Just Six Things – The I Ching

To read along please go to imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com Other links from this entry: en.wikipedia.org www.youtube.com www.astrotometry.com

25 thoughts on “Just Six Things – The I Ching

  1. excellent best wishes Rob! I take it i dont have to delete myself to be the other me!!!? xx

  2. translation that was more contemporary and was without all the flowery “Ten Dragons mount the clouds as the golden phoenix sits on the wall of the courtyard” type fluff, this book could really become much, much more popular in today’s world than it already is.

  3. The Yi is of course, valid and accurate, but the problem with it is that the content is full of cultural and mythic elements from various periods of Chinese history. Unless the user/reader is acquainted with the many symbolic content, it is very, very difficult to get a realistic divination experience. The Wilhelm Baines, Karcher, Ni Ching Hua, and many other “translations” are all more accurate than the adulterated versions such as Legge’s mess, etc. However, if someone could offer a

  4. Great stuff, I love your style.
    There was a wonderful professor at MIT in the sixties , RGH Siu, who wrote a bunch of books on New Age physics long before it was popular. I particularly recommend his book “CHI.”
    I am delighted to discover your project.

  5. The song “Chapter 24” by Pink Floyd uses the I Ching parables. It’s on the first album they recorded, called “Piper At The Gates of Dawn”.

  6. Anyway, this will be my last post on this here. My final comment is that the issue of psychic phenomena is very much alive and far from settled and that biased individuals (such as Randi) and orgs (JREF and CSICOP etc). have no place in settling this question for us. They are irrelevant because they totally lack credibility. I encourage you to Google: “Has CSICOP Lost the Thirty Years’ War?Part 1 – Birth of a Movement by Guy Lyon Playfair” and read all six parts of the article. Take care.

  7. (G.H. cont) “CSICOP elected not to conduct scientific research, but rather has undertaken an extended PR campaign. [It] attempts to influence the media. [it] seeks endorsements from scientific luminaries, despite the fact that few, if any, of these luminaries have ever published scientific research on the paranormal. [It] has fostered a grass roots movement that assists it in influencing popular opinion. These activities display more parallels with political campaigns than scientific endeavors.”

  8. Are their other opinions of CSICOP? OF course! There are many scholars associated with CSICOP. But the point is it’s not really an investigative org. It is an org. openly antagonistic to claims of the paranormal, rather than open minded to it. One cannot entrust the inquiry of these things to such an org, with such documented failings (see the Rawlins article on CSICOP) and overt bias. The research rightly belongs in the hands of legitimate, open minded scientists and scientific orgs.

  9. Cont: “after the first five years, CSICOP abandoned its own scientific research).” So what is CSICOP doing? “sociologists Pinch and Collins described the Committee as a scientific-vigilante org”, Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna wrote: One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition McConnell wrote: I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology “

  10. “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview. GEORGE P. HANSEN”

    “Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach… Despite the name of the org., actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOPs highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate”

  11. So you’re questioning Rawlins motives, saying he wants in on Randi’s potential money making venture, but Randi’s motives are above reproach? Don’t you see how tainted and lacking credibility Randi’s world is. This isn’t proper science, it’s a world of arrogant snarling abuse and put downs, showmanship, vested interests, conflicts of interest, lack of scientific training, overt bias, and money. These things do not go hand in hand with an honest, objective investigation of truth.

  12. But you keep coming from the assumption that Randi and associated orgs claims about the fairness and validity of their tests are true, when their bias and conflicts of interest are blatantly obvious. As Randi said “I always have an out”. Look at the things Randi says. He is deeply, deeply biased and abusive of the people and claims he is ‘investigating. He has no objectivity and has a vested interest in dismissing their claims, true or not. All this adds up to zero credibility.

  13. and you can downvote all my comments Essanach, it doesn’t make your weightless quotes more damning or more accurate. If CSICOP – which is supposed to be a skeptic organization I thought – isn’t doing it’s own testing of so called powers… then what exactly ARE they doing?

  14. You say friend and colleague, and offer no proof of that though. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Shouldn’t CSICOP be offering some kind of tests as well? I think Dennis wanted to jump on Randi’s bandwagon but Randi (for reasons I do not know) didn’t want that… That said I don’t think James Randi would mind being looked at skeptically. By the way, I am not an Atheist, so I don’t necessarily agree with James Randi on everything. I do like that Atheist think though… rather than just have faith.

  15. hmmm… what could be Dennis Rawlin’s motives? Perhaps because he wants IN on what would be quite a money making venture… If telekinesis was proven via test administered by scientist involved with Randi’s foundation, not only the person with the power – but James Randi and his foundation would be in EVERY paper. The foundation would make so much money that it would not hurt at all to part with one million dollars. Why can’t CSICOP test people on their own? If they can do it better they should!

  16. Essanach, since this is Rob Bryanton’s blog I don’t want to keep on and on about James Randi, but I want to point out a couple of things: James Randi is not a scientist AT ALL. He does not create the test or evaluate the results. That is done by scientists. More importantly, and something that must be understood. If someone demonstrated a power and passed whatever test was agreed to by the foundation, it would be in every paper and James Randi’s foundation would MAKE money.

  17. My point is simple really, and it’s factual. Randi has a very poor reputation among serious scientists. He and his org. lack credibility (as I’ve shown with references). Therefore their “challenge” being so far unmet is no reliable gauge as to the existence or nonexistence of legitimate psychic abilities. The challenge means nothing because Randi and his org. cannot be trusted. Would you go in for surgery if the surgeon was untrained, despised you and had bet $1M that you wouldn’t survive? LOL

  18. I gave evidence that Randi said it. It was a direct quote as given by a friend and colleague of his, the cofounder of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlins. It was published online openly. I gave the article title so you could Google it and verify it for yourself. What evidence have you for your ‘bold claim’ that Rawlins is lying? I’ve given several article references now giving evidence of Randi’s lies and duplicity. All you have given is denial.

  19. Essanach, you are very bold in your lies, but what you are saying is a lie. He never told a colleague any of the quotes you attribute to him. You also speak as though there is one “challenge” – the one million dollar challenge is for testable proof of ANY power that a challenger may claim to have. In fact most of the people who have taken the challenge have not been psychics – but dowsers. If I say I can shake your hand and know your grandmothers name, and I prove it, I get a million dollars.

  20. Yes, another ‘crybaby” scientist who, along with every other serious scientist, won’t go anywhere near the fraud Randi and his set up of a “challenge”. They know Randi to be without credibility, objectivity, or honesty. Randi is a joke, as are the JREF and their “challenge”. I am providing evidence of Randi lies and fraud as a response to the claim that his “challenge” proves there are no legitimate psychics. It proves nothing of the sort, as the evidence given shows.

  21. Randi said to a colleague that he was purposefully cautious about how his ‘challenge’ was constructed and admitted that he “always has an out”. To pretend you don’t recognize the obvious meaning of this statement is absurd. The test is constructed so that Randi never loses, never has to pay out $1M. – he “ALWAYS has an OUT”. He’s a magician remember. Fakery, Illusion & showmanship is his game. In this case his illusion is of a supposedly fair and credible challenge. He certainly has you fooled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *