Tai Shu Yi King Commentary Brain uploaded

About: tai shu commentary

Since this is about the Yi King which is about change I reserve the right to change it at any time including making it disappear! During the process of creating it my standardization evolved so some of the extracts of GW's comments are briefer than others. For those of you who know what this is - enjoy! In the original personal brain software I have ~ 100 tags for further search to identify a particular page in the Tai Shu collection. These should be showing up when you mouse over an individual page (e.g. P.2468) they should appear. Apparently today they do not. I have asked the purveyors of the software to add them to the search capability so that tagging will be enhanced. Eventually, if the feature is not provided I may add a tag cloud to the list of nodes, but that is some work for when I get a

You can search for only 3 characters of a node & then the webbrain will present a list from which to choose. You must run your browser in compatibility mode. Apparently, I can edit it online, but probably will not. If you find you can do it, please refrain! You may navigate into fastblogit.com, but most of that is private at this time. Follow the About link above to get to the webbrain. BTW, this is not all of the commentaries - just a few of the ones that have showed up in the last year.

Comments

Seth says

source: Motivation from Within (section of this WebBrain)
"" Agitation, propaganda & political action involved in prevalent pseudo Utopian self-serving P R are not part of our policy; the True Spirit impels from within, forces no one & constrains no one even by persuasion!"

I found that interesting. It would be even more interesting to find a way to express the message behind it with a vocabulary which was not quite so loaded with assumptions. Then too, reconciling that with Alan Watts's the Zen notion that you don't exist would be even more interesting.

Seth says

M 2010-08-03 07:59:41 14165

That notion also has some interesting turns & twists in BofNK. How does the notion you underlined relate to the quote? The quote is most interesting when compared against his notarious authoritarian family persona.

It asks whether the "True Spirit from within" refers to the same thing which Watts says doesn't exist.

Mark de LA says

M 2010-08-03 07:59:41 14165

The context for the quote was April 1971. I had just got out of the navy & probably had just arrived, after a cross country trip, at your pad in San Francisco. The flower children & hippie movement had not yet faded. Richard Nixon was president. PJ-II had not yet been invented, but was hanging out somewhere in the cosmic ooze. Strangely enough the quote applies to today's politics as well. This context accounts for the pseudo Utopian part. The line goes like: "Cautious, courteous, see the right avail!" - whose hex is about treading on the path & humility being applied. GW had some sympathy with the movement, but disagreed with their methods believing that a firm economic basis would sustain & perpetuate communal survival.
In matters of the Spirit he let his work speak for itself & did not compel anyone to take it up.

Mark de LA says

I remember reading some of Watts. I'm not sure that he said what you say. It would be interesting to find such in context. The final quote from PR in BofNK (26:54) goes:

You are Being.

Being and self are not separate.

Perhaps one needs to read the whole book to grok this. The ordinary self is something which is constructed for survival. The more that one groks being, which is not about survival, the more one groks something else. Being capitalized signifies cosmic All; not necessarily the usual religious connotation.

Seth says

source: Onp1688 to which you refereed above, GW says:
"Spiritual experiences, unlike physical, is not remembered, but must be recreated anew each time, often in a different way, only the results, not the method being the same."

Which i find extremely telling about Spiritual experiences. I'm gonna keep my eyes peeled for those! Of course, don't be expecting me to blog about them should one cross my path ... i won't be remembering it

C says

seth 2010-08-03 12:44:08 14165

Having done a contemplation intensive with Peter Ralston I understand this a bit differently.
Contemplating who I am for 4 days & eventually getting the point, I can't get back to that point through memory. I can't even describe it precisely in language. The experience crusts over like a volcano that has erupted. I have to recreate it anew each time to have the experience & it is not always the same; kinda like a piece of ass!

Seth says

Well my intent was not to mock but rather to delve and understand. Sorry it came off wrong. You have shed a lot of light on GW's meaning here and now that i remember RS also talked of this matter in a similar vein. Peter's metaphor regarding the crusted volcano works well for me now, and also yours about remembering a dream. Thing is, though, both of those descriptions and/or metaphors could be used to describe any lingering result from any private experience on which our attention was not sufficiently focused for us to remember it. The more aware we are of our experiences, the more we remember them (period.) Many times there are things we do that help the process of remembering ... such as describing a though in language and silently voicing it to ourselves. And where the vocabulary for the experience is not available, it then, as you mentioned, "can't even be described precisely in language"; and consequently that method of remembering cannot be used.

