as character context, d) as temperament context, e) as personality context....

9.- The way of using the Orders (pre-Heaven and post-Heaven) and their interactions are basic to find (past) causes and (future) efects of present situation in traditional teachings.

10.- The interactions of "regent" hexagram, the "mixed" hexagrams, the "hidden" hexagrams of any casted hexagram give in traditional teachings something like you had called Universal Context.

11.- The "mixed-past cause" line (what Bradford had call "fan yao") and the "mixed-future effect" line are inlightening tools to understand the huge context of any line, in traditional teachings

... an so on.

So, are you sure "traditional IC" is a lacking knowledge? Couldn't it be that your knowledgment of traditional teaching is the one lacking?

Best wishes
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
No.

I would say more that hard-core traditionalists have issues with change and so take-on increasingly 'fundamentalist' perspectives as they try to defend their 'faith' - all very hexagram 12 ;-) - all very understandable - but unfortunate ;-)

The ICPlus material incorporates the traditional (explains how it can 'work') but says 'there is much much more' and to understand it requires moving out of the IC box and into the more general box of neurosciences etc and THEN move back into the box with more understanding.

I have stated before that any 'new' material could in fact be described in some ancient esoteric document 'somewhere' but the content would be so esoteric as to be useless for immediate comprehension - the overly rich metaphor used would make it highly specialist and highly demanding of lengthy analysis - something not required these days when we can figure out what is BEHIND the IC since we are now understanding how we derive and communicate 'meaning' (and also identifying the categories of general meaning).

The ancients had no idea what they were dealing with and so described things through very rich metaphor etc. IOW they could FEEL but not explicitly describe.

I must add that the traditional perspectives cannot incorporate the ICPlus since it means accepting findings of Science that may 'demand' a re-configuration of the traditional perspective - see it as no more than a part of a whole than the whole - and also raise issues re 'determinism', 'spirituality' etc and how we interpret reality (our consciousness can be too mediating and too particular and so miss a lot at times!)

The texts of the traditional IC, be they interpretations or translations or both, are examples of small world networks and so distorting, even excluding, of the full spectrum of information available as universals in the 'universal' IC - where the universal IC maps out all we COULD know given our brain dynamics - not in the sense of labels but in the sense of feelings etc. (e.g. you dont find explicit reference to the dual interpretations of hexagrams from a 'light/dark' perspective (opposites, competitive) vs a 'male/female' perspective (complements, cooperative) - nore the reasons for that perspective - the recursion of symmetric and asymmetric dichotomies in the brain; nore do you find reference to using the I Ching to describe the I Ching, as ICPlus does with XORing)

That said, the 'universal' IC is not the 'IC' in that it is not Chinese, it is a set of methods and patterns of meanings derived by our brains as a species where aspects of those patterns were used in mapping out reality in 'ancient china' and so formed a specialisation with its specialist language. The issue is that these formations were done 'ad hoc', with no understanding of the explicit full spectrum of our neurology.

As such these patterns are shared to varying degrees of resolution by different neuron-dependent life forms with humans showing the highest level of resolution power. The IC as such can 'work' in that it reflects 'out there' at the level of patterns of differentiation/integration expressed LOCALLY as qualities of yin/yang-ness.

These same patterns are present in Western esoteric disciplines but lacking in 'clear' distinctions due to NOT using yin/yang representations (See my page "The Logic of the Esoteric" http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html )

There is also the issue re use of wave interpretatons over particle interpretations (See the latest IChingPlus material on this:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus )

The XOR material, the wave material etc etc all comes out of analysis of the neurology and how it derives meaning - as such the universal IC is a METAPHOR for what the brain does; the traditional IC is a LOCAL example, a customisation where the ancients tried to to describe the qualities through the use of analogy/metphor to local history/mythology/legend. (note that the ICPlus material VALIDATES the IC way beyond its current validation in Western circles)

You will not find in ANY Western text any of the material from ICPlus re the I Ching as a self-referencing system and as such capable of describing each hexagram by analogy to all of the others through the XOR operator.

I doubt if you will find it in Eastern texts or, if there, it will be so 'hidden' as to be meaningless UNLESS you understood brain dynamics and how it extracts parts from a whole (using XOR - something understood from showing how the brain deals with sensory paradox - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)

Your perspective appears to be from within the 'traditional' IC and an attempt to 'protect' the 'depth' of that material - obviously due to the degree of entanglment of your personal identity and the 'traditional' I Ching.

My perspective is wider, more general, in that it focuses on universals, not local customisations, and as such spans all category systems, not just the IC - the focus is not just on MY identity but on the SPECIES identity.

