Object Blogging

by rg
Mon Oct 16th, 2006 at 08:15:11 PM EST


The object of this blog is a book.  A talking book.  A book much favoured by Carl Jung.  A book translated from the original chinese characters into german by Richard Wilhelm, and subsequently rendered into english by Cary F. Baynes.  Here's a french version.

Here's what Hellmut Wilhelm, Richard Wilhelm's son, has to say at the beginning of his Preface to the Third Edition.

It is with delight and not without a certain pride that I see this translation of the Book of Changes presented in a new edition.  The fact of its widespread and continuing acceptance stands as a justification of my father's conviction, the propagation of which he took as his calling, that the overwhelming importance of the book within the history and the system of Chinese thought would be borne out when tested against general, and not only specifically Chinese, human conditions and against general, and not only specifically Chinese, processes of the human mind.

Here's what Carl Jung says.

Foreword

Since I am not a Sinologue, a foreword to the Book of Changes from my hand must be a testimonial of my individual experience with this great and singular book.  It also affords me a welcome opportunity to pay tribute again to the memory of my late friend, Richard Wilhelm.  He himself was profoundly aware of the cultural significance of the I Ching, a version unrivalled in the West.

A talking book.  "Ah, you mean an oracle," said a friend of mine.  

Here's Carl Jung again.

In order to understand what such a book is all about, it is imperative to cast off certain prejudices of the Western mind.  It is a curious fact that such a gifted and intelligent people as the Chinese never developed what we call science.  Our science, however, is based upon the principle of causality, and causality is considered to be an axiomatic truth.  But a great change in our standpoint is setting in.  What Kant's Critique of Pure Reason failed to do, is being accomplished by modern physics.  The axioms of causality are being shaken to their foundations: we know now that what we term natural laws are merely statistical truths and thus must necessarily allow for exceptions.  We have not sufficiently taken into account as yet that we need the laboratory with its incisive restrictions in order to demonstrate the invariable validity of natural law.  If we leave things to nature, we see a very different picture: every process is partially or totally interfered with by chance, so much so that under natural circumstances a course of events absolutely conforming to specific laws is almost an exception.

Ah yes, wordy nonsense to say nothing much very slowly...  Because the world, as we know, works itself out according to laws, and if we were Gods we would see the whole mechanism, right down to our every thought, developing inexorably from what came before...

Here's Jung again.

The Chinese mind, as I see it at work in the I Ching, seems to bee exclusively preoccupied with the chance aspects of events.  What we call coincidence seems to be the chief concern of this peculiar mind, and what we worship as causality passes almost unnoticed.  We must admit that there is something to be said for the immense importance of chance.  An incalculable amount of human effort is directed to combating and restricting the nuisance and danger represented by chance.

Well, chance is chance.  Exceptions to the rule merely prove the rule.

The manner in which the I Ching tends to look upon reality seems to disfavour our causalistic procedures.  The moment under actual observation appears to the ancient Chinese view more of a chance hit than a clearly defined result of concurring causal chain processes.  The matter of interest seems to be the configuration formed by chance events in the moment of observation, and not at all the hypothetical reasons that seemingly account for the coincidence.  While the Western mind carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, isolates, the Chinese picture of the moment encompasses everything down to the minutest nonsensical detail, because all of the ingredients make up the observed moment.

Well, you can agree or disagree, or take sides, chose one over the other.

The Structure of the I Ching

...is very simple.  We start with lines.  They can be a yang line.

No, I mean a simple, unbroken, horizontal line.

--------

I've lost you, haven't I?  Religious mumbo jumbo emanating from a no doubt worthy society but irrelevant to your every day concerns.

(yin is a broken line ---  ---)

(You throw your coins or your yarrow stalks, or roll your dice and end up with six lines, one above the other, like this:

There are sixty four possible combinations of broken and unbroken lines.  These are the sixty four hexagrams of the I Ching.)

Yes, it's nonsense.  Divination.  Dungeons and Dragons without the rococo gothic edges, mumbo jumbo of the highest order.

Here's Cary F. Baynes's (the translator's) opinion of the I Ching.

Of far greater significance than the use of the Book of Changes as an oracle is its other use, namely, as a book of wisdom.  Lao-tse [writer of the Tao Te Ching] knew this book, and some of his profoundest aphorisms were inspired by it.  Indeed his whole thought is permeated with its teachings.  Confucius too knew the Book of Changes and devoted himself to reflection upon it.  He probably wrote down some of his interpretative comments and imparted others to his pupils in oral teaching.  The Book of Changes as edited and annotated by Confucius is the version that has come down to our time.

When Was it Written?

In Chinese literature four holy men are cited as the authors of the Book of Changes, namely, Fu Hsi, King Wen, the Duke of Chou, and Confucius.  Fu Hsi is a legendary figure representing the era of hunting and fishing and of the invention of cooking.  The fact that he is designated as the inventor of the linear signs of the Book of Changes means that they have been held to be of such antiquity that they antedate historical memory.

Here's Fu Hsi.

Yes, yes.  Ancient ancient history, our past before we knew of past present and future.  Or when we first started grappling with such concepts, after all, the english translation of the chinese title I Ching is The Book of Changes.

Change.  The one constant.  A roman emperor (or was it Solomon?)asked a philosopher (or an aide, or an  astrologer, or a friend) to come up with a single phrase which would be true at all times, to be inscribed on a medal which the emperor could wear around his neck and refer to in times of need.  The philosopher, or aide, or astrologer, or friend came up with the following:

This, too, must pass

The Book of Changes

So, enough preamble.  Let's throw our coins and see what the I Ching offers today.

