Re: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic field(mind).

[Alberto G. Corona]

The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is
true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a
switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric
teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.

What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human
nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology.
 The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of
believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears.
In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an
mostly Occidental division. The cult of personality in socialist countries
and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new
editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics.

So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. When a name
for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new
organization.  The modern Global warming alarmism is an  episode of
adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a
scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers
over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the
URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the
small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious
sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our
lives. Religion is everywhere and forever.

2012/8/18 Alberto G. Corona 

> I can not resit to say something here.
>
> 1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
> way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
> society if the the adivine is a powerful person.  It can gain the a status
> of living god. In the past they were adivines or magicians, later they were
> the philosophers. Nowadays they are mostly scientists. I´m talking about
> the bad people of these groups.
>
> 2) very related with this, it is very plausible that by natural selection
> applied to the need to coordinate societies for common goals, we have the
> capability and the unavoidable necesity, by instinct to deify something or
> someone and to hypostasize it, that is to give it a personal nature it it
> has not. this may derive from the cult to the authority of the founder of
> the ancient tribe of our ancestors.
>
>  If we have this instinct and this is unavoidable, the best use of it, to
> avoid the manipulation of  those who want to ascend  in the mind of the
> people, to what was in the past reserved for the gods,  is to adore a
> transcendent personal god that represent the unknown.
>
> There is no theology here. I´m, talking in practical terms. although it
> may be considered of what Saint Thomas would call "natural revelation". I´m
> fascinated o how much specifically Christian apologetics can be derived
> from the apparently antireligious, simple and egoistic notion of natural
> selection, which is none of the three. But this is not the place to discuss
> that.
>
> 2012/8/17 Roger 
>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> You are right in a sense.  Weather prediction is a form of
>> "fortune-telling".
>>
>> But the reason traditional fortune-telling is frowned on by the Bible is
>> that
>> it invokes powers outside of God or over God (Thou shalt have no other
>> God before me).
>>
>> I don't consider weather prediction as a replacement for God, so no
>> problem.
>>
>> A more common false God however is your career, and we're all guilty of
>> that.
>>
>>
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/17/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-08-17, 12:35:03
>> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked
>> semantic field(mind).
>>
>>  Thanks Roger,
>>
>> Your work on this looks very interesting. I think I get the gist of it
>> but I will have to take a closer look.
>>
>> I wonder how would fortune telling not include weather reports, actuarial
>> tables, financial forecasts, etc? Historically there doesn't seem to be any
>> meaningful correlation between fortune telling and any particular danger to
>> people as a whole. Certainly no more danger than drinking wine or eating
>> ice cream.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:49:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>>
>>> I was into the esoteric a decade ago, including the Tarot, and
>>> especially the Yi Ching.
>>> whose ability to transform and embed and interlink metaphors is very
>>> powerful.  Being combinatorically
>>> constructed, it is a complete, homogeneous and interlinked (hyperlinked)
>>> semantic field (to a certain
>>> resolution).  You can do things with it not 

Re: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic field(mind).

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> I can not resit to say something here.
>
> 1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful 
> way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your 
> society if the the adivine is a powerful person.  It can gain the a status 
> of living god. In the past they were adivines or magicians, later they were 
> the philosophers. Nowadays they are mostly scientists. I´m talking about 
> the bad people of these groups.
>

Sure, but doesn't the abuse of adivination pale in comparison to most other 
forms of political device? Has the Bible or Koran every been used as a 
powerful way to manipulate societies? Has financial power ever giving 
someone the status of a living god? To me, especially in a modern context, 
using divination is seen as a huge liability. The Wall Street wizards of 
quant magic are far more influential than any Bronze Age warlock ever 
dreamed of being.