The traditional IC, the ancient chinese document and supporting material, is LIMITED in scope OR requires too much 'mumbo jumbo' to make it useful beyond its current 'popular' format - and that is sad since what is represents is huge and with some tweaks here and there the universal IC can serve as a good guide to reality 'as is' ;-)

You put the traditional I Ching first, I put our specied first and its brain first - THEN comes the IC and other category systems and that includes all of the 'variations on a theme' of I Ching books of interpretations/translations (I have a lot and have read a lot more ;-))

As for some sort of 'secret teaching' - that smacks of elitism and betrayal of the species for the sake of some personal power trip! I have no time for that sort of stuff but recognise that a path of understanding is required to 'get' the IC and as such can easily be hijacked by some caught-up in such exercises of containement/control!

IOW the IDM perspective of a 'species 101' course to cover recursion is GENERAL and available for all - THEN can come 'specialist' perspectives such as IC teachings etc.

Understand the properties and methods of recursion of differentiating/integrating and out will pop the IC and all other category systems - LOCAL CONTEXT will 'customise' things, introduce new labels, introduce some novel 'aspect' of some universal and thats fine but to keep the traditional IC 'traditional' is no use to the species as a whole and it is THAT level of understanding we currently need to deal with. So - yes there are 'levels' in the I Ching but in the form of qualities derived from recursion - and so some 'talk' eight qualities, others 64, others 4096, others 16+million! Each level can be developed, most have, in ad hoc manners and thats fine - until now where now we have access to how we derive meaning and so how all of those levels 'work'.

To NOT develop that material, to ignore the last 3000+ years of neurosciences, psychology, and cognitive science, to try and maintain some 'secret handshake' mentality or some archaic terminology/language and so be as fundamentalist as any religious fundamentalism is, to me, deplorable conduct - a demonstration of vanity at work where being so wrapped-up in one's own identity that we put our heads in the sand when any 're-configuration' of perspective is required. Current times demand a more 'species-oriented' focus, to see behind all of the local expressions, to what seeds them, and so be able to not take too much too literally (and so be too willing to take a metaphor literally and kill for it! ;-))

In ICPlus we are covering a PARTICULAR expression of the IDM universals. In the work on catgorising emotions, personalities, numbers, etc etc the same work is going on. Through that work we extend the IC way beyond its traditional perspectives and in so doing make it useful for the species, not just for some local collective... and all done through easy understanding of patterns of differentiating/integrating and the dynamics of the neuron - I dont need to spend years and years trying to understand ancient chinese and their mindset since that mindset is a subset of what/where dynamics of the brain -- all i need to understand is blending, bonding, bounding, and binding - all else follows ;-)

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
re 'ancient comments/perspectives' trying to cover things also see comments in:

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

OUR current civilisation is more PRECISE at the XOR level in understanding our brains and our derivation and communication of meaning - as such we are showing recursion at work where each level reflects a perspective - the ancients as such had 'yin/yang' with a 'vague' understanding of higher levels of precision but not enough to map it all out properly - we can, are, now do(ing) that. Lots work to do - perseverence furthers and if one keeps to one's position, a position once of central 'dogma', then one will find oneself on the periphary as times change and the periphary moves to the centre - with the full picture IMPLIED by this dynamic.

Chris
 

matt

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
I'd love to jump into this debate again! :) lol

"The ancients had no idea what they were dealing with and so described things through very rich metaphor etc. IOW they could FEEL but not explicitly describe."

You have to remember that our knowledge of this time period is shady to say the least. Why do you assume the ancients would develope such a complex tool such as the I Ching and not understand its meaning?

Your work has uncovered just how rich its material is, but you didnt invent the system, you only studied it. Dont you think its a little like saying you studied the work of a long forgotten genius, understood it in your own way, and then claimed the genius did not understand his own work?

And the metaphoric texts require a more visual way of thinking/feeling, rather than a logical one, that is why logic will always fail to rationalise it. A visual look at a painting holds many more impressions than a mathematical description of the same painting. Metaphoric richness may be 'mumbo jumbo' to some brains, yet to others it speaks with a clarity unparalelled.

Like Jessed, I have also browsed with curiosity the pages of your website, I even have it bookmarked! lol I try to understand all perspectives, even those I do not particularly agree with, so this isn't about 'identity' or 'fundamental traditionalists', its about finding the truth, by whatever means people feel most comfortable with. All truth lies within us, and there are many approaches to finding that truth, you choose the way of analysis with scientific methods because you have a sharply chisselled mind for such tasks, though you struggle with the metaphors. Others will become lost in the technical aspects and intricate web of analysis of the I Ching, but they will derive great meaning from imagery and intuitive visualisations, purely because this is how they think. Some can do both, visualisation and analysing.

However, ponder maybe on the possibility that the creators of the I Ching many thousands of years ago knew exactly what it meant, in every possible way, scientific and intuitive, because it encompassed all. Just maybe..
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
>
> You have to remember that our knowledge of this time period is shady
> to say the least. Why do you assume the ancients would develope such a
> complex tool such as the I Ching and not understand its meaning?
>

You choose to miss the point re 'small world' vs 'regular networks' The TRADITIONAL I Ching is small world, the universal is 'regular' in that it covers POTENTIALS rather than ACTUALS. The 'regular' as such is in our genetics in the form of qualities derived from basic patterns of differentiating/integrating.

