Tag: Logic

He paid no attention to or did not understand the Chinese interpretation of the six lines of the hexagram in the Yijing Oracle. He saw two lines; the broken one and the solid one. Then he called them 0 and 1 based on his perception of the Bible. That’s not what the Chinese meant.

This applies to my work on this blog because the IChing hexagrams overarch every 4 kin harmonic. The Chinese were one of the first to add the details that they were aware of into AN ARCHETYPE that could illuminate who we are and how we got here.

Every culture took up the challenge, but the Maya did to the nth degree. In my opinion, the culturalist views (not racist) of the day caused the error of interpretation. It was 350 years ago.

This is Page 21 of the book “Leibniz on Binary” by Lloyd Strickland and Harry Lewis, footnote 37. This is part of the introduction to the book.

37. An alternative view, that Leibniz’ work was largely irrelevant to the development of the modern binary computer, has been asserted forcefully by Bernhardt Dotsler. Here it is.

• Structurally, the back projection of computer binarism onto the dyadic is almost the same story as the former identification of the system of binary numbers with Yijing. Since it’s hexagrams are made up of only two elements, the whole and the broken line, they can formally be described as a binary system. However, this former interpretation is as wrong in terms of content as the updated one in functional terms. (Dotzler, 2010, 29)
• “So one could say that with dyadics (2), esotericism was once again set against esotericism. The esotericism of the dyadic (2) penetration of creation against the esotericism of the Yijing interpretation has been declared false. To remember this, of course, I can not aim at bringing the associated metaphysics back into play. it’s only a matter of keeping in focus this formally different purpose of the binary number system: namely esoteric, and not cybernetics.  Before it was seized by the binarism of information technology, the dyadic was an ontological instrument of understanding. Accordingly, it characterizes a functionality that may differ only minimally from the binary of the computer but one, which is fundamentally different.” (Dotzler 2010, 31)
• “With this, however, the dyadic stands for a paradox, which then counteracts the myth of its anticipatory conspiracy with the binary computer, with cybernetics and digital arithmetic. The formal does not correspond to a functional correspondence, and that means: The equation of the binarism of today with the dyadic of yore is actually—-fiction.” (Dotzler 2010, 33)

However, it is clear from the timeline of Leibniz’s extensive algorithmic writings on binary arithmetic and his design sketches for two kinds of binary calculator that he saw the binary system as far more than an “ontological instrument” and that he did so well before he was made aware of the Yijing hexagrams. The assertion by Merzbach and Boyer (2011, 388) that Leibniz’s “noting of the binary system of numeration” was one of his “relatively minor contributions” can perhaps best be reconciled with its influence as an acknowledgment of the extraordinary breadth and range of Leibniz’s other work.

This is a lot of gobblety gook patriarchal cleverness, I know, but Leibniz has plenty of detractors from my read. How did he get away with this?

Men in High Places. Cronyism Politics and the Christian Religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Augustus,_Duke_of_Braunschweig-Wolfenb%C3%BCttel

“Duke Rudolph of Brunswick and Luneburg, who (so the story goes) saw therein an analogy with the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo, according to which all things were created from nothing by the one God. Excited by its theological potential (or political spin), in 1697, Leibniz began sending details of the binary system to Christian missionaries in China, hoping that the theological analogy would assist them in converting the Chinese. One such missionary, Joachim Bouvet, was struck by a parallel between binary notation and the hexagrams of the ancient Chinese divinatory system, the Yijing.”

Leibniz on Binary page 1

There are 12 more pages where the Duke figures prominently in being solicited for acquiesce to Leibniz’s binary flights of math delusion. He eventually gets a gold lettered commendation from the Duke even though the whole disingenuous hatch was taken from the ancient Chinese YiChing and made straight (not twisted like the double helix) to fit linear ideals of Christianity.

I find it ironic that to this day MIT and all manner of physicists and engineers who are either atheist, agnostic, or nihilist dystopian apocalyptic cleave to binary code like an AI teddy bear. “You can’t change that!” My christian mother even said that to me.

Well, I might not succeed but I can try to line it up with what the Maya meant. The fact is, the Chinese IChing lines up directly with the MAYA, not the bible and not christianity. You’d think the scientists would be a little bit supportive of that. The Maya are considered by everyone to be the most phenomenal time keepers on earth and I’ve studied them for 35 years.