Most of our social interactions reflect 'game' dynamics. A zero-sum game is where someone wins and so the other loses. On the other hand there is the 'game' where each is doing their own thing and the overall focus is maintaining general stability - no one wins or loses as such, there is 'perculations' but thats it.

This form of equilibrium is called a "Nash Equilibrium" and in the IC we can establish what represents this state given some unbalanced state - as such there is no win/lose in general, there is a restoration of overall balance in general where LOCALLY some may win a little or lose a little but overall balance is restored.

Given an identification of a 'best fit' hexagram, where that hexagram here represents an inbalance, we XOR it with hexagram 63 and that will give us the state that will restore balance. (hex 63 reflecting restoration of 'order' with its focus on correct sequencing/completion)

Chris.

Can you give us an example?

rosada said:

Can you give us an example?

Click to expand...

Hexagrams represent different states but being 'everyday' conditions these are not necessarily noticed. If your daily world is generally '53' then you dont notice it as you do your thing in it. BUT when you start to NOTICE things then there is an inbalance present, something has come to your attention. It may be nice, it may be not, but the fact that it has come to your attention, and so you are not working off autopilot, means there is a need for re-establishing balance, equilibrium, overall.

In zero-sum games it is you vs someone else and that means a win/lose situation - but life is not like that overall - your surrounding context also seeds your actions and so there can be many games going on at once. In these sorts of dynamics where there is no particular strategy that will win, the focus is on all 'doing their thing' and an equlibrium point emerging to re-establish balance.

In the I Ching, hexagram 63 represents the agent of 'completion' of getting things 'correct' to lead to closure and so a diminishing of energy and so a focus on balance.

All hexagrams reflect magnitudes - lets use degrees of emotion. Anger comes in a played-down form of an irritation with someone, or an exaggerated form of full blown need to 'kill'! In a more positve form it comes across as being singleminded.

In complex contexts we need to restore balance and so we can use the IC to indicate to us what is the 'best fit' given a hexagram representing inbalance.

Thus if we have an inbalance represented by 23, here where the pruning is extreme (lots of energy being put in to removing the chaff from the wheat etc whereas 23 in its under-played form is about simple 'housekeeping' - fluff the cushions, straighten the books etc.) then the indication re re-establishing balance is described by analogy to the 63-ness of 23:

000001 (23)
101010 (63)
---------
101011 (37) - introduce a firm structure, a rigid hierarchy, to allow for tension release. In other words as excessive pruning can start to cut up the flowers just as much as removing the weeds, we reduce the excess through establishing a clear order of things - all must be in its 'right' place where there is no competition for what is a flower vs what is a weed - we do what we do and no more, no less. (this of course takes practice but given the knowledge of a need for 37 so we get an idea of what to head for)

Overall, the excess of pruning etc requires discipline to restore balance.

OF SPECIAL NOTE HERE : You CANNOT use this method UNLESS you have identified the core hexagram as being the 'best fit' for the situation. If it is NOT the best fit then XORing with 63 could elicit a hexagram that could increase the instability!

Chris.

lightofreason said:

In complex contexts we need to restore balance and so we can use the IC to indicate to us what is the 'best fit' given a hexagram representing inbalance.

Thus if we have an inbalance represented by 23, here where the pruning is extreme (lots of energy being put in to removing the chaff from the wheat etc whereas 23 in its under-played form is about simple 'housekeeping' - fluff the cushions, straighten the books etc.) then the indication re re-establishing balance is described by analogy to the 63-ness of 23:

000001 (23)
101010 (63)
---------
101011 (37) - introduce a firm structure, a rigid hierarchy, to allow for tension release. In other words as excessive pruning can start to cut up the flowers just as much as removing the weeds, we reduce the excess through establishing a clear order of things - all must be in its 'right' place where there is no competition for what is a flower vs what is a weed - we do what we do and no more, no less. (this of course takes practice but given the knowledge of a need for 37 so we get an idea of what to head for)

Overall, the excess of pruning etc requires discipline to restore balance.

...

Chris.

Click to expand...

is XORing with Hex63 the only option to achieve balance and stability?

yly2pg1 said:

is XORing with Hex63 the only option to achieve balance and stability?

Click to expand...