The dynamics of the human brain have changed little since ancient china (and before for that matter) such that the LOCAL expressions were may be different but the GENERAL qualities, the universals SEEDING those expressions have not (if they had we would have no comprehension at all re the IC!)

The original work on the IC showed LOCAL dynamics operating in an AD HOC manner to develop the traditional perspectives - they did not come up with the IC in its fullest, complete, form since they had no idea what the 'regular' network was; only now are we in a position to map-out genetics, to identify the push of context on instincts and the 'confusion' of consciousness in trying to understand what is going on (e.g. see the interpretations of what is going on in sensing context 'pushing', in FEELING 'something' guiding/blocking etc but not knowing basics of neurosciences - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html - here the interpretations being that of a rabbi associating the push with 'angels' etc.)

As shown in diagram of:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/smallworlds1.jpg

each 'small world' needs to be summed with the others to bring out the underlying universals and so the underlying template that seeds the small worlds.

> Your work has uncovered just how rich its material is, but you didnt
> invent the system, you only studied it. Dont you think its a little
> like saying you studied the work of a long forgotten genius,
> understood it in your own way, and then claimed the genius did not
> understand his own work?
>

The divination processes of the original IC were developed ad hoc, it did not come out fully developed, yin and yang were not referenced in the original work and the images were different formats etc IOW the traditional IC has developed over thousands of years in an ad hoc manner (say 1000 BC to 1000 AD being a dominating period of growth of core perspectives) - The historical data appears to support that.

Due to the lack of understanding, combined with the 'success' of the system, the ancients believed they were talking to the 'gods' etc. where that sort of behaviour is common when something 'new' turns up (anthropomorphism at work).

The IDM perspective is that such metaphors as the IC were inevitable given the makeup of the brain but customisation of LOCAL contexts meant that the 'correct' representations had to form, and they did, in an ad hoc manner in some part of the species - and in this case it was ancient china.

Western recursions of the core dichotomy went off into diversity of representations at four (the four elements that appear to in fact come from recursion of two - earth/air to give fire/water then interpreted as is four 'independent' forms etc) The IC continued on with a rigid format and benefited from it.

> And the metaphoric texts require a more visual way of
> thinking/feeling, rather than a logical one, that is why logic will
> always fail to rationalise it.

Your understanding of logic is obviously flawed, too idealised. See the developing 'full spectrum' of Logic : http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html where we can get into the FEEL of logic. Go through the 'logic of relationships' mappings possible given recursion and the IC as a source of analogy (covered in the 'logic of relationships' section of http://members.iiometro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus/icstruct.html - you wont find that in any logic book but it is all related to logic etc etc etc - there is a LOT of work going on here... you need to go deeper! ;-) (I think I have said that before! ;-))

The development of vision spend-up brain development but there was already structure in the form of differentiating/integrating through olfactory, gustatory, and kinaesthetic formats. ALL of these share the ONE set of neurons and as such are filtered by what those neurons deal with - differentiating/integrating. IOW we can move past all senses and into what is COMMON to them all and so 'universal' in the context of meaning derivation and communication - patterns of differentiating/integrating, yang and yin. From THAT position comes blending, bonding, bounding, and binding and from THAT comes the basic properties of trigrams etc that feed into hexagrams etc etc etc.

Your perspective presents from WITHIN the 'traditional' IC but that is not going to help you understand the 'bigger picture' of meaning in general and how the IC does what it does - you have to step out of that box and into the 'bigger' box that covers our species-nature. Understand THAT nature and then go back into the IC box and things become 'clearer'.

>
A visual look at a painting holds many
> more impressions than a mathematical description of the same painting.
> Metaphoric richness may be 'mumbo jumbo' to some brains, yet to others
> it speaks with a clarity unparalelled.
>

Go back to the link re angels - there you will find 'mumbo jumbo' based in our brains trying to describe something it can FEEL but need to translate into some 'visual/auditory' representation. You need to go back and understand the core qualities that are specialised in ALL senses, be it vision, audition, gustation etc etc and that is blending, bonding, bounding, and binding - NOTHING TO DO WITH VISION ALONE.

FEEL your way through the "Species I Ching", get in touch with the core qualities before you go charging off into visual or auditory or gustatory or olfactory processing!

