I - The thumb represents the inner essence of man!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
Patti's words - "In reality the entire hand is an outer expression of the inner self."

my words "all aspects of the hand" - (ie the entire hand)
"handshape, skin texture, flexibility, size and shape of fingers and thumbs, nails, knuckles, fingerprints, and the patterns, lines and markings on the palm." - all observable aspects, (ie the outer expression)
"of the individual" - of the inner self

Well Lynn, thanks for explaining your association regarding that quote - now I can understand your association.

(Though I could add... that in my perception the word 'individual' does not refer to the inner world at all - for example: the word 'person' is a likewise and very precise synonym... which reminds us of the word 'persona' that actually more relates to the position of a person in the social perspective of the outer world)

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

I think it's common understanding that the whole hand is viewed as the inner self expressed outwardly.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

(Though I could add... that in my perception the word 'individual' does not refer to the inner world at all - for example: the word 'person' is a likewise and very precise synonym... which reminds us of the word 'persona' that actually more relates to the position of a person in the social perspective of the outer world)

Sucom wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Lynn made a comment about this, suggesting that this was a somewhat one sided view of this area of the hand. I don't believe she agreed with this in whole. My own thoughts are that it is just one aspect of this area - every area comprises of two ends of the same pole.

Patti wrote:

Sucom wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Lynn made a comment about this, suggesting that this was a somewhat one sided view of this area of the hand. I don't believe she agreed with this in whole. My own thoughts are that it is just one aspect of this area - every area comprises of two ends of the same pole.

Sue, these are my thoughts exactly! I just looked in Johnny's book and thought that he had chosen one side to present and ignored the other polarity for the same areas. Which actually makes his definitions only partially accurate.

Sucom wrote:Martijn said:

(Though I could add... that in my perception the word 'individual' does not refer to the inner world at all - for example: the word 'person' is a likewise and very precise synonym... which reminds us of the word 'persona' that actually more relates to the position of a person in the social perspective of the outer world)

My problem here is that I would ask "What or who is a person". I could say, 'Who am I?' and I could equally say: 'Who IS I?"

It seems to me that the different arguments on based on two conflicting things here - for example, when I ask 'Who am I?' I could be considering me, the ego, the personality. But if I ask 'Who IS I?' I could be considering the soul as it appears within the ego. These are two very different things and I have felt all along that there has been confusion about spirit and ego which are both very entwined.... and certainly mixed up in this discussion.

The idea that the hand reflects the whole inner self (or essence) is more spiritual in nature. However, I do believe that science and spirit can and should meet, but they will never meet while science refuses to accept that spirit is found within the 'I'.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn, if you have an idea in your mind (= inner world)... and then write it down a piece of paper (= outer world), wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that the idea on the piece of paper is a direct reflection of your inner world?

( )

Made manifest by wrapping her index and thumb around the material pencil and writing on the material paper. The idea came from the ulnar side of the hand (traveled to and fro via the head line etc) and out the radial side into the outer material world. How one expresses their inner self into the outer world.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

but they are Johnny's words, not mine. and whilst you found the word 'public' in Dukes book associated with air, I have no memory of ever reading it, it was not a principle we used in my C Soc studies. So naturally I can't explain or account for it. But it's not a problem for me,because I don't use it.

Yes Lynn, we are indeed talking about their words.

But you appear to simply step away from the fact that both Dukes & Fincham associate air with 'public', and Fincham associated both the air quadrant + the air finger with 'public' - though for the finger he only talks about public speaking: cleary an 'outward directed' activity!

By the way, in his new book describes the air quadrant as follows:

"Above this is the area known as the Outer World segment. It relates to the social
world 'out there', the media, objective and practical knowledge, the world of
finance and future planning."

Hmmm... even though I had to nuance my earlier adoption (private = inner, public = outer), I think there is actually no way out here: public ALWAYS means outer!