> 2) very related with this, it is very plausible that by natural selection 
> applied to the need to coordinate societies for common goals, we have the 
> capability and the unavoidable necesity, by instinct to deify something or 
> someone and to hypostasize it, that is to give it a personal nature it it 
> has not. this may derive from the cult to the authority of the founder of 
> the ancient tribe of our ancestors. 
>
>  If we have this instinct and this is unavoidable, the best use of it, to 
> avoid the manipulation of  those who want to ascend  in the mind of the 
> people, to what was in the past reserved for the gods,  is to adore a 
> transcendent personal god that represent the unknown. 
>
> There is no theology here. I´m, talking in practical terms. although it 
> may be considered of what Saint Thomas would call "natural revelation". I´m 
> fascinated o how much specifically Christian apologetics can be derived 
> from the apparently antireligious, simple and egoistic notion of natural 
> selection, which is none of the three. But this is not the place to discuss 
> that.
>


I think that our contemporary culture shows that society can bond to 
abstract conceptual brands just as well as an anthropomorphized 
personality. Our Gods are commercial abstractions of status. Any fears of 
charismatic religious power in the West are probably hysterical 
exaggerations at this point. Relatively few people care about someone 
claiming to speak for an omniscient God anymore - it's who speaks for 
financial success that matters.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/u6E4l_QDWWwJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic field(mind).

[Alberto G. Corona]

I can not resit to say something here.

1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person.  It can gain the a status
of living god. In the past they were adivines or magicians, later they were
the philosophers. Nowadays they are mostly scientists. I´m talking about
the bad people of these groups.

2) very related with this, it is very plausible that by natural selection
applied to the need to coordinate societies for common goals, we have the
capability and the unavoidable necesity, by instinct to deify something or
someone and to hypostasize it, that is to give it a personal nature it it
has not. this may derive from the cult to the authority of the founder of
the ancient tribe of our ancestors.

 If we have this instinct and this is unavoidable, the best use of it, to
avoid the manipulation of  those who want to ascend  in the mind of the
people, to what was in the past reserved for the gods,  is to adore a
transcendent personal god that represent the unknown.

There is no theology here. I´m, talking in practical terms. although it may
be considered of what Saint Thomas would call "natural revelation". I´m
fascinated o how much specifically Christian apologetics can be derived
from the apparently antireligious, simple and egoistic notion of natural
selection, which is none of the three. But this is not the place to discuss
that.

2012/8/17 Roger 

>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> You are right in a sense.  Weather prediction is a form of
> "fortune-telling".
>
> But the reason traditional fortune-telling is frowned on by the Bible is
> that
> it invokes powers outside of God or over God (Thou shalt have no other
> God before me).
>
> I don't consider weather prediction as a replacement for God, so no
> problem.
>
> A more common false God however is your career, and we're all guilty of
> that.
>
>
> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/17/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-17, 12:35:03
> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked
> semantic field(mind).
>
>  Thanks Roger,
>
> Your work on this looks very interesting. I think I get the gist of it but
> I will have to take a closer look.
>
> I wonder how would fortune telling not include weather reports, actuarial
> tables, financial forecasts, etc? Historically there doesn't seem to be any
> meaningful correlation between fortune telling and any particular danger to
> people as a whole. Certainly no more danger than drinking wine or eating
> ice cream.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:49:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> I was into the esoteric a decade ago, including the Tarot, and especially
>> the Yi Ching.
>> whose ability to transform and embed and interlink metaphors is very
>> powerful.  Being combinatorically
>> constructed, it is a complete, homogeneous and interlinked (hyperlinked)
>> semantic field (to a certain
>> resolution).  You can do things with it not even dreamed of in western
>> semantics and language processing.
>> Leibniz almost discovered these properties. I developed a theory of story
>> ujsing it (in the form of the Feng Shui).
>> See
>>
>> http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/**j8clough.html
>>
>> Similarly I studied the time based version of the Yi Jing called the Tai
>> Xuan Jing (T'ai Hsuan Ching)
>> which is ternary in form and especially mysterious and beautiful.
>>
>>
>> Then I went back tio the Lutheran Church and being conservative, and
>> being advised and believing that such esoteric topics
>> (unfortunately used in fortune telling, forbidden by the Bible) are not a
>> healthy pursuit, I gave up all of that stuff.
>>
>>
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/17/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg
>> *Receiver:* everything-list
>> *Time:* 2012-08-15, 05:05:44
>> *Subject:* Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense
>>
>>  Hi Bruno,
>>
>> I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, +,
>> and *, right?) and then your concept of 'the dreams of numbers',
>> interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.
>>
>> One single irreducible digit which represents a self-dividing continuum
>> of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream states (in which
>> dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as immersive qualitative
>> experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape
>> their dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).
>>
>> This continuum f( ), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private first
>> person subj