> Like Jessed, I have also browsed with curiosity the pages of your
> website, I even have it bookmarked! lol I try to understand all
> perspectives, even those I do not particularly agree with, so this
> isn't about 'identity' or 'fundamental traditionalists', its about
> finding the truth, by whatever means people feel most comfortable
> with. All truth lies within us, and there are many approaches to
> finding that truth, you choose the way of analysis with scientific
> methods because you have a sharply chisselled mind for such tasks,
> though you struggle with the metaphors. Others will become lost in the
> technical aspects and intricate web of analysis of the I Ching, but
> they will derive great meaning from imagery and intuitive
> visualisations, purely because this is how they think. Some can do
> both, visualisation and analysing.
>

Again you demonstrate your limitations in restricting yourself to a particular sense - you need to go deeper, understand the SHARING of neurons by DIFFERENT senses and what that does to our filtering of information - it hard codes into all of us the "Species I Ching" ;-)

Have you gone through the material on synestesia?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html

How about the brains vision/audition filtering of high/low band data?
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html


How about Brain's adaptation to light and its consequences?
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/light.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/vision.html

ALL of this feeds into the blend, bond, bound, bind material and IT as 'core' qualities that are used in such specialist metaphors as the IC.

> However, ponder maybe on the possibility that the creators of the I
> Ching many thousands of years ago knew exactly what it meant, in every
> possible way, scientific and intuitive, because it encompassed all.
> Just maybe..
>
>

No. There is no need for such 'pondering' - a waste of time - we now know the HOW of GENERAL meaning derivation where we don?t even have to reference the brain, all we need to reference is recursion of two forms of dichotomies and how we use the resulting categories, in ALL senses, to derive and communicate 'meaning'. ... from THAT 'pondering' of current research data comes the qualities of the types of numbers used in Mathematics, the categories of personalities, the categories of human (and others) emotions etc. and all mapped to the IC and all mapped to the IDM template.

I can create from qualities associated with integrating/differentiating a set of representations isomorphic to IC trigrams/hexagrams IN GENERAL.

Why go off and ponder ancient terms for what we have already? Show me ancient documents etc explaining simply the use of XOR to extract parts from a whole and so get a hexagram to describe itself? - you wont be able to since most texts spend their time trying to describe a hexagram or line from some personal experience etc - IOW no recognition of the self-referencing in the IC where that referencing is a property of recursion. The 'traditional' sequence alone is responsible for such failures in understanding the IC - the 'rigidity' in its acceptance as IC 'dogma' has stuffed-up the development of the IC from the best position from which to work with it - the natural binary sequence.,

Go through the pages and pages of material on the clarity archives giving LOCAL, CUSTOMISED, interpretations of what a hexagram 'means' or what a line 'means' - there is NO use of, NO recognition of, the IC's self-referencing ability (and so the ICPlus XOR material) Why? Because it was never mentioned in the core IC material. No one KNEW ABOUT IT. No one asked the 'right' questions until, through an understanding of brain dynamics in whole/part processing, one was able to ask the right question and get the right answer. BUT habit is to try and come up with some personal interpretations in that the XOR material, being universal, is GENERAL and so in need of localisations.

If I give you the summary of the full spectrum of a hexagram, that summary shows all aspects of that hexagram, no more, no less, but as universals. LOCAL context will then colour things, make the hexagram more 'personal' for you and the event associated with it (but there is an issue here as well in that random methods will start to show their 'randomness' the more information you get describing a hexagram (unless you hit that 1 in 64 chance!)).

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
BTW - to make the point about all of this NOT being the IC but being the METHODOLOGY in creating the IC, when we move to the SAME methodology used to create personality categories such as those of the MBTI we find we can use the SAME XOR dynamics to give us the SAME characteristics in the IC as in the MBTI - for example, we find that the qualities of the XNTP type in the MBTI 'associate' with the qualities of the IC trigram/hexagram of thunder/hex51.

This personality 'type' includes a nature of coming up with 'new' ideas, paradigm shifts, surprise etc etc. If we derive the 27-ness of hex 51 we get its 'skeletal' form described by analogy to hex 35 - progress, aka bringing 'something' into the 'light' - but isnt this the characteristic of an XNTP as well? Dont these personalities focus in general on this drive to 'bring things into the light'?

IOW the qualities being brought out in IDM and the associated metaphors of the IC and MBTI are qualities associated with the METHODOLOGY common to BOTH category systems and fundamental to IDM.

IOW there is no 'IC' here, nor 'MBTI' - these specialisations are sets of labels that reflect the customisation of the IDM qualities to local contexts - the IC re general natures, the MBTI to categories of personalities - SAME qualities DIFFERENT labels due to DIFFERENT contexts.

WHat is implied here is I can EXTEND the current MBTI with its 16 personalities to N personalities by using the IC as analogy/metaphor where I can extend these descriptions to 64, 4096, 16+million etc etc. (and so map out the GENERAL properties and methods of personalities - e.g. see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html (I had to delete the MBTIPlus stuff!)

IOW the GENERAL characteristics of hexagram 51 are NOT a product of the I Ching, they are a product of the brain differentiating/integrating and ANY category system using the SAME methodology in deriving qualities will come up with the SAME general qualities - and so XNTP qualities of the MBTI 'fit' hexagram 51 qualities of the I Ching since the qualities come from the ONE source - the set derived from recursion of differentiating/integrating - a process performed by our brains.