(And remember, additionally Fincham also describes the ulnar mars as the 'outer mars')


NEW MATERIALS FOR CONSUMPTION:

This source reports:

- Fire is a Yang (+) factor within the Yang (+) hemisphere: ++
- Water is a Yin (-) factor withing the Yin (-) hemisphere: - -.

And...

- Earth is a Yang (+) factor within the Yin (-) hemisphere: + -.
- Air is a Yin (-) factor within the Yang (+) hemisphere - +.

Now one could wonder... which element is more 'outward directed': Earth (+ -) or Air (- +)?

The answer is presented on page 66: Air is much more closely positioned to the 'spirit's outbreath' (Yang).



So, I think that this confirms my earlier conclusion: the guidelines presented by Dukes & Fincham perfectly make sense in the perspective of the Yin-Yang philosophy, and Christopher's guideline regarding the he perceives fire & earth as 'more outward' is a clear violation of spiritual principle (because in the Yin-Yang philosoph fire & air are by principle recognized to represent the 'more outward' directed principles!).


And... on top of this I have described that he also showed a lack of understanding in terms of physics by suggesting that fire is more tangible than water... because due to the 'more inward' directed energy of earth & water both elements are more tangible than water.

This is fully confirmed by the so-called 'elemental planes', which describes how the 4 elements manifest:



Because we can clearly see here confirmed that water (which is linked with: Ice, Salt, Steam & Ooze - all 4 manifestations of water are tangible in the sense of touchable!) is more tangible than fire (which is linked with: Magma, Ash, Smoke & Radiance - only 2 manifestations of air is tangible in the sense of touchable!)


Sorry Lynn, but I can only conclude that Christopher has put you on the wrong track regarding how to understand the 'energy' principle of earth & fire (while Dukes & Fincham's principles regarding the 4 elements look just fine in the perspective of the Yin & Yang philosophy!).

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn, if you have an idea in your mind (= inner world)... and then write it down a piece of paper (= outer world), wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that the idea on the piece of paper is a direct reflection of your inner world?

( )

Made manifest by wrapping her index and thumb around the material pencil and writing on the material paper. The idea came from the ulnar side of the hand (traveled to and fro via the head line etc) and out the radial side into the outer material world. How one expresses their inner self into the outer world.

Patti
yes the idea or thought is the inner air element, the communication via writing is the outer expression of it. not sure what point you're making Martijn?

No Lynn... the outer expression of the words on paper can be recognized as a direct manifestation of the inner world.

Let's focuss a little bit more on the result of writing down thoughts on paper:

First of all, Jennifer described 'writing' (+ journalism, media & newspapers) as Air occupations: the words on paper are itself pure manifestation of Air, and through this manifestation the Air-energy inside a person becomes accessible to other people!

Reading is also air activity! Because the words on paper (= air energy) induce the thoughts of the writer inside the mind of the readers!


Now, my point here is... that I think it would be a mistake not to recognize how the nature of the letters on paper are a direct manifestation of the inner world itself, just like for example the spoken word: Jennifer also describes teaching & consulting as air occupations!

And the same principle is applicable regarding the expression of inner drives, needs & desires to the outer world: these outward manifestations are a direct manifestation of the inner world itself!

That's why the thumb, index finger & a large part of the radial side of the hand should be recognized as representing more directly as a manifestation of the inner world!

And this also directly explains why a long index finger and/or a long thumb are more often seen in introvert people, plus this explains why women tend to have longer index fingers & longer thumbs than men: women tend to have a more developed inner world!


Lynn, for you it only takes a small step to recognize this as a fundamental principle that goes parallel with the example of writing down thoughts on a piece of paper which make the thoughts become accessible to others: a transference of air energy from the mind of one person to the other.

Yes, the paper & ink can be associated with earth (and the body doing the writing itself can be associated with fire)... but the shapes of the ink on the paper is pure Air energy: only accessible for anyone who has enough inner development in order to read, recognize & understand the words.

That's why mathematics is also a typic air activity: always goes via paper, computer or other media!