Of course i said it all that way intending to make my long standing point that spiritual experiences are merely private experiences and do not belong in any unique category of our ontology.

C says

seth 2010-08-04 09:21:34 14165

- snip -
Of course i said it all that way intending to make my long standing point that spiritual experiences are merely private experiences and do not belong in any unique category of our ontology.

... mostly your ontology! I have mostly held for the last 50+ years that the doorway & realm of the Spirit is through our thoughts & feelings (& sometimes the will) & indeed thoughts are beings of the Spiritual World which leave a shadowy trace in the cloud-chamber of our minds. That's my ontology. It works for me & on occasion has surprising results! Existence is a multi-media ontology - no need to limit it to the customary 5 senses & your brain.

C says

seth 2010-08-04 05:27:30 14165

C 2010-08-03 14:45:02 14165

seth 2010-08-03 12:44:08 14165

source: On p1688 to which you refereed above, GW says:
"Spiritual experiences, unlike physical, is not remembered, but must be recreated anew each time, often in a different way, only the results, not the method being the same."

Seems to me that you did remember the experience sufficiently to describe it as "crusting over like a volcano that had erupted". Also i suspect that Peter knows quite well the method which gave you that experience and can repeat it as necessary for other customers. Are those not the facts as presented here?

The volcano metaphor is Peter's. GW is not saying that no memory at all exists of the spiritual. Just like dreams, sometimes you remember them, sometimes you get some shadowy bits & pieces. Peter's method is a centuries old modification of zen contemplation wherein you face another person instead of a wall & express what shows up when you contemplate the subject; switching back & forth to give the other person a chance. One is listener & one is talker. It's not a mysterious process. The method is not the result. Your facts are skewed. BTW, you have to recreate or perform, if only by a recording, music to experience that art - it's quite different from most of the other arts. GW, RS, & a slew of others have given us many methods to grok the spiritual. You're free to follow, ignore, invent your own or even mock. You're free to assess them with the temperament of a scientist & use the scientific method if you like. Healthy questioning is welcome here! If you want to mock I would invite you to go look for some skeptics website.

C says

Heinlein invented the word grok because thinking was not quite good enough to express deep knowing (gnosis?).

C says

seth 2010-08-04 11:01:08 14165

C 2010-08-04 09:46:07 14165

seth 2010-08-04 09:21:34 14165

All ontologies with no exception are sombody's ontology, yours and mine not excepted. That is the nature of the concept, people make up these ontologies to grok the world. I am glad yours is working for you, mine is a work in progress.

You use ontology as a thing in the sense that Cycorp does. I use it in the sense that Peter & the dictionary does as the study of being - equivalent to Zen.

ontology

"metaphysical science or study of being," 1721, from Mod.L. ontologia (coined in Fr. by Jean le Clerc, 1692), from Gk. on (gen. ontos) "being" (prp. of einai "to be;" see essence) + -logia "writing about, study of."

Seth says

M 2010-08-07 06:39:08 14165

seth 2010-08-07 05:42:12 14165

source: C above
Private implies that it isn't (or can't be) shared.

Yep, in the exact same sense in which experiences in the spiritual world can't be shared.

Well, I hold the following to be true:

Matthew XVIII,20: ...
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

... BC-II has some other clues.

I also hold what Mattew said true. It goes pretty much for any symbol that has become emotionally charged and people gather around. And in that sense people share as best they can private experiences all the time ... but they are never the same from one person to another ... they are not like physical things that you can pass around and have identical experiences with, or numbers and procedures which work the same for everybody.

Look i'm not denying any authentic experiences or casting away any abilities that work. All i am doing here is trying to strip away some semantic bull shit and unwarranted assumptions that have accumulated in my mind from centuries of confusion that was passed to me in my upbringing. I'm too old to waste my time paying homage to that accumulation of historical confusion.

Seth says

M 2010-08-05 09:08:02 14165

seth 2010-08-05 08:39:02 14165

source: C above

You use ontology as a thing in the sense that Cycorp does. I use it in the sense that Peter & the dictionary does as the study of being - equivalent to Zen.

ontology

Well i don't grok here the essential difference between our approach to ontology ... except perhaps you pre-loaded yours with some unstated assumptions about metaphysics and Zen. Both of us are studying what exists, what we call it, and how it is divided. Now we obviously disagree on what exists ... and we can just leave it there ... but it don't feel right to wipe that disagreement away with a confusion about what the word "ontology" means.