If we categorise human emotions using the SAME methodology we get SURPRISE as the emotion slotting 'into' the thunder/hex51/XNTP position.

All of these DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS are presenting the ONE quality in DIFFERENT contexts such that the categories, the labels, are local, customised, ad hoc pointers linking the ONE quality with local contexts.

The 'traditional' IC is LOCAL reflecting the customisation of universal qualities to derive and communicate 'meaning'. The 'universal' IC is the set of core qualities derived from differentiating/integrating awaiting 'grounding' by local perspectives (and so distorting, even excluding, properties of these universals)

When you guys focus your attention from INSIDE the traditional IC you are working from a metaphor for something far far bigger, far far more revealing than anything to date. Once you start to 'get' that so you will be on your way to extending the traditional IC way beyond its current, limited, form.

Chris.
 
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Chris

"I would say more that hard-core traditionalists have issues with change and so take-on increasingly 'fundamentalist' perspectives as they try to defend their 'faith'"
"I must add that the traditional perspectives cannot incorporate the ICPlus since it means accepting findings of Science that may 'demand' a re-configuration of the traditional perspective"

Oh, that is not the Traditional teaching. Traditional teachings:
a) are against fundamentalism and dogmas
b) encourage newer, deeper and worthly understanding of Reality
c) Have no fear to re-configurate its own perspective (many Masters had do the work of stripp-away distorstions and false comprehenstions in diferent dinastys)

So, this 2 quotes points to me that what you have found in your work is not traditional teachings, neither traditional students nor traditional masters.


About the use of "neurosciences etc". I'm totally agree. Traditional teachings are agree with that too.
Yes, the Way neurosciences describes reality have to be use. On the other hand, "neurosciences etc" (including cuantic science) had confirm some aged teachings. Of course, the lenguages are diferent, but the practical conslusions are similar. Not only about I Ching. You can see how neurosciences had confirm traditional teachings of acupuntury


"e.g. you dont find explicit reference to the dual interpretations of hexagrams from a 'light/dark' perspective (opposites, competitive) vs a 'male/female' perspective (complements, cooperative". Yes, you can find it, not in Chou I of course, but yes in traditional teachings. If you say it's not, only shows YOU dont know how to find it; or even you don't know the teaching itself.

"You will not find in ANY Western text any of the material from ICPlus re the I Ching as a self-referencing system and as such capable of describing each hexagram by analogy to all of the others through the XOR operator."
Are you saying that traditional teaching IS ONLY in "Wester text"? You are so away from reality if you say that. None Western text describes the entire traditional teachings. That doesn't mean that Traditional teachings doesn't describe I Ching as a "self-referencing system"

"I doubt if you will find it in Eastern texts or, if there, it will be so 'hidden' as to be meaningless UNLESS you understood brain dynamics and how it extracts parts from a whole" here you point that doesn't know complete traditional teching (becuase you even don't know complete traditional texts)

"You put the traditional I Ching first, I put our specied first and its brain first". If you mean "traditional I Ching"= Chou I or even with Ten Wings, you are right. But "traditional I Ching"=traditional teachings is more than that. Sees the "Genesis of Creation Order" to find that traditonal teachings had develope the same work of "put our specied first".
But, DO YOU KNOW THE "Genesis of Creation Order"?

Finaly: is not about elitism neither "secret" teaching. Is about long time learning. As yourself had said: many think a long term learning is only 'mumbo jumbo' .

If you know only "popular version" (because you think traditional teaching is only 'mumbo jumbo'), how can you be sure that what you cann't find in "popular version" DOESN'T exist in Traditional teachings?

Best wishes
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Jesed, what you dont seem to 'get' is that the properties and methods of the neuron existed before we did. All our productions, be they the two stories in the book of genesis or the basics of wu chi -> T'ai chi -> yin/yang, will show the SAME patterns, different labels, different local colourings, SAME qualities.

Since we are now in a position to map-out the neuron and its properties and methods so we are no longer interacting with the jockey, we can interact with the horse directly.

ALL past works, be they esoteric 'traditional teachings' or the dogmas of Western philosophers they are all now 'out of date' - lacking in precision. To try and stay 'current', these teachings etc have to have direct reference to the findings of neurosciences.

Now if what those findings show is a self-referencing IC where we no longer 'ponder' on the meaning of a hexagram, IN GENERAL, since the WHOLE of the IC contributes to describing that meaning then that is the path we follow to flesh-out the universal IC. Simple. Easy.

ANY 'traditional teaching' MUST conform to the properties and methods of the neurosciences since that is they are the core properties and methods of deriving and communicating meaning. Simple.

IOW the 'traditional teachings' can take on the aire of a rabbi explaing angels where the whole thing is METAPHOR for what the brain, and so mind, deal with - differentiating/integrating, objects/relationships, high frequency/low frequency, yang/yin. Simple.

Chris.
 

pakua

visitor
Joined
Aug 26, 1972
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
"IOW the 'traditional teachings' can take on the aire of a rabbi explaing angels where the whole thing is METAPHOR for what the brain, and so mind, deal with "

isn't that true only if you make the assumption there is nothing beyond the physical?
 
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Chris

Again, if you think "traditional teaching" is "esoteric", you had not understand what traditional teaching is. Seems like you have a prejudice against it (but surely I'm wrong about that)

By the way: Had you notice that many western neuroscience studies take as its basis traditional teachings and practices about meditation?

example: there is a study about concentration funtion of brain. When we hear a tic-tac (from a clock), the impact of it in our brain can be measure electrically; every next tic-tac produces a less electrical impact in our brain, until we don't hear the tic-tac anymore.

But, a training monk shows something quite diferent during meditation: ANY tic-tac has the same electrical impact in his/her brain... every tic-tac is like the first one... for hours.

Neurosciense cann't explain it today (I'm sure some day it could be). Traditional teachings can and in fact had do it.

My conclusion (I guess you won't share it, and I respect that): is a mistake think in traditional-oriental knowledgement like superior to modern-western knowledgment; and is a mistake think in modern-western knowledgment like superior to traditional-oriental knowledgment. Reality is One, and several the Ways to understanding it.

With this, I finish my participation in this post.

I thank you the time, the words and the lessons you had give to me. I will follows your posts and works.

Best wishes
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Pakua,

the focus from a Science perspective is that there is no necessity for the 'spiritual' perspective to explain things - IOW there is no need for anything beyond the physical. That does NOT say 'there is nothing other than the physical', it just says there is no need to recruit that point of view to interpret reality at this time. As our knowledge increases we re-configure our interpretations of things and that includes understanding the properties and methods of a few million years of ad hoc development often shrowded in local terminologies containing 'spiritual' references.

A fundamental difference between a Science perspective vs a Religion perspective is the latter seeks instant gratification, immediate explanation, whereas the former is prepared to span centuries, millenia, and so use delayed gratification and in so doing accept that some things are not going to be found out in one's life time!

That said, through Science we have developed over considerable time to a state where we DO get immediate gratification these days (or new technology is only months away not decades etc) - be it real or in some simulation; some manifestation of the imaginable but not actualisable.

Nowhere is the spiritual necessary in descriptions etc but that does not take anything away from the use of consciousness as an agent of mediation in the delay of gratification.

Our brains show this where basic emotions are in the form of stimulus/response - our species-nature at work. The development of our frontal lobes gives us a source of suppression of these immediate emotional responses, to DELAY responses and so make them more refined, more controlled, where that can benefit in the long run.... IOW our frontal lobes need TRAINING and without that discipline we still work of 'immediate' gratification etc - our control of expressions is lacking in discernment and we suffer the consequences.

Consciousness being an emergent property of our being leads us into the DEVELOPMENT of the 'spiritual' as part of our being but not as an originating nature - IOW there is no need for such a perspective but that does not stop us developing that perspective WITHIN the bounds of our species-nature.

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
"example: there is a study about concentration funtion of brain. When we hear a tic-tac (from a clock), the impact of it in our brain can be measure electrically; every next tic-tac produces a less electrical impact in our brain, until we don't hear the tic-tac anymore.

But, a training monk shows something quite diferent during meditation: ANY tic-tac has the same electrical impact in his/her brain... every tic-tac is like the first one... for hours."

What a waste of time - to sit and meditate so you can fall back to an original state of perpetual 'nowness'.

See my page on the Dimension of Precision that operates in our brains - what is covered above is the state of each moment having no reference to the previous:

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

This may be a state seeked by monks etc but it serves no purpose to consciousness other than as a short term 'rest' point.

The moment you add memory to varying degrees so you move into feedback loops, habituation and instincts formation. In these loops the next one after the above is:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.... a sense of 'sequence'

Then comes

1,2,3,5,8,13,21... the fibonacci sequence - the first one to allow for structural development but at the same time conserving energy.

Keep going and you get to adding ALL past context to aid in describing the current - there you get this sequence:

1,2,4,8,16,32,64... the binary sequence. VERY high energy usage but in so doing is more precise in operation.

As such the circular form of the fibonacci spiral becomes square (and so the source of the notion of 'squaring the circle')

BEYOND this point we move into the realm of complexity/chaos dynamics and so emergence etc - For life forms there is a window of stability between the ratios of 1.618 and 2.000 with the latter being the most precise but the former being closer to 'mindless everyday' development.

See:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm006.html


Spending years trying to experience '1,1,1,1,1' is, IMHO, more a manifestation of vanity at work. Through such material as "The Reflex Response" all of that time is reduced and we can benefit from a 'time out' moment and get on with developing the species.... the realm of the spiritual etc has done more damage to our species than any other realm due to its 'mumbo jumbo' element - an understandable element but one no longer useful given what we are discovering everyday out of neurosciences etc.

