As good a categorization of the world as any. If not better than most.
Anyone would be familiar with the concept in its rough outlines. Let me quote some text from the web to evoke it in the context of contemporary human being.
mythoughtsbornfromfire.wordpres … ttributes/
I dont have more of a point right now than that this exists.
According to the appropriate medicinal system, the back is related to yang, the front of the torso to yin. I believe the current switches at the genitals.
And of course, very importantly,
The Big Dipper is central in Chinese advanced breathing. Here’s how the constellation revolves;
So that resolves that…
misfitsandheroes.wordpress.com/ … gy/page/2/
The swastika is known as a supreme yang symbol.
In general, stellar force is considered yang, terrestrial forces yin.
“Nature has a funny way of breaking what does not bend”
lols at the swastika, I guess that has always referred to spirals and cycles.
Why is there a ‘universal’ force at the crown? Just wondering, as i’d expect an opposite to the earthly force but a universal one would be everywhere. So what would that opposite be?
The basic conceptual opposition the Chinese use is the unbroken versus the broken line, yang and yin respectively. The cosmic force is the basic element of the cosmos in these terms, yes, but the force gives rise to all sorts of forms, though very much predictably so, wherein the force is being suspended. This gives rise to intervals and softness, out of which such a thing as an ecosystem can emerge.
So the cosmic force doesn’t have a counterpart, indeed; it does however result in states that behave differently than it does in its initial state, i.e. the straight unbroken line.
Ancients have chosen a matrix of 6 lines to define states of being. I couldn’t account for the reason except that six is a very stable as well as flexible number.
The permutations lead to an elaborate system that describes the human cosmos in terms of several elemental processes (5 basic types: earth, metal, water, wood, fire) by means of a system that is so elaborate and subtle that Ive always felt it presumptuous to attempt to grasp it as a whole.
The I Ching is called the book of changes, it holds change to be the main factor in the universe.
Time is the measure of change (JS), so the I Ching can be seen as a form of timekeeping.
It keeps the time of processes that are relevant to us humans. It shows us where we are at in them.
How it does this, has to do with its recognition of elemental forces and patterns. If we listen closely and have the proper translations at hand we can hear the future from quite afar.
Interesting. A line and a dashed line are like 1 and 2, whereas everything in the universe containing polarity have three states, or points ~ positive/neutral/negative. I believe the I-ching is a binary system respectively. A three-fold system would not be so easily contained, but would probably contain all others in some sense.
Where did the 5 in the centre come from?
In a wider cosmology should we include the thing which breaks any mould? Nature uses math e.g. in earthquake prediction, in the third party, which probably means it uses all patterns rather than one or a collection.
I have no idea how that emerges in this case.
The pentagram seems to emerge spontaneously out of a lot of occurrences in nature.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nI3Ky8mhj8[/youtube]
It’s a cultivating device, for sure, it selects and groups behaviors and reality in general under certain terms, that are then collectively understood, so that the accuracy of the responding patterns can be enhanced.
that video was like watching magic! it looks like Venus is thinking in 3D, as if the pattern is transposed upon an orb.
Yes, exactly - like the orbital pattern is a 4 dimensional object.
I tend to think of a life and equally a soul as a four dimensional object we are in the process of shaping.
I dont see an entity as something ‘in the moment’ but as its entire lifespan. Its essence can only be drawn from the totality of its existence.
I get the feeling 4 dimensional objects relate to each other in ways that quite defy how time and space are limited in terms of 3 dimensional progression.
Interesting, if we consider Einstein’s all-time, then the universe is also like that. So is it a bit like the self as a whole I was describing earlier? Except where that is the whole drawn in one moment [death], this would be a whole in terms of the whole lifetime.
Indeed. But the whole of ‘all-time’ is relating to time as the progression ~ a bit like we are. Thus there is both the whole and the variation.
You mentioned 6 earlier, a very stable number. 6 breaks easily into 111111, 222, 33. 6 is Carbon, central to life.
31921514
Even the word as 6 letters. And incidentally the word also contains the first 7 digits of Pi (3 and then the first 6 decimal places).