(Or you can use pennies, or cents.)

But...if I throw the coins, won't the I Ching only speak to me?  Well, it will speak with relevance to me....or will it?  Enough words, let's throw the coins.

Po / Splitting Apart

(A quick note to say that the hexagram (six lines) is seen as made up of two three-line sets; one below and one above.  In this case, Po is made up of the two tetragrams: K'UN (below) -- THE RECEPTIVE, EARTH and KEN (above) -- KEEPING STILL, MOUNTAIN.

For each hexagram there is judgement an image, and an extrapolation from each to explain what was (or might have been) meant.  There are famous commentaries on these judgements and images, notably by the Duke of Chou...and some lines move...

THE JUDGEMENT

SPLITTING APART.  It does not further one to go anywhere.

THE IMAGE

The mountain rests on the earth:
The image of SPLITTING APART.
Thus those above can ensure their position
Only by giving generously to those below.

But, you see, I had a moving fifth (second from top) line, so my broken fifth became an unbroken fifth, which creates a whole new hexagram...  Because moving lines (it depends on whether you get all three coins the same--I did one time, at the fifth line)...so, a moving line means the first hexagram is WHERE YOU IS AT, and the second hexagram is WHERE YOU IS GOING.  But not me, oh no.  Not you, not any of us.

Because this is all mystical nonsense, remember?  Jung was crazy, and so was Richard Wilhelm for thinking his translation meant anything more than the addition of some dusty, and wrong-headed, thinking to our canon of Books Which Meant Something But Don't Any More.

So the following extended analysis of hexagram number twenty, Kuan / Contemplation (View) refers to nothing and no one outside the fantasies of those whose heads haven't been screwed on appropriately.

20. Kuan / Contemplation (View)

above SUN -- THE GENTLE, WIND
below K'UN -- THE RECEPTIVE, EARTH

THE JUDGEMENT

CONTEMPLATION.  The ablution has been made,
But not yet the offering.
Full of trust they look up to him.

The sacrificial ritual in China began with an ablution and a libation by which the Deity was invoked, after which the sacrifice was offered.  The moment of time between these two ceremonies is the most sacred of all, the moment of deepest inner concentration.  If piety is sincere and expressive of real faith, the contemplation of it has a transforming and awe-inspiring effect on those who witness it.

Thus also in nature a holy seriousness is to be seen in the fact that natural occurrences are uniformly subject to law.  Contemplation of the divine meaning underlying the workings of the universe gives to the man [or woman] who is called upon to influence others the means of producing like effects.  This requires that power of inner concentration which religious contemplation develops in great men strong in faith.  It enables them to apprehend the mysterious and divine laws of life, and by means of profoundest

"I mean, it's a loud of pseudo nonsense bollocks, right?  I mean ,come on!"

Ssshhh.

...inner concentration they give expression to these laws in their own persons.  Thus a hidden spiritual power emanates from them, influencing and dominating others without their being aware of how it happens.

THE IMAGE

("Hasn't he finished yet?  It's like church, only more boring."  "For this very scenario, my friend, a wise person invented the BACK button.")

(Cough!  Splutter!  Those terrible twenty-first century attention spans!)

The wind blows over the earth:
The image of CONTEMPLATION.
Thus the kings of old visited the regions of the world,
Contemplated the people,
And gave them instruction.

When the wind blows over the earth it goes far and wide, and the grass must bend to its power.  These two occurrences find confirmation in the hexagram.  The two images are used to symbolize a practice of the kings of old; in making regular journeys the ruler could,

Who is the ruler?  You?  Or are you the ruled?  Or do such roles have no meaning these days?

...in the first place, survey his [or her] realm and make certain that none of the existing usages of the people escaped notice; in the second, he could exert influence through which such customs as were unsuitable could be changed.

But we don't believe in that, do we?  We don't believe in the ruler and the ruled.  We don't believe in Leaders and The Lead.  Certainly not in despots who decide what will be done and what won't be done.  Too much power in one human's paws...

And yet...

All of this points to the power possessed by a superior personality.  On the one hand, such a man [or woman] will have a view of the real sentiments

(I'm annoyed at having to add [or woman]...really, the feminist revolution is barely begun, ,sisters.  Before all else, the freedom of the female from male superiority complexes.  Or is it all written in our D.N.A.  Well, thank the goddesses that we don't have men ruling over us...

of the great mass of humanity and therefore cannot be deceived; on the other, she will impress the people so profoundly, by her mere existence and by the impact of her personality, that they will be swayed by her as the grass by the wind.

Enough of this nonsense, which I enjoyed writing and I hope you enjoyed reading.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
I have nothing against the I-Ching as a focusing ritual, nor as a piece of literature. John Lennon used the double trigram of 'creativity' (6 unbroken lines) as animation for his personal movies - with the sound of plucking the 6 strings sequentially of an open guitar chord.

But all the rest is Rorschach. The way it appears as synchronous is because the act of focusing on a problem increases susceptibility. Most people go over problems repetitively in their minds and generally coming to the same conclusions each time. Like a skier in fresh snow, the first skier usually defines the path for the following skiers.