PS. You have nothing to worry about when you drop that small element in Chirstopher's guideline, and instead focuss a little bit more on Dukes & Fincham's guidelines. Because this concerns actually just a small step for you to understand everything that I have described.

(For others who are not familiar with the elements - or the Ida/Pingala principe - this step is much harder to take... because usually they are more focussed on the planetary archetypes which do not include many clear principles, so in the so-called 'astrology' related perspective there is hardly anything to hold on at all)

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Yes Lynn, we are indeed talking about their words.

But you appear to simply step away from the fact that both Dukes & Fincham associate air with 'public', and Fincham associated both the air quadrant + the air finger with 'public' - though for the finger he only talks about public speaking: cleary an 'outward directed' activity!

By the way, in his new book describes the air quadrant as follows:

"Above this is the area known as the Outer World segment. It relates to the social
world 'out there', the media, objective and practical knowledge, the world of
finance and future planning."

Hmmm... even though I had to nuance my earlier adoption (private = inner, public = outer), I think there is actually no way out here: public ALWAYS means outer!

(And remember, additionally Fincham also describes the ulnar mars as the 'outer mars')


NEW MATERIALS FOR CONSUMPTION:

This source reports:

- Fire is a Yang (+) factor within the Yang (+) hemisphere: ++
- Water is a Yin (-) factor withing the Yin (-) hemisphere: - -.

And...

- Earth is a Yang (+) factor within the Yin (-) hemisphere: + -.
- Air is a Yin (-) factor within the Yang (+) hemisphere - +.

Now one could wonder... which element is more 'outward directed': Earth (+ -) or Air (- +)?

The answer is presented on page 66: Air is much more closely positioned to the 'spirit's outbreath' (Yang).



So, I think that this confirms my earlier conclusion: the guidelines presented by Dukes & Fincham perfectly make sense in the perspective of the Yin-Yang philosophy, and Christopher's guideline regarding the he perceives fire & earth as 'more outward' is a clear violation of spiritual principle (because in the Yin-Yang philosoph fire & air are by principle recognized to represent the 'more outward' directed principles!).


And... on top of this I have described that he also showed a lack of understanding in terms of physics by suggesting that fire is more tangible than water... because due to the 'more inward' directed energy of earth & water both elements are more tangible than water.

This is fully confirmed by the so-called 'elemental planes', which describes how the 4 elements manifest:



Because we can clearly see here confirmed that water (which is linked with: Ice, Salt, Steam & Ooze - all 4 manifestations of water are tangible in the sense of touchable!) is more tangible than fire (which is linked with: Magma, Ash, Smoke & Radiance - only 2 manifestations of air is tangible in the sense of touchable!)


Sorry Lynn, but I can only conclude that Christopher has put you on the wrong track regarding how to understand the 'energy' principle of earth & fire (while Dukes & Fincham's principles regarding the 4 elements look just fine in the perspective of the Yin & Yang philosophy!).

Lynn wrote:I see no point in going over the same argument. You keep repeating the same things like a needle stuck in a record.
I've already explained the context in which Christopher used earth as the outer manifestation of our physical body. I've explained graduated materiality and yang expressions or manifestations of yin elements. Dukes used the word 'public' for air once and you have clung onto that like it is some law to be obeyed whilst ignoring, or stepping away from, other things that Dukes said several times.
I'm not going over it again.

btw Christopher never said that fire is more tangible than water.

Sorry Lynn, in your words I could describe your interpretation of Christopher's words as the needle stuck in a record with only a few words at all - because I think I have explained from many perspectives that Christopher's quadrantical guideline does not make sense in the perspective of the Yin-Yang philosophy.

And you always answered playing this 'mantra-like' record (even though I think you noticed that he did not repeat his quadrantial guideline in many of his other writings - not sure if you described that you have found it at more places in his writings anywhere)


Christopher completely misunderstood what the 'energy' essence of the element earth is about - it's not physical, because the essense should not be associated with what we see at all... my example of the rainbow illustrated why.