As for 4D yes this can be seen as more fundamental than our regular 3D experiences, because the more “up” you move in reality the more “real” it becomes. This is the inverse of typical material reduction in empiricism as well as the reverse of Husserlian eidetic phenomenological reduction.
Yin x Yang = 3x2 = 6
Indeed.
Im not versed in Husserl… could you summarize his views, or introduce a path into them?
What you say about up/real is what I wrote somewhere today about how Heraclitean fire consumes, and is more substantial than Thalean water, even though that is the ontic substance; being in time requires (self)destruction; a star is Thales’ elemental water (hydrogen, unchanging for billions of years in cold clouds) collapsing into a higher substance, ‘fire’ - conversion of (virtual) eternity into (real) time which enables processes and thus ‘realer’ being;
I certainly understand the use of the term, though I would not instinctively use it, as the atomic realm reflects the reality of possibility itself, and the force enclosed in an atom is impressive enough.
So basically consciousness is a limiter, a download bar, from preventing us from being everywhere at once?
But if time did not move, that would be very dull. How could there even be consciousness? It seems there’d ave to be more information from the movement…a brain could not process information standing still, the movement of itself is the information.
Ill roll,
2, straight line, yang, force
3, broken line, yin - also triangle, form; force collapsed into form;
2 becomes 3
so yin + yang is 5, which is dynamic where 6 is static;
5: warrior - 6: child/king/martyr
growth versus a locked system,
6 is maximal, 5 is minimal.
Rather (even), consciousness is the state of simultaneously being local and nonlocal.
This is why zero degrees Kelvin is a theoretical impossibility.
Only in how the eidetic reductive method involves isolating phenomena and attempting to derive their most basic necessity, to strip away all superficialities and contingencies leaving only the most basic definition. This is what science implicitly does, it aims to “reduce” everything to a particle of pure adequacy, something that could act as a kind of dictionary entry in some universal Webster’s. Hussar’s phenomenology is like this, although Merleau-Ponty as far as I understand so far worked to expand this into something better, where the unity and difference of phenomena can be apprehended on equal grounds as the supposed adequate entity itself.
It is more or less a distinction of intent, and an aesthetic preference: does one look at the world and all things in it as isolated phenomena that analysis should further reduce and collapse into a most adequate individuation, stripping away contexts and shared relations, or should it instead expand the opposite direction “up” and look for those shared connections and relations, to find not just what we might be able to call the most adequate phenomenon itself but also that broader reality in which it participates, both above and below it? Because aesthetic in this way, the method also has immediate ethical implications. It’s basically describing a pure metaphysics that reverses the empirical deductive methodology into something like “faith” for lack of a better term; but a faith that doesnt end in itself, and instead opens up new philosophical and experiential horizons by positing something not “against” but in addition to, to work along side with, empirical deductive reasoning.
The function [of objective thinking] is to reduce all phenomena which bear witness to the union of subject and world, putting in their place the clear idea of the object as in itself and of the subject as pure consciousness. It therefore severs the links which unite the thing and the embodied subject, leaving only sensible qualities to make up our world (to the exlusion of the modes of appearance which we have described), and preferably visual qualities, because these give the impression of being autonomous, and because they are less directly linked to our body and present us with an object rather than introducing us into an atmosphere. But in reality all things are concretions of a setting, and any explicit perception of a thing survives in virtue of a previous communication with a certain atmosphere. --Merleau-Ponty
This is the basic justification of religions as far as I can tell, is that they still maintain a possible consciousness of non-deductively collapsed thought, although most religions simply stop there and call the work done at the point of positing something in addition to the scientific-reductive reasoning, whereas that faith needs to not rest on a shelf but be applied in every possible way, scientifically, philosophically, emotionally, ethically, etc.
Sometimes the “leap of faith” is the only way to arrive at a new threshold of reality. I realize that scares most people, and maybe it should.
This is interesting, that isn’t exactly what I had meant but I can see the connection. I mostly meant that thoughts and ideas are more real than are the objects on which they exercise themselves. Basically, Plato was right.