Re: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic field(mind).

[Alberto G. Corona]

I can not resit to say something here.

1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person.  It can gain the a status
of living god. It can even be a philosopher or a scientist.

2) very related with this, it is very plausible that by natural selection
applied to the need to coordinate societies for common goals, we have the
capability and the unavoidable neccesity, by instinct to deify something or
someone and to hypostasize it, that is to give it a personal nature it it
has not. this may derive from the cult to the authority of the founder of
the ancient tribe of our ancestors.

 If we have this instinct and this is unavoidable, the best use of it, to
avoid the manipulation of  those who want to ascend  in the mind of the
people, to what was in the past reserved for the gods,  is to adore a
transcendent personal god that represent the unknown. T

There is no theology here. I´m, talking in practical terms. although it may
be considered of what Saint Thomas would call "natural revelation". I´m
fascinated o how much specifically Christian apologetics can be derived
from the apparently antireligious, simple and egoistic notion of natural
selection, which is none of the three. But this is not the place to discuss
that.

2012/8/17 Roger 

>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> You are right in a sense.  Weather prediction is a form of
> "fortune-telling".
>
> But the reason traditional fortune-telling is frowned on by the Bible is
> that
> it invokes powers outside of God or over God (Thou shalt have no other
> God before me).
>
> I don't consider weather prediction as a replacement for God, so no
> problem.
>
> A more common false God however is your career, and we're all guilty of
> that.
>
>
> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/17/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-17, 12:35:03
> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked
> semantic field(mind).
>
>  Thanks Roger,
>
> Your work on this looks very interesting. I think I get the gist of it but
> I will have to take a closer look.
>
> I wonder how would fortune telling not include weather reports, actuarial
> tables, financial forecasts, etc? Historically there doesn't seem to be any
> meaningful correlation between fortune telling and any particular danger to
> people as a whole. Certainly no more danger than drinking wine or eating
> ice cream.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:49:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> I was into the esoteric a decade ago, including the Tarot, and especially
>> the Yi Ching.
>> whose ability to transform and embed and interlink metaphors is very
>> powerful.  Being combinatorically
>> constructed, it is a complete, homogeneous and interlinked (hyperlinked)
>> semantic field (to a certain
>> resolution).  You can do things with it not even dreamed of in western
>> semantics and language processing.
>> Leibniz almost discovered these properties. I developed a theory of story
>> ujsing it (in the form of the Feng Shui).
>> See
>>
>> http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/**j8clough.html
>>
>> Similarly I studied the time based version of the Yi Jing called the Tai
>> Xuan Jing (T'ai Hsuan Ching)
>> which is ternary in form and especially mysterious and beautiful.
>>
>>
>> Then I went back tio the Lutheran Church and being conservative, and
>> being advised and believing that such esoteric topics
>> (unfortunately used in fortune telling, forbidden by the Bible) are not a
>> healthy pursuit, I gave up all of that stuff.
>>
>>
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/17/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg
>> *Receiver:* everything-list
>> *Time:* 2012-08-15, 05:05:44
>> *Subject:* Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense
>>
>>  Hi Bruno,
>>
>> I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, +,
>> and *, right?) and then your concept of 'the dreams of numbers',
>> interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.
>>
>> One single irreducible digit which represents a self-dividing continuum
>> of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream states (in which
>> dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as immersive qualitative
>> experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape
>> their dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).
>>
>> This continuum f( ), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private first
>> person subjectivity (calling that Aleph **)* *to infinitely
>> discrete/public third person mechanism (calling that Omega **), so

Re: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic field(mind).