But this passage inside the Wikipedia page about the 'Inner Planes' describes this more explicit:

"The Energy Planes are unique in that they are not composed of matter but rather a tangible form of creativeness or destructiveness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Plane

And when one starts studying Earth regarding it's tangible aspects - for example as a 'mineral' (on the upper quasi stage) - then one finds for Water 'steam' and for Fire 'radiance'... and the first is more tangible than the latter (and one can see also for the other stages that water energy is more tangible than fire energy... and therefore fire + air are more 'outward directed' than earth + water).



So, the story of the 'inner plances' proofs why Chistopher's quadrantial guideline is based on a fundamental misconception (regarding the whole Yin-Yang philosophy!).


PS. Lynn, I know that you don't like my record... by I claim that it at least includes quite a few consistent (!) songs, written & composed by different sources(!) all refering to the fundamentals of the Yin & Yang philosophy.

Meanwhile you kept your mind focussed on that 'three sentences'-song created by Jones... that does not vibrate well at all with the classic Yin-Yang philosophy, it's a bit like the 'Yin-Yang song' below.




(I think I did my best to explain how I see many features in the elemental system that vibrate very wel with the idea that the thumb represents 'the inner essence of man', but I think it's about to leave things where they are right now in this discussion... I have only one more think to find out before I actually can start writing my article - Nope, I still haven't started writing yet)

Patti wrote:

Salt is a mineral, it is not directly related to water.

...

Patti wrote:

Lynn, Sue, does this pretty much reflect how you see the overlaying of Inner/Outer with Public/Private (or whatever polarities you choose to place at the poles of radial/ulnar and distal/proximal).

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Lynn, Sue, does this pretty much reflect how you see the overlaying of Inner/Outer with Public/Private (or whatever polarities you choose to place at the poles of radial/ulnar and distal/proximal).

Sorry for jumping in Patti...

But haven't you noticed by now?

Private includes 'family', but 'family' is not inner world... it's a part of the outer world.
Therefore we should better not continue using the idea that I earlier proposed to Lynn in the perspective of the dorsal hand vs the inner hand (I proposed: private = inner, but later I found that the picture below shows that this was actually a mistake)

(See the lower right side of the picture: 'family systems' are recognized to be a part of the outer world)

PS. Though I can add that in general 'public = outer' will often work just fine (at least that is how I perceive it right now).

Patti wrote:

Sucom wrote:Martijn said:

(Though I could add... that in my perception the word 'individual' does not refer to the inner world at all - for example: the word 'person' is a likewise and very precise synonym... which reminds us of the word 'persona' that actually more relates to the position of a person in the social perspective of the outer world)

My problem here is that I would ask "What or who is a person". I could say, 'Who am I?' and I could equally say: 'Who IS I?"

It seems to me that the different arguments on based on two conflicting things here - for example, when I ask 'Who am I?' I could be considering me, the ego, the personality. But if I ask 'Who IS I?' I could be considering the soul as it appears within the ego. These are two very different things and I have felt all along that there has been confusion about spirit and ego which are both very entwined.... and certainly mixed up in this discussion.

The idea that the hand reflects the whole inner self (or essence) is more spiritual in nature. However, I do believe that science and spirit can and should meet, but they will never meet while science refuses to accept that spirit is found within the 'I'.

Jung described the Ego as the one that is saying "I".
So the one who is asking "who am I" is the same one (self talking inner voice/ego) that is asking "who IS I".
The part of self that 'hears' the question being asked by the Ego or the voice in the head, is the "IS".

Eckhart Tolle wrote about the difference between this mind that chatters endless and is all about itself and it's viewpoints and principles, is not really the Soul or Inner Self that is listening to this chatter.