Problems usually require lateral thinking - 'coming at it from a new angle'. The I-Ching interpretation provides that. The I-Ching, done seriously, is a mind exercise.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:32:20 AM EST
i'm sure you know the apocryphal story of lateral thinking, but in case you dont...

a brand new luxy hotel had opened, and everything was pluperfect, except for one fly in the brilliantine: the lift -elevator for you yankeedoodles - was t.o.o.o. s.l.o.w.

refitting it was an expensively unthinkable nightmare, so after a lot of headscratching to stimulate the parietal lobes, a genius came up with the solution, at very little cost....

install mirrors in the foyer!

proving old ecclesiastes' point...

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:50:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep - that is a an example of creative thinking that I have used.

It may be apochryphal, but one can find a million real examples.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 03:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The parables of the Bible work in a similar way - as guides to problem solving. Think of them as style sheets or templates.

But don't get me wrong about my scepticism of all spoonbending, levitating, synchronizing, sawing the woman in half type 'phenomena'. They illustrate not a miraculous physical world, but a miraculous mental world, in which the conscious search for logic meets the inherent evolutionary distortions of a strangely-wired mind, combined with neural biochemical metaprogramming.

It's what art is about.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
metaprogramming...  I don't supppose you'd like to write a diary on that?  I can't quite get my metaprogrammer around its metaprograms yet...seriously.  I was reading John Lilly's text on metaprogramming and I was almost there, but not quite, like when Migeru explains something to me in Go; I almost understand, but I know I haven't grasped the concept effectively.

Spoonbending etc. I see as charlatan nonsense as it involves capturing the audience and controlling the scene.  Which can be fun, I think, the willing suspension of disbelief.  They do say, though, that once you see the stage filled with e.g. wires for the levitation trick, it puts most people off magic for life, like those Penn and Teller (?) programs where they debunk magic tricks.  I prefer sleight of hand, though it takes years of juggling cards between your fingers...I do know a good card trick, just the one, but it usually works.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In really rough soundbites, metaprogramming is change in the functioning of neural networks caused by biochemicals, which may be naturally or artificially introduced into the brain via the blood, or the result of changes in the functions of neural network units (neurons).

An example of the former is endorphins, an example of the latter is GABA. GABA is biochemical used by inhibitory neurons to control active neurons. Gaba runs our after a circadian shift of work and needs to be replenished (cue protein factories) This is done as we sleep.

If you don't get enough sleep, you don't get enough GABA, and the inhibitory function is weak. You will eventually start to hallucinate, as anyone who has been up for 30 hours can attest.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 05:32:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Metaprogramming just means being aware of what happens inside your own head and having some flexibility about your responses instead or running on auto pilot.

Go watch some ducks for a while. Ducks have four active programs - random waddle, mate (but only in spring), find food, fight. (And there's also sleep as a rest mode.)

Ducks switch between programs very obviously, because they have very short attention spans. It's fun to look at.

Humans work the same way. We have a slightly wider range of responses, a longer attention span, and the self-referential ability to model actions before performing them. But the principle is the same.

People who lack self-awareness and have no idea about metaprogramming will switch between responses in the same way that a duck does. All it takes to switch modes is the right kind of stimulus. This makes them very predictable, very boring, and very easy to manipulate.

A lot of politics and economics is based on the practical application of this principle.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
this is a very important observation!

It should be at the root of any discussion of what democracy actually is.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 06:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Problems usually require lateral thinking - 'coming at it from a new angle'. The I-Ching interpretation provides that. The I-Ching, done seriously, is a mind exercise.

I agree.  I'd add one thing, though, and that is that the exercise the mind is involved in is one with definite effects in the world beyond the mind--out into the connective tissue...

Confused myself already and it's only half past breakfast!

It may just be me, but I've not found the bible at all helpful as an oracle.  It's a facts-based tribal myth book and full of lists...

Perhaps the I Ching equivalent is its emphasis on noble rulers, superiour men (and the Tao Te Ching's talk of the sage, though I'd say the Tao Te Ching's use of sage means "the person the you'd like to be--is better than you are--and yet the "wise" person (aka the sage) does...mystical nonsense variety Q, such as be calm, considerate, etc.

I don't think the I-Ching works as a casual exercise.  You might as well open it up and read a commentary or two and get some sense of who thought what.  I think it's more elegant than the Rorschach, though, because there it has an internal logic, the lines have their significance, there's a pattern, a chohesion to its thoughts...I think of it as old wise men (no women) talking over the aeons about so-far perennial human situations.

And when you need it to work, it works.  (Well, it has for me.  For all the reasons you suggest.  But also that extra something...which is probably the creation of ritual, set and setting and all that.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
cool diary, rg.

i love the onomatopeia in the name 'i ching'.

it sounds like a little silver crucible being struck by a wand.

the idea/concept of interweaving moral precepts with what appears to be a game of chance, or pick-up-sticks, is pure genius, and an attribute to the type of elegant mindset that gave us chess, which has no moral principles other than kill'n'conquer, as far as i can see.

imagine how much more of a hold the new testament might exert on children if the sermon on the mount came with a set of dice.

i imagine growing up in a household where my venerable parents threw the yarrow sticks to foresee the future would have quite the formative effect, laying down the foundation for the uncertainty principle, and the psychology of a creator who or which was decidedly non-linear.

did mao ban the i ching, i wonder...

divination was prime entertainment in the old days.

mmm, chicken for dinner...what did the guts say?

my sheep's liver contradicts your tea-leaves, but her coffeegrounds offer a way forward.

crystal balls were like satellite tv back then!

tarot is older than god.

i'd love to see you do a diary on the tarot, rg.

'superior' man, now that has such a nice prefeminist ring to it.

<snarkozy>...

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:38:34 AM EST
the tarot, mucking into that old blood magic, scary thoughts about hangmen and witches...

I'll have to psyche myself up.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tarot is another Rorschach tool.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A simple test:

People travelling (transporting their bodies) tend to transport their minds and become unaware of their immediate surroundings. That is why it is possible to travel several miles on a motorway with no memory of that part of the journey. A lack of novelty disconnects us. This is the normal humdrum state of many people.

But if you place the word 'Blue' in travelling people's minds, they will see blue everywhere they look. Or red. It will appear as if blue (or red) has some significance.

The world is unsurprisingly full of random coincidences. If you are in humdrum state, you won't be aware of most of them. But if you are, in the zen sense, fully aware, you will notice many of them.

And, if you are 'tuned in', or sensitised, you may impose significance on these random events. But there is no significance, except internally.

There is no statistical evidence that Friday 13th is more dangerous than any other, or that walking under ladders, or seeing black cats have any significance other than heightening sensitivity to other events that occur in association.

My position is that all these are internally significant (ie in the mind), but externally (as a descritpion of reality) insignificant. Such things as the I-Ching or the Tarot are interesting to study for the internal effects.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 05:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing wrong with Tarot as a storytelling aid. Instead of calling the reader "diviner" they should be called "storyteller".

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 05:52:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of everyday life is taken up with the exchange of parables and metaphors between close people. Even narratives about sport (!) usually contain 'meaning', with the 'meaning' never explained or made overt, but implicit in the narrative.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 06:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The world is unsurprisingly full of random coincidences. If you are in humdrum state, you won't be aware of most of them. But if you are, in the zen sense, fully aware, you will notice many of them.

Not quite. If you're truly in the Zen state, more coincidences will happen.

And they will be outrageous coincidences that have no business happening, and simply don't happen at all when you're not in the Zen state.

Selective attention only goes so far as an explanation. (Based on my experience, anyway.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To be truly in the zen state allows for no coincidences at all! You are in the moment, the moment is eternal. There is no time differentiation for coincidence to happen. There is no meaning in anything because everything is the meaning.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 09:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Possibly.

But that doesn't explain the outrageous coincidences.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 09:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A truly zen argument gentlemen.  Very enjoyable.

Here's a koan for ye.

JOSHU, an old monk, was making a pot of tea in the main hall when he spotted a monk he'd never seen before.  He called the monk over.

"I'm old and forgetful," said Joshu.  "Have I met you before?"

The monk answered, "No sir, you have not."

"Well then, sit down and have a cup of tea with me," said Joshu.

Another monk came up to ask Joshu a question.

"I'm old and forgetful," said Joshu.  "Have I met you before?"

"Yes sir, of course you have," said the second monk.

"Well then, sit down and have a cup of tea with me," said Joshu.

Later, when the others were gone, the managing monk of the monastery came over to Joshu, who was making another pot of tea.

"How is it," said the manager, "that you make the same offer of tea whatever the reply to your
question?"

At this Joshu stood up.

"Manager!" he shouted.  "Are you still here?"

"Of course I am!" the manager answered.

"Well then, sit down and have a cup of tea with me," said Joshu.

(Stolen and modified from here.)



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 10:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mu.

(Or as we call it in the UK - Mornington Crescent.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny coincidence: I was just about to not say that ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think they're attempting the same thing.

Rorschach ink blot.

(A butterfly?  A strange alien being shooting goo?)

The Tarot Card for The Fool.

What it means I have no idea whatsoever, but I don't think it's doing the same kind of work as the ink blot.

Mind you, I no nosseeng about the tarot and have had a prejudiced aversion to the cards--and what I thought of as the concept--based on past experience with...well...with depressed people in long skirts...and telly programmes with old ladies who cackled, or princesses and treasures and woe to ye!

But I will fight my prejudices!



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:18:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Rorschach Test depends on the brain's attempts to find logic in visual symbols when it is not present, especially when the search for logic is induced by suggestion.

If you remember my diary on the Matrix Collision?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:25:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought the rorschach test didn't involve suggestion, only "What do you see?" (the person asking the question must make a difference.)

From what I see, tarot involves multiple (contradictory?) suggestions and so is a gothic (oldie woldie) tool for opening thought processes a la your comments above; whereas the I-Ching involves a cohesive world view broken into 64 parts with each part subdivided into 6 (and also into twos and threes) which subdivisions change the meaning of the 64 parts and feed one into the other.

So, I think there is internal logic to the I-Ching, there is human interaction with the tarot, and the ink blot is the interaction of unconscious structures with a single outside event...

(Or sommat...I'm not sure I expressed the rorschach bit correctly...)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(I do remember your excellent diary ;)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just asking 'What do you see?' is suggestive.

Were you to read Papus' book the Tarot of the Bohemians, you would find the idea that underneath the divisions of the major and minor arcana there are hermetic concepts such as male-female-progeny-recycle, the yod as the life force derived from the name of god, and a whole bunch of other seemingly intricately woven logic. Just as with the I-Ching. These structures are, of course ;-), projected onto a bit of culture i.e. the original authors, or an evolving set of authors, rorschached their own interpretation of sigils and signs laying about in their cultural matrix.

Nobody asked them to do it, but life itself kind of asked them "What do you see?"

A cricket match would hardly be self-explanatory to someone who had never heard or seen it before, and who had no cultural references for it. They might try to explain it in their own terms (14 men in white go into a big field, put six sticks in the ground, and then it rains) orm like the Cargo Cult of PNG, they see things beyond their understanding such as aeroplanes which land and disgorge gifts and assume that it is the pattern of the layout of the airfield that is attracting these 'birds' from the sky. Since they want the gifts too, they build their own 'landing strips' to attract the birds.

What you see is only what you are able to see with the references that you have.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 09:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
rg, interesting and intuitive choice your fool, especially after rereading the comments. The Fool is considered the Higher Consciousness or some call it Soul, that always is and never dies - eternally blissful, just before descenting into the valley of life, ready for new experiences and challenges.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 08:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
what would bucky say?

don't fight forces, use them!

sometimes the scary ones have the most secrets to unpack.

good points about the story.

life as myth..where is kcurie?

old plots recycled, same circus. different clowns.

tarot is an opening, a portal to symbology.

anything can be a rorsasch, even how the leaves pattern as they fly by, or settle at your feet.

humdrum mind...gurdjieff stipulated we were all asleep, walking talking zombies, and recommended remaining in that state unless we are capable of following through in creating a different, consensus-of-one philosophy.

there's a saying that a prisoner could get out of any jail if he had the tarot deck.

i alsways suspected he gave a reading to the guard!

as metaphors come, that pleases me.

as for the inner/outer duality...

complemented they are one, with or without witness, for ever and ever amen

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 07:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hmmm, that 16-wheeler does look like a solid unbroken line...

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:41:43 AM EST


Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:42:57 AM EST
Which binary numbers?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(What I mean is, you start with 3 coins (two sides--each coin is binary, but you throw them at the same time); these produce one of 4 line types (broken-moving; broken-not-moving; unbroken-moving; unbroken-not-moving), which build one of 64 hexagrams, each of which can have between 0 - 6 moving lines, and if there is more than one moving line a new hexagram is formed...  No basic Yes/No, On/Off 1/0 moment.  

But I may have misunderstood everything.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:27:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are sixty four possible combinations of broken and unbroken lines.  These are the sixty four hexagrams of the I Ching.

2^6 = 64

The way broken/unbroken and moving/unmoving interact is an operation of binary numbers ["moving" = "add one modulo two"].

The bit about using the three coins to produce the numbers 0-3 and to assign these to two binary values is rather confusing, you don't give the details

The correct probability has been used also in the marble, bean, dice and two or four coin methods below. This probability is significantly different from that of the three-coin method, because the required amount of accuracy occupies four binary bits of information, so three coins is one bit short. In terms of chances-out-of-sixteen, the three-coin method yields 2,2,6,6 instead of 1,3,5,7 for old-yin, old-yang, young-yang, young-yin respectively.
I don't know that there is much to understand, you just start with dualistic philosophy and binary numbers and let your imagination fly.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 10:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know that there is much to understand, you just start with dualistic philosophy and binary numbers and let your imagination fly.

Could you expand on the dualistic philosophy part?  (I thought the One God religions were the dualistic ones.)

----------

Here's how I understand the numbering (not that it's important, but I havenae a game of Go to play at ze moment, so here goes:)

You have three coins, each of which has two faces, A and B (I think some coins have a bare side and an inscribed side)

The coins are thrown on up in the air, say, and as they land each coin can be in position A or B, which leads to 4 possible combinations of the coins:

AAA (all face up)
BBB (all face down)
ABB (two face down; one face up)
BAA (two face up; one face down)

The lines are composed thusly:

All face up = unbroken line, moving
Only one face up = unbroken non-moving line (the "little" yang, I think it's called)
All face down = broken line, moving
Only one face down = broken non-moving line (the little yin)

So you start with three coins and produce one of four possible results.  The only addition is in seeing how each coin turned out.  One part of the I-Ching philosphy (as I understand it) is that it would not be the same to throw one coin three times.  There has to be that gesture of throwing something into the present moment, a gesture from you into the NOW which can react with all the NOW around it.  You disrupt the harmony, you inject something into it.

The I-Ching as I understand it only answers questions, hence it is an oracle.  You have to have a question, then throw your coins.  Or not.  Issa very flexible system if you lose the ritual rigidity.

The key is whether one finds the various images and judgments related to the 64 hexagrams to one's liking.  They describe a process of birth, decay, rebirth, etc.  If I remember rightly (probably not...) the sign of six unbroken lines...let me check...wikipedia is slow today...anyway, one of the hexagrams means "perfect balance," but this is a sign of coming danger, because anything in perfect balance is about to be lose its balance...

Yap yap!  Tell me more about the dualistic philosphy.  I hold to the taoist line that to posit one thing is to posit its opposite not because that is the truth of nature, but that it is the truth of positing qualities (yellow = not yellow somewhere etc.)..

wikipedia is back!

Binary sequence
In his article Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire (1703) Gottfried Leibniz writes that he has found in the hexagrams a base for claiming the universality of the binary numeral system. He takes the layout of the combinatorial exercise found in the hexagrams to represent binary sequences, so that ¦¦¦¦¦¦ would correspond to the binary sequence 000000 and ¦¦¦¦¦| would be 000001, and so forth.

The binary arrangement of hexagrams was developed by the famous Chinese scholar and philosopher Shao Yung (a neo-Confucian and Taoist) in the 11th century. He displayed it in two different formats, a circle, and a rectangular block. Thus, he clearly understood the sequence represented a logical progression of values. However, while it is true that these sequences do represent the values 0 through 63 in a binary display, there is no evidence that Shao understood that the numbers could be used in computations such as addition or subtraction.



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could you expand on the dualistic philosophy part?  (I thought the One God religions were the dualistic ones.)