I am not constrained by any one world outlook . I think you use the word ontology to represent your world outlook as made up from your interaction with the environment, past & culture - etc. I use it in the strict sense of the study of being which may include focus on any of those things as they shed light on being & Being. A digitized ontology in the language of cycorp presumably representing the world to the semantic web is definitely not the kind of thing I am studying in this item. To confuse such with ongoing existence only leads to The Matrix.

Well World View, as defined in this Wikepedia article, works for me. There never was any focus over here on Cycorp, semantic Web, Matrix or other automated AI ontologies in this item from me ... that seems to be just something that you presumed. So then maybe we could get back to the real point ...

I was talking about what exists and what we call it. I still have no idea what your "being and Being" entails. What i suspect is that what you call "Spiritual World" is what i call "Private Experience". Can you consider that is this item?

Mark de LA says

seth 2010-08-05 08:39:02 14165

source: C above

You use ontology as a thing in the sense that Cycorp does. I use it in the sense that Peter & the dictionary does as the study of being - equivalent to Zen.

ontology

Mark de LA says

Actually this item is about announcing the brain website where I posted CFR's commentaries.

But, continuing on ....

Private experience is closer to Monadism than anything else. Being & Spirit are closer to each other. If you want much more on being read PR's book BofNK. Holding being as just another form of the verb to be is like taking spirit as just the good feelings present at a high school football game. Monadism is but one of 12 major categories of philosophy - see 3163. Add to that the mood of Empiricism which acknowledges mostly what you can sense in the light of the Sun, i.e. the scientific method & the 5 senses & that just about wraps it up. Why limit yourself?

I say it is better for a man to acknowledge all of which he is conscious. GW seems to claim consciousness as a category of all ultimate particles in the Universe - P.2693 in the web brain.

C says

seth 2010-08-06 13:20:10 14165

source: M above
Add to that the mood of Empiricism which acknowledges mostly what you can sense in the light of the Sun, i.e. the scientific method & the 5 senses & that just about wraps it up. Why limit yourself?

Calling it "private experience" rather than "spiritual experience" places no limits on the methods you can use nor or the number of senses.

But, it does make you a monad. Private implies that it isn't (or can't be) shared.

Mark de LA says

seth 2010-08-07 05:42:12 14165

source: C above
Private implies that it isn't (or can't be) shared.

Yep, in the exact same sense in which experiences in the spiritual world can't be shared.

Well, I hold the following to be true:

Matthew XVIII,20: ...
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

... BC-II has some other clues.

Mark de LA says

If you hold Christ as just a symbol & the accumulated wisdom of mankind similarly then its no wonder that you hold yourself in privacy - perhaps the prisoner of your own mentography. It is interesting that the book referenced in 3163 describes some shift that Nietzsche made from earlier to his later works, viz.

Source: (RS): ...

I have shown you here what the soul of Nietzsche went through in the course of his life. If you try to understand the course he takes in his early works, you will find that the placing of Mysticism makes it comprehensible. From this period we have “The Birth of Tragedy”; “David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer”; “The Use and Abuse of History”; “Schopenhauer as Educator”; “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth”. Then the soul of Nietzsche moves on; a second epoch begins. Here we find “Human, all too Human”; “The Dawn of Day”; “The Joyful Wisdom” — all proceeding from the oppositional configuration. These are writings based on the will to power, on the will saturated with force, with power.

... there is more, but you will have to read it & make your own conclusions.

I wonder if you were always an empiricist, skeptic or otherwise. One of my earliest recollections of you was in some kind of a recreating of the SC ritual in the playhouse at 2711. I remember trying to make it as accurate as possible as the family practiced it & you wanted to create your own!

C says

This seems to be an extension of 3163 & has strayed from the purpose of this item. I would prefer that you start a new item somewhere else.

Seth says

source: C above
I say it is better for a man to acknowledge all of which he is conscious.

Absolutely! No more, no less.

C says

The webbrain has been updated. I put a few new links in the Home thought. If you look for #57 you will find some links to my raw research pages. The main difference is I have included a link for a map of the hexagrams. What the question asks is is the YiKing complete in the context of change as far as human being?

Tai Shu Yi King Commentary Brain uploaded

About: tai shu commentary

Tags

Comments

See Also