[Roger]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

You are right in a sense.  Weather prediction is a form of "fortune-telling".

But the reason traditional fortune-telling is frowned on by the Bible is that 
it invokes powers outside of God or over God (Thou shalt have no other
God before me). 

I don't consider weather prediction as a replacement for God, so no problem.

A more common false God however is your career, and we're all guilty of that.  


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-17, 12:35:03
Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semantic 
field(mind).


Thanks Roger,

Your work on this looks very interesting. I think I get the gist of it but I 
will have to take a closer look. 

I wonder how would fortune telling not include weather reports, actuarial 
tables, financial forecasts, etc? Historically there doesn't seem to be any 
meaningful correlation between fortune telling and any particular danger to 
people as a whole. Certainly no more danger than drinking wine or eating ice 
cream.

Craig


On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:49:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

I was into the esoteric a decade ago, including the Tarot, and especially the 
Yi Ching. 
whose ability to transform and embed and interlink metaphors is very powerful.  
Being combinatorically
constructed, it is a complete, homogeneous and interlinked (hyperlinked) 
semantic field (to a certain
resolution).  You can do things with it not even dreamed of in western 
semantics and language processing.  
Leibniz almost discovered these properties. I developed a theory of story 
ujsing it (in the form of the Feng Shui).
See

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j8clough.html

Similarly I studied the time based version of the Yi Jing called the Tai Xuan 
Jing (T'ai Hsuan Ching) 
which is ternary in form and especially mysterious and beautiful.


Then I went back tio the Lutheran Church and being conservative, and being 
advised and believing that such esoteric topics
(unfortunately used in fortune telling, forbidden by the Bible) are not a 
healthy pursuit, I gave up all of that stuff.


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-15, 05:05:44
Subject: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense


Hi Bruno,

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, +, and *, 
right?) and then your concept of 'the dreams of numbers', interviewing Lobian 
Machines, etc and came up with this.

One single irreducible digit which represents a self-dividing continuum of 
infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream states (in which 
dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as immersive qualitative 
experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape their 
dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).

This continuum f( ), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private first person 
subjectivity (calling that Aleph ) to infinitely discrete/public third person 
mechanism (calling that Omega ), so that at ,any given dream is experienced as 
99.99...9% dream and 0.00...1% number and at , any given machine or number is 
presented as 99.99...9% number and 0.00...1% dream.

The halfway point between the and axis is the perpendicular axis f(- ) which is 
the high and low correspondence between the literal dream and figurative number 
(or figurative dream and literal number depending on whether you are using the 
dream-facing epistemology or the number-facing epistemology). This axis runs 
from tight equivalence ("=") to broadly elliptical potential set membership 
("...")

So it looks something like this:

f( ) { "..." "=" }

To go further, it could be said that at (Omega), (Om) expresses as 10|O (one, 
zero, line segment, circle referring to the quantitative algebraic and 
geometric perpendicular primitives) while at (Aleph), (Om) expresses as
(tetragrammaton or yod, hay, vov, hay, or in perhaps more familiar metaphor, 
(clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds)

where:
clubs (wands) =Fire, spiritual, tactile
spades (swords) = Air, mental, auditory
hearts (cups) =Water, emotional, visual
diamonds (pentacles/coins) = Earth, physical, olfactory-gustatory
Note that tactile and auditory modalities tune us into ourselves and each 
others sensemaking (selves and minds), while the visual and olfactory/gustatory 
sense modalities are about objectifying realism of the world (egos or 
objectified selves/self-images and bodies). It should be obvious that clubs 
(wands) and spades (swords) are stereotypically masculine and abstracting 
forces, while hearts (cups) and diamonds (pentacles/coins) are stereotypically 
feminine objectified fiel