The monotheistic religions are not dualistic. Satan is not on a par with God.

Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, those were dualistic and theistic (or so I remember).

Eastern philosophies are full of dualism and the balance of opposites, I thought you knew more about that than I? Ying/Yang, etc, is what I meant.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought the idea of the ancient eastern religions was that unity was fragmented by "seeming" opposites, hence yin and yang are coiled round each other and each has an "eye" which is the other.

...whereas although there is the claim in the One God religions that the One God is superior in all aspects to everything else (Creator of All), on analysis their thinking--and logic--is of the In/Out variety.  You are chosen, or you're not.  You go to heaven, or you go to hell.  Once the mystics (sufis etc.) get involved this all falls apart, as it does when one examines the concepts, hence the position of the heretic...or sommat.

I think I'm at that Wittgenstien moment...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The text of the I Ching is a set of predictions represented by a set of 64 abstract line arrangements called hexagrams (卦 guà). Although just the numbers 1 to 64 could have been used, the ancient Chinese instead used a figure composed of six stacked horizontal lines (爻 yáo). Each line is either Yang (an unbroken, or solid line), or Yin (broken, an open line with a gap in the centre). With six such lines stacked from bottom to top there are 26 or 64 possible combinations, and thus 64 hexagrams represented.

...

Each hexagram represents a description of a state or process. When a hexagram is cast using one of the traditional processes of divination with I Ching, each of the yin or yang lines will be indicated as either moving (that is, changing), or fixed (that is, unchanging). Moving (also sometimes called "old", or "unstable") lines will change to their opposites, that is "young" lines of the other type -- old yang becoming young yin, and old yin becoming young yang.

...

The solid line represents yang, the creative principle. The open line represents yin, the receptive principle. These principles are also represented in a common circular symbol (☯), known as taijitu (太極圖), but more commonly known in the west as the yin-yang (陰陽) diagram, expressing the idea of complementarity of changes: when Yang is at top, Yin is increasing, and the reverse.

...

Yin and yang, while common expressions associated with many schools known from classical Chinese culture, are especially associated with the Taoists.

The concepts of Yin and Yang originate in ancient Chinese philosophy and metaphysics, which describes two primal opposing but complementary forces found in all things in the universe. Yin (Chinese: 陰阴; pinyin: yīn; literally "shady place, north slope (hill), south bank (river); cloudy, overcast") is the darker element; it is sad, passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night. Yang (陽阳; yáng; "sunny place, south slope (hill), north bank (river); sunshine") is the brighter element; it is happy, active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day. Yin is often symbolized by water, while Yang is symbolized by fire.

Yin (feminine, dark, passive force) and Yang (masculine, bright, active force) are descriptions of complementary opposites rather than absolutes. Any Yin/Yang dichotomy can be seen as its opposite when viewed from another perspective. The categorisation is seen as one of convenience. Most forces in nature can be seen as having Yin and Yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.

If that is not dualism I don't know what is.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These principles are also represented in a common circular symbol (☯), known as taijitu (太極圖), but more commonly known in the west as the yin-yang (陰陽) diagram, expressing the idea of complementarity of changes

Any Yin/Yang dichotomy can be seen as its opposite when viewed from another perspective.

Perhaps I'm thinking of dualism as meaning "two separate things", whereas I take the above to mean "you can always find an opposite for a posit, but this doesn't mean there are two separate things you are positing."

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure it's a useful distinction.

The obvious difference for me is that Western beliefs are based on static abstract principles. (I know I've mentioned this twice already, but the static part seems to be really important.)

Eastern ideas seem much more dynamic. Male and female are dynamics of change that transform into each other, rather than being fixed states of being. The movement is as important as the description - hence the idea that any line in a hexagram can potentially be moving.

Everything is in dynamic equilibrium, and tiny changes can have very significant results. This is very different to the Western view, where - effectively - everything is made of blocks that can be nested and stacked and don't change, except to a limited extent in combination.

That's why we have big hulking words like 'government' and 'job' and 'marriage' and struggle with the idea that these are mutable processes, not fixed things.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you go far back in Western thought you can find a Greek philosopher suggesting just about any idea you like. Quite a few of them were dualistic in a sense not unlike the Eastern one, and on whether principles are static or dynamic you have Heraclitus' Panta Rei (Everything flows and nothing is left unchanged) versus Parmenides' aletheia (the reality of the world is 'One Being': an unchanging, ungenerated, indestructible whole).

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 06:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the ching wa a lot heavier to carry around than the tarot, hitching around.

but it is a magical book.

heavy,man!

anyone get into terrence mckenna's timeline software?

he drew from the ching for that.

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 07:09:44 AM EST
Interesting discussion - however to me it sounds like the left brain is discussing experiences of the right brain. It can not really put its finger on it, because it can not explain it. Right brain experiences are difficult to put in words, i.e. left brain symbols.

The I Ging from a intuitive level makes sense to me - right brain being 3D and multidimensional. But when I am asked to put them in to words, i.e. reduce the 3D in to a verbal linear sequence I am at lost - out comes gibberish and the words just do not feel right.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 10:31:52 AM EST
I met a bloke who was completely left sided: left footed, left handed, and left-eyed (there was a test, moving something closer to the face until one of the eyes closed to maintain focus...could be wrong on that.)

I think (again, I could be wrong!) that pure left-sidedness is very rare.  He said he could "see" problems and their solutions, but he couldn't explain them.  This made it difficult for him at school.  It wasn't that he was any brighter than anyone else, it was a different process; I think it was he who said something about not seeing the dots but seeing the connections between the dots...