I doubt it since the 'balance' is general as compared to particular. Consider 11 or 12. One covers mediation for harmony the other covers mediation for neutralising. The 'balance' is part of a zero-sum game in that it is from the perspective of ONE agent. THEN consider the XOR of a hexagram with 11 or 12 to elicit that hexagram's expression of 'harmonising' or 'neutralising' - IOW for BOTH hexagrams, ALL others serve as analogies to describe 11-ness or 12-ness depending on context...as they do for 63-ness but....

...the focus with 63 is on a Nash Equilibrium (NE) and that means balance for all involved. No one in the context will be able to select THEIR 'best fit' since with this sort of equilibrium it is GENERAL and covers all, not one. AS such this is NOT a zero-sum game.

A professional mediator is out to 'win' by demonstrating their skill in mediation - if they mediate a peace in some conflict it is THEY who win such that over the LONG term, once they have gone, the problems come back since the problem was never resolved, just surpressed by the charisma etc of the negotiator.

If I fight to neutralise the attacks of others on my faith (hex 12) and I succeed then I have 'won', they have 'lost' even though it is balancing in the form of neutralising overall.

Nash Equilibrium works off no one 'winning' since the 63-ness is the 'best fit' for equilibrium for all involved given the GENERAL description of the situation by some hexagram.

It is possible to have mutliple NE in a context but that implies that shifting scale will sum them to produce a more general NE to cover all of them ( ahexagram that covers both in general meaning etc)

The main thing in game theory etc is the mixing of strategies and each line read from bottom to top of a hexagram reflects some form of strategy. 63 is the 'perfect fit' of mixing the strategies in that it starts extreme (yang - far from equilibrium) and oscillates across yin/yang line order to eventually finish 'yin' - and so a representative of equilibrium IN GENERAL.

63-ness may not be the best balancing for each involved in the situation where all are out for themeselves but it reflects the position where none involved can do better than what they are doing. As such any possible 'win' or 'loss' is minor/partial and as such not worth the energy.

The traditional material has foused on the sense of 63 as a reflector of the line position nature. If we use it in XOR format and NE then we bring this intuition out, make the vague clear, crisp ;-) - The 'correct sequence', 63-ness, of a hexagram covers (a) it being NOTICED and so reflecting inbalance and (b) restoring that state to what is equilibrium FOR ALL in that context - and so a GENERAL equilibrium which is the state of all hexagrams when not being noticed.

What is of interest here is the path covered reflects a general 'purpose' for a hexagram, represented by the NE hexagram derived from XORing with 63.

The proof of course is in the eating ;-) so 63-ness is:

The 63-ness of hexagram :

01) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 64
02) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 63
03) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 15
04) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 9
05) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 7
06) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 14
07) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 5
08) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 36
09) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 4
10) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of:: 50
11) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 29
12) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 30
13) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 35
14) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 6
15) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 3
16) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 49
17) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 62
18) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 61
19) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 48
20) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 22
21) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 33
22) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 20
23) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 37
24) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 39
25) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 56
26) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 59
27) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 53
28) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 54
29) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 11
30) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 12
31) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 51
32) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 58
33) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 21
34) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 47
35) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 13
36) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 8
37) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 23
38) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 44
39) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 24
40) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 43
41) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 57
42) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 52
43) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 40
44) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 38
45) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 55
46) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 60
47) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 34
48) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 19
49) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 16
50) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 10
51) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 31
52) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 42
53) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 27
54) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 28
55) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 45
56) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 25
57) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 41
58) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 32
59) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 26
60) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 46
61) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 18
62) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 17
63) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 2
64) : is described by analogy to the characteristics of :: 01


Chris.

Nash Equilibrium works off no one 'winning' since the 63-ness is the 'best fit' for equilibrium for all involved given the GENERAL description of the situation by some hexagram.

It is possible to have mutliple NE in a context but that implies that shifting scale will sum them to produce a more general NE to cover all of them ( ahexagram that covers both in general meaning etc)

The main thing in game theory etc is the mixing of strategies and each line read from bottom to top of a hexagram reflects some form of strategy. 63 is the 'perfect fit' of mixing the strategies in that it starts extreme (yang - far from equilibrium) and oscillates across yin/yang line order to eventually finish 'yin' - and so a representative of equilibrium IN GENERAL.

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. Some of this is starting to make sense for me. Being quite the orthodox and 10 century B.C. kind of guy that I am, that is...

L

Hi Chris,

This one is dedicated to you.

I like that little logical detour of yours.

Cheers,

Luis