"Know Thyself" still stands but is now focused on the full spectrum of our being, both physical and mental and we can do it all without wasting time on perpetuating past perspectives in their original states - we can bring them into the 21st century AD and so continue to contribute if possible.

Chris.
 

pakua

visitor
Joined
Aug 26, 1972
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
"the focus from a Science perspective is that there is no necessity for the 'spiritual' perspective to explain things - IOW there is no need for anything beyond the physical. That does NOT say 'there is nothing other than the physical', it just says there is no need to recruit that point of view to interpret reality at this time"

What if there is something beyond the physical? Would that change anything in your methodologies? Would it imply different results?
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
"What a waste of time - to sit and meditate so you can fall back to an original state of perpetual 'nowness'."

Lol!
What a waste of nowness - to run and hurry towards a future that you will never reach!

happy.gif
 

void

visitor
Joined
Jul 8, 1972
Messages
493
Reaction score
6
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

This may be a state seeked by monks etc but it serves no purpose to consciousness other than as a short term rest point<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Lollolollol Eh ??? Er so in what way can one serve the purpose of consciousness and who is it, lolol..I thought it was me, I consider meditating the most precious part of my day - well its better than washing up
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
"What if there is something beyond the physical? Would that change anything in your methodologies? Would it imply different results?"

No. We would use the same methodology to interpret. If you take the I Ching in its binary format, each hexagram represents a degree of consciousness from the limitied 'filtering', reactive form to the high energy mediating form - At the same time each hexagram as such sets a context out of which to operate and as such each hexagram will then PAIR with another but 'opposite' to give its own sequence usable for deriving meaning. (these sequences operate perpendicular to the binary sequence ordering and as such represent 'up' a hexagram where the ordering gives us a parts list (XOR-ing) of that hexagram, how ALL of the others express themselves WITHIN that one)

Our brains deal with the imagined and the real in the same general manner - so imagining seeing something will light-up brain areas associated with vision. Our consciousness allows us to mediate between the imagined and the real in that its 'focus' is on development of 'good' instincts/habits with which to 'fit in' to the context, allow context to 'push' once a habit is created.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
Martin,


you seem at times to be so negative/depressed! snap out of it. The path is of perpetual becoming, of unfolding as a flower does from a seed etc. Enjoy the ride, participate etc otherwise you will be lost... unless you want to be lost! ;-)

As members of the species we can all contribute to that species and its development and that includes bringing the IC into the 21st century ;-)
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
"Lollolollol Eh ??? Er so in what way can one serve the purpose of consciousness and who is it, lolol..I thought it was me, I consider meditating the most precious part of my day - well its better than washing up"

As I said, meditation can serve as a good source of 'tension release' etc but when dedicating oneself to 'full time' meditating so the washingup NEVER gets done. ;-) (unless you learn the habit of washing up but then you need to ensure the same utensils are used each time to avoid novelty demanding attention! ;-))
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
"perpetual whatness? or is it whenness?"

The focusing on NOW excludes past/future and so is a 'what' state. Clarity of 'vision' etc will focus attention to a 'point' but the trick is then to lose the point as an actual and move to the point as potential - hard to do and reflects all attempts to get back to '1,1,1,1,1'-ness! - the realm of our species-nature, our instincts, is closest to 1,1,1 but our consciousness cannot expeirence that since to be conscious means self-referencing and that is one step removed from the 'moment'! Ancient Spritial Geometry focused on the Phi Ration (fibonacci sequence) as the closest one can get to 'god' or 'nature' etc. and so the task is to cut down on energy expenditure but retain some sense of awareness.... and so the 'window' of stable states is 1.618 to 2.000
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
BTW - using the binary sequence of trigrams, if 000 is all POTENTIALS then the first actualisation is represented by Mountain - related to suffering, grief, sadness in its basic form of emotional expression but that is made proactive to become a focus on discernment and 'within' - this equates Mountain with the dynamics of Buddhism etc.

Move to water and we move into the area of containment/control etc and so a higher degree of energy expenditure.
 
B

bruce

Guest
Hi Chris,

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of 'nowness'. And also with the concept of 'I'm rightness'.

Frankly, the older I get the more foolish it appears when anyone takes themselves or their knowledge of IC so seriously. I do admire, though, that you find or make your own way through it, not looking up with big eyes toward some 'ancient masters', who held some sort of magical wisdom about it all: If Lao Tzu (or fill in the space with favorite old sage) said it it must be true, kind of thing. Self importance seems even more silly.

Best to you in the further development of your thesis. Though I?m not mentally equipped to grasp it all, some fine pearls do manage to come through from your postings here. ?preciate that.
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
BRW - recent work in meditation and neurosciences - and note the 40 minutes a day...

(Note that Right Hemi side is more into INTEGRATING as is EARTH/MOUNTAIN/WATER/WIND in the IC binary sequence - that said, this dimension of differentiating/integrating is all over the place where the integrating end is reflected in RH of brain)....