Do any left-handed ET folks have any thoughts?

(I made the assumption, Fran, that you are left-handed from what you wrote.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 10:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually I am right-handed :-), but found more access to my right side aspects through meditation - an amazing and surprising trip, which I hope will continue.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How are you with chakras?

(I hear mathematicians spitting coffee all over their monitors...)

That's a question for melo the masseur, too.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and may I wish you much amazement surprise and pleasure as your trip develops.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:25:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Psst, rg - you should never ever mention Chakras when Migeru is around!!!!!!! :-))

But mine are doing fine.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oops!  (See large quote below.)

I'm glad your chakras are doing well.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And thanks for the great picture.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Arrgh!

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
;)

From our old friend.

Scientific Basis [Of Chakras]

The idea of chakras as understood in Eastern philosophy does not exist in medical science. In Eastern thought, the chakras are thought to be levels of consciousness, and states of the soul, and 'proving' the existence of chakras is asking to 'prove' the existence of a soul. A mystic deals with these occult concepts on the occult plane, as a model for their own internal experience, and when talking about 'energy centres', they are generally talking about subtle, spiritual forces, which work on the psyche and spirit, not about physical, electrical, or magnetic fields.

The primary importance and level of existence of chakras is therefore posited to be in the psyche. However, there are those who believe that chakras have a physical manifestation as well. Although there is no evidence that Indian mystics made this association themselves, it is noted by many that there is a marked similarity between the positions and roles described for chakras, and the positions and roles of the glands in the endocrine system, and also by the positions of the nerve ganglia (also known as "plexuses") along the spinal column, opening the possibility that two vastly different systems of conceptualization have been brought to bear to systemize insights about the same phenomenon. By some, chakras are thought of as having their physical manifestation in the body as these glands, and their subjective manifestation as the associated psychological and spiritual experiences.

Indeed, the various hormones secreted by these glands do have a dramatic effect on human psychology, and an imbalance in one can cause a psychological or physical imbalance in a person. Whether these changes in body state have a bearing on spiritual matters is a subject of dissent even among the Indian theorists, and the different systems of conceptualization, Indian and Western, make only a partial convergence in this case.

Perhaps the most psychologically dramatic and potent secretion of these glands is the psychedelic drug DMT (which is thought to be synthesized by the pineal gland, corresponding to the brow chakra).

(btw, I couldn't work out the answer to your life and death Go question.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you count the liberties of all the groups? Attack the opposing group with the fewest liberties.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I assume you are responding to the Go question and not to the chakras. :-)
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To accept the concept of a soul, you also have to accept that there is a homonculus. If you accept the idea of a homonculus you donna know nosseeng - as someone here likes to put it.

You are sentient because of a process - a self-organizing process. When that process dies, because you die, so does sentience. It is unique and individual, confined to one continguous mass of neural connections, and is not transferable - to heaven, to hell, or to any other creature.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You must be replying to the wrong comment.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's just an outrageous coincidence ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see the connection of the soul to the homunculus, not do I see the need to postulate a homunculus if there is a soul.  

I see it more like a computer, there is hard- and the software and a programmer - but who is the programmer?

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The soul is a homunculus, I think. It is something unitary, external and conscious that animates the body.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 11:59:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Guess the computer analogy was not that great, but to me the soul is nothing external.

This is a topic refered to in Jyana Yoga, the intellectual yoga which has one of the main questions - WHO AM I? WHO or WHAT IS THINKING THIS? etc.  

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does the soul transcend the body, and if so how can it then not be "external"?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't it be both - internal and external (which are left-brain restrictions)- you know like energy being a wave and particle.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, well, now we're getting into the issue of what makes an entity coherent and separate. Maybe I should write another QM diary on "what is a particle"? It could blow people's socks off.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And I will read it on bare feet, too.

The core of evil is a lack of empathy
by Nomad on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think there is an agreed definition of the soul.  But I do have experience of something "I" could associate with that wasn't what I normally call "I".  It was a more encompassing concept.  This ties in, I think with the religious idea that we are absorbed into God--union with the Godhead.

I certainly agree with sven that the self (the conscious "I" that controls and makes constant decisions) ceases to be at death--and this makes it very unhappy.  I think aspects of our current civilisation promote and seek to expand the "I" (the selfish ego?), and I don't think this is a healthy road as this "I", of all things, is the one that is doomed to die.

It thinks of itself as a homunculus, but it isn't that, it is a rapidly connecting something something bicyle cycle home home...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the self ... ceases to be at death--and this makes it very unhappy

How can something that has ceased to be, be unhappy?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's what I like about this place ;-)

It's PNing of the highest order...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not PNing, it's an important issue when discussing death.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I would have accused Socrates of PNing, so you're in good company

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and every philosopher thereafter...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting young commas.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
lol

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What makes the selfish-ego unhappy:

Through complexity it comes to see connections in a past-present-future tense system (Fran's left brain model), and so it realises that it will, necessarily cease to exist: die.  After death, it won't be there to worry, of course.  The dead are calm.  Those left behind are the bereaved.  But as it lives, this selfish-ego is at times overwhelmed with the idea of not existing anymore at some time in the future.  The more society promotes this selfish-ego, the more this unhappiness is spread about.

(Connections here to the potential extinction of humans--the horror!)