I think meditation is about this quieting the chattering mind so that we can 'listen' beyond that.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Sucom wrote:Martijn said:

(Though I could add... that in my perception the word 'individual' does not refer to the inner world at all - for example: the word 'person' is a likewise and very precise synonym... which reminds us of the word 'persona' that actually more relates to the position of a person in the social perspective of the outer world)

My problem here is that I would ask "What or who is a person". I could say, 'Who am I?' and I could equally say: 'Who IS I?"

It seems to me that the different arguments on based on two conflicting things here - for example, when I ask 'Who am I?' I could be considering me, the ego, the personality. But if I ask 'Who IS I?' I could be considering the soul as it appears within the ego. These are two very different things and I have felt all along that there has been confusion about spirit and ego which are both very entwined.... and certainly mixed up in this discussion.

The idea that the hand reflects the whole inner self (or essence) is more spiritual in nature. However, I do believe that science and spirit can and should meet, but they will never meet while science refuses to accept that spirit is found within the 'I'.

Jung described the Ego as the one that is saying "I".
So the one who is asking "who am I" is the same one (self talking inner voice/ego) that is asking "who IS I".
The part of self that 'hears' the question being asked by the Ego or the voice in the head, is the "IS".

Eckhart Tolle wrote about the difference between this mind that chatters endless and is all about itself and it's viewpoints and principles, is not really the Soul or Inner Self that is listening to this chatter.

I think meditation is about this quieting the chattering mind so that we can 'listen' beyond that.

Hi Sue & Patti,

Whatever who writes or says about the ego... the picture below shows that the ego should most of all be recognized as a part of our inner world.


PS. In my first post of this topic I have described that many authors associated the ego with the thumb (or index finger). But I am sure that most of those authors associated the thumb & index finger with the outer world... so that is where the trouble begins!

Sucom wrote:

Patti wrote:

Sucom wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Lynn made a comment about this, suggesting that this was a somewhat one sided view of this area of the hand. I don't believe she agreed with this in whole. My own thoughts are that it is just one aspect of this area - every area comprises of two ends of the same pole.

Sue, these are my thoughts exactly! I just looked in Johnny's book and thought that he had chosen one side to present and ignored the other polarity for the same areas. Which actually makes his definitions only partially accurate.

Partially accurate - Yes, I would agree. Using my own terminology from my previous post, this idea is using just one end of the pole and ignoring the other!

Patti wrote:
I do not find the entirety of the human psyche in those boxes. In fact, the qualities of life expressed in the boxes are dysfunctional and negative. They speak of deficiencies.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Sucom wrote:

Patti wrote:

Sucom wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
2) I can identify with most of Johnny's innovative vocabulary, apart from a couple of words on the quadrants.
3) Oh yeah, I forgot a word or two in a book that I read 15 years ago. tch,silly me

Just because I disagree with some of the things you/Johnny/Dukes said, I don't see it as me being confused or in trouble.

Lynn, those 'couple of words' and those 'word or two' .. actually make a connecting-pair.

And Johnny's use of the words 'outer world', 'public stage' and 'world stage' for the upper ulnar quadrant is a direct violation of your early adopted (classic) principle - describing: radial side = outer world!!

Sorry, I don't see how can one deny this obvious contradiction.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Lynn made a comment about this, suggesting that this was a somewhat one sided view of this area of the hand. I don't believe she agreed with this in whole. My own thoughts are that it is just one aspect of this area - every area comprises of two ends of the same pole.

Sue, these are my thoughts exactly! I just looked in Johnny's book and thought that he had chosen one side to present and ignored the other polarity for the same areas. Which actually makes his definitions only partially accurate.

Partially accurate - Yes, I would agree. Using my own terminology from my previous post, this idea is using just one end of the pole and ignoring the other!

Sue, I have no idea what 'polarity' you have in mind. Can you specify?


NOTICE: Johnny's principles are quite similar to Dukes' principles regarding the quadrants. Jennifer has not writting anything about the quadrants inside her book. Christopher's quadrant principles is where much of the troubles in this discussion started.