---------
Date:

2005-11-11

Meditation Associated With Increased Grey Matter In The Brain

Meditation is known to alter resting brain patterns, suggesting long lasting brain changes, but a new study by researchers from Yale, Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows meditation also is associated with increased cortical thickness.

The structural changes were found in areas of the brain that are important for sensory, cognitive and emotional processing, the researchers report in the November issue of NeuroReport.

Although the study included only 20 participants, all with extensive training in Buddhist Insight meditation, the results are significant, said Jeremy Gray, assistant professor of psychology at Yale and co-author of the study led by Sara Lazar, assistant in psychology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"What is most fascinating to me is the suggestion that meditation practice can change anyone's grey matter,"
Gray said. "The study participants were people with jobs and families. They just meditated on average 40 minutes each day, you don't have to be a monk."

Magnetic resonance imaging showed that regular practice of meditation is associated with increased thickness in a subset of cortical regions related to sensory, auditory, visual and internal perception, such as heart rate or breathing. The researchers also found that regular meditation practice may slow age-related thinning of the frontal cortex.

"Most of the regions identified in this study were found in the right hemisphere," the researchers said.
"The right hemisphere is essential for sustaining attention, which is a central practice of Insight meditation."

They said other forms of yoga and meditation likely have a similar impact on cortical structure, although each tradition would be expected to have a slightly different pattern of cortical thickening based on the specific mental exercises involved."

The full spectrum of 'right hemi' dynamics is covered in the 32 yin-based hexagrams that include Buddhist elements (mountain). OTOH the more fundamentalist, charismatic-leadership religions are more yang with a focus on 'out there', the space inbetween objects rather than the space within.

THEN note that recursion will put all of this into each element!

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
"you seem at times to be so negative/depressed! snap out of it"

howmuch.gif


I'm not sure what you are referring to, Chris, because if there is anything that can snap people out of depressive and other undesirable states it is a return to "now".
Perhaps you think of "now" as a fraction of second that is too short for anything to happen? Of course that is not meant by it in this context. Now is rather a short timespan. There is enough "time" in it for all the basic rhythms and for becoming, it doesn't exclude it. It's not a standstill, it's vibrant and alive. The unfolding of the flower, enjoying the ride, that's all part of it.
happy.gif


Having goals and making plans for the future is fine (and human), of course, but without the immediacy of now there is no basis, no ground. It's all air. And when you finally reach the desired objective - when you finally can afford to buy that expensive horse - how will you enjoy the ride without "now"?
biggrin.gif
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
"As I said, meditation can serve as a good source of 'tension release' etc but when dedicating oneself to 'full time' meditating so the washingup NEVER gets done. ;-) (unless you learn the habit of washing up but then you need to ensure the same utensils are used each time to avoid novelty demanding attention! ;-))"

I think you are talking about some kind of trance state here, Chris, not about meditation. In meditation - as I understand the word - you are fully awake, awareness is crisp. And you will respond to new and unexpected developments much more adequately. No need for the same utensils and avoiding novelty here, on the contrary!
 

lightofdarkness

(deceased)
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
3
u miss the point. To practice meditation full time means to allow for the 'day by day' requirements of washing etc to be functioning in background. To do that requires the habituation of the washing process such that one can focus on Y clearly and still do X - multitasking ;-). It is not easy to do since novelty can force the attraction of attention from Y to deal with something of X.

For initiates the focus is on the single task of experiencing 'the moment' to get the idea of what is seeked GIVEN novelty and so distractions.

If the washing algorithm contains a constant set of utensils then there is no distration by X away from what Y is doing.

It is like driving a car, good training allows you to do that on 'autopilot' and so allows consciousness to focus on alternative states etc., and only be called upon in extreme conditions.

The nature of our species is to habituate to sameness, be over-sensitive to difference. The problem with the habituation is that the learning process could be (a) too short and so lacking in refined learning or (b) too long and so never allowing for the 'instinctive' to function properly, the mediation element is 'stuck' and so lacks trust in letting the instincts take over once learning is 'complete'

By learning universals rather than locals one can adapt quickly to changing contexts - IOW we focus on what is behind expression rather than expression itself. In so doing we comprehend expression despite the extremes in formats.

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
"To practice meditation full time means to allow for the 'day by day' requirements of washing etc to be functioning in background. To do that requires the habituation of the washing process such that one can focus on Y clearly and still do X - multitasking ;-)."

Yes, it's like that when we learn a new meditation technique. But once we are used to it it is the technique that goes on autopilot, not the washing or whatever other task at hand. So it is the technique that is habituated and that goes to the background. That is the "driving of the car".
Ultimately (in a later stage) awareness itself seems to change and a method is no longer needed, not even in the background.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Of course it also depends on the method. If the method is "focus on the task at hand" there is no multitasking from the very beginning.
happy.gif
 

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