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 04:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The solution is, then, to believe in life after death or the transcendence of the soul. Or else to come to terms with the finitude of experience. However, conscious life may actually have no end as we are not there to be aware of the end of awareness in the first place...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 06:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I think the most important thing is for the alienated "I" to reattach to groups beyond itself, whether they be other humans (community), nature, or 'beyond human experience' (transcendence--or 'ever more encompassing'.  I don't think the selfish-I ever comes to terms with the finitude of existence.  I don't think it was designed--Yipes!  No, there is no external desginer, there is sven's complexity creating designs against the left wall of viability etc.--anyway, the I is one of our survival mechanisms, I think.

However, conscious life may actually have no end as we are not there to be aware of the end of awareness in the first place...

Like going to sleep but without the dream--or the waking up?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 04:09:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, conscious life may actually have no end as we are not there to be aware of the end of awareness in the first place...

Like going to sleep but without the dream--or the waking up?

Exactly.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 04:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or like something being engulfed in flame...or incinerated...  It depends on the process of death.  Sudden. Whack!  Or slow s l o w  s   l  o   w

I don't think consciousness ends at death, but I think "self" consciousness ends at death...

The question then is: what is this consciousness that isn't the self, and who cares about it?  Which I would take as a comment by the self about its own extinction.  Yet there is a long historical cataloge of humans experiencing states which are, it seems, real but impossible to vocalise in prose.

I died from minerality and became vegetable;

And From vegetativeness I died and became animal.

I died from animality and became man.

Then why fear disappearance through death?

Next time I shall die

Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;

After that, soaring higher than angels -

What you cannot imagine,

I shall be that.



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 06:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A programmer is not needed, unless you believe that some other force was in action at the time the amazing foraminifera came into being. For me, and I think for current scientific understanding, it is a natural unfolding of complexity over billions of years. And only that.

The brain has always been interpreted by the prevailing technology of the day, whether a telephone exchange earlier or a computer today. (or indeed the 'magic' that was the 'technology', before technology)

Look at anything that grows (including the brain) - it certainly unfolds in a predictable manner, but is there a little man guiding it? Look at a flock of birds whirling round and ask who is the leader? There is none, just as there is no little man.

I'm not against the use of the word soul to describe a particular conjoining of neurons, or any of the other words like chakras. But they are only inadequate words to describe complexity.

And of course one can change this complexity in the brain by manipulating your neural networks - by meditating, studying, experience, exercises etc etc.

Perhaps the most extreme example of this is the Skene monks of the Russian Orthodox church. They choose this incredible discipline in order to completely cleanse their minds of everything before. They live alone, far away from the monastery. for many years. They have a shelter and a well. That is all. They 'chain themsleves' to the forest to survive. It is the simplest life of all and filled with constant prayer - and I am mean constant.

At the end of this process - which is slowly disconnecting old neural connections (literally), and reconnecting simplicity - the monk is incredibly pure. These are often the monks (so I've been told) that go out into the world to minister to prostitutes, criminals and murderers. They are so pure that they are untouched by anything they see.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you read At Home In The Universe?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did, thank you. I found some of the maths a bit difficult, but there were many very interesting concepts there which relate to others things I've been looking at. If it was far better illustrated, I think it would be fantastic. For some of us it is easier to grab onto a visual.

Part of my work is translating complex ideas into visuals, and I find that rewarding because you cannot create the visual without understanding the concept. It motivates you to do the work of understanding, instead of being lazy.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And here I thought I was giving you a book with no maths...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 01:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
who is the programmer

Now, now, you don't take Intelligent Design seriously, do you?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the Homunculus is one of the best Esoteric Jokes, played on the rich and gullible, which has somehow been taken onboard by some factions of religion to my amazement.

Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 02:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
homunculus |h??m? ng ky?l?s; h?-| noun ( pl. -li |-?l?|or -les |-?l?z|) a very small human or humanoid creature. * historical a supposed microscopic but fully formed human being from which a fetus was formerly believed to develop. ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin, diminutive of homo, homin- `man.'

your opinion brooks no rational argument...

yet....it seems dismissive.

are you so sure of your self-organising sentience, that you can afford to sound so absolutist?

reading your confident assumption, i am tempted to assert that 'donna know nosseeng' might be the prime requisite for enlightenment.

your brain denies your soul, but perhaps it just hasn't found the password.

for such a pooh-pooher, you sure have touched my soul with many of your brilliant comments these last few months!

oddly perhaps, but 'homunculus' seems to describe a little imaginary mannikin, purported to be a homeopathically tiny version of the final product, into which it supposedly swelled.

enchantingly medieval!

but what has it to do with humans being ensouled?

There are no blank spots on the map any more, anywhere on earth. You want a blank spot on the map, you gotta leave the map behind. Jon Krakauer

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Oct 17th, 2006 at 08:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'Soul' just doesn't mean anything. It is a word that cannot be defined except under the Catch-22 rules of "If you believe it, it exists, if you don't you're damned''.

Now if you said the soul was 'aspiration' or 'hope', I might agree on the definition, because those characteristics could be logically seen as related to the survival of life - which I argue is what underpins all our actions in some way.

If you said that 'soul' was 'self', as in self-aware, I would accept that too. What I don't accept is that anything called 'soul' is transferrable beyond the physical limits of a brain (human or otherwise).

And I can't see why a 'soul' is needed for enlightenment or anything else. The brain is a fantastic thing that functions on a myriad levels.

Your use of the 'password' analogy is revealing - it shows you still believe that there is someone controlling everything - the homonculus.
YOU control everything. ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 18th, 2006 at 03:31:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]