How to toss the coins

[sedeim]

Excuse me, I don't know much english, but I need to know one thing about toss the coins.

In some places I've read:
If you got 1 tail and 2 heads, you record it as a single line [ - ].
If you got 2 tails and 1 head, you record it as two lines [- -].
If you got all three tails, you record it as a circle [O].
If you got all three heads, you record it as an X [X].

But In other places I,ve read:
head = yang = 3
tail = yin = 2
If you got 1 tail and 2 heads (8), you record it as two lines [- -].
If you got 2 tails and 1 head (7), you record it as a line [---].
If you got all three tails (6), you record it as a X [-x-].
If you got all three heads (9), you record it as an circle [-o-].

what do you tell me about?

Thank you very much.

Angel.

[frandoch]

Hi Angel,

2 ways - you choose which one and its OK.

1.

Head = 3
Tail = 2

3 heads = 9 = -0-

2 heads 1 tail = 8 = _ _

1 head 2 tails = 7 = ___

3 tails = 6 = -x-


or:

head = 2
tail = 3

3 tails = 9 = -O-

2 tails 1 head = 8 = _ _

1 tail 2 heads = 7 = ___

3 heads = 6 = -x-

You choose which one - don't change it.

Michael F.

[learner]

Dear friends,
As a beginner, I was puzzled when I posed a question to the I Ching. The reading was aimed at finding out what might be my future with someone for whom I have great affection but the relationship fell apart. The I Ching answered with the Hexagram 42, being the changing lines two, three and five. Afterwards, I asked what might be that person?s future with his current girlfriend and the result was intriguing. The answer turned out to be the same Hexagram 42, with the changing line three. Then I had, paradoxically, almost the same approach regarding two different situations, although one person is the same in both questions. I would appreciate some enlightenment on the subject, which is obviously beyond my understanding.

Thank you.
Learner

[lenardthefast]

Hi Sedeim,

The information given to you by Frandoch is certainly correct, but, in case you were confused about the the x's and 0's I will add the following. The only reason for them is to denote the difference between static lines and changing lines. In the first example cited by Frandoch (the one most people generally use), the 0 denotes a changing solid line (9), and the x denotes a changing broken line (6). When you have changing lines ( 9's and 6's) they change into their opposite in the corresponding hexagram.

Hope this is helpful, and good luck!

Namaste,
Leonardhttp://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/zen2.gif

[kts]

When I first learnt to cast hexagrams, I misread the instructions and learnt the 'wrong' way. I take 3 heads to be moving yang and 3 tails to be moving yin, but 2 heads and one tail (ie. more heads than tails) to be stable yang and 2 tails and one head (more tails than heads) to be stable yin - the opposite of the 'proper' way. This is what I'm now used to, and wouldn't want to change and get confused.

[lenardthefast]

Hi Kts,

IMHO, it matters not a whit which combo you use, as long as YOU know what you have chosen. I have had excellent results using any of the combinations.

Namaste,
Leonard

[frandoch]

Hi Kts,

The usual way is to ascribe 3 to the 'head' and 2 to the 'tail'. Some people reverse the values, but if you have chosen a particular system, stick with it. The 'Yi' will know.

Michael F.

[sedeim]

Thank you very much for your help.

[portakal]

"Fortunately" http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif i asked Yi how to cast the coins. Answer was 5 yielding lines and a dominant one. I felt sure what it meant. Now i am using 6 coins, one different. That's "my true way" of course, getting one changing line singly and always.

[jte]

Interesting to contemplate the fact that the 2 coin methods seem (in people's opinions) to work equally well.

From what I've heard (and I'm not a statistician or anything) the probabilities for getting stable and moving lines are not the same using the two main coin methods.

And of course there is the much more involved traditional method of yarrow stalks.

Portakal seems to have devised his own coin method.

And of course our dear friend Leonard just flips open the book.

And we all seem to feel we get relevant answers.

Why should that be...?

*Puts question on back burner mentally for gestation.*

:-)

- Jeff

[lenardthefast]

Hi Jeff,

I did not mean to give the impression that I just 'flip open the book' for all questions, I do it mostly for inspirational reading, sort of like for a daily pep talk from the Yi. Although, I do believe that ALL the methods WORK, if that be YOUR INTENTION. Intention being the key word here. I once consulted the Yi in New Orleans0my hometown, and a city known for its cockroach population), by writing down the question and then watching a wall in my living room. All the roaches that ran to the left were yin, all that ran to the right were yang, if they ran up and then turned right, they were yang changing and if they ran down and turned left they were yin changing. Took about half an hour and I got one of the best, most accurate readings I've ever had. Go figure! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Namaste,
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex04.gif
Leonard

ps: Honest, I AM serious here!

[jte]

Yes, that is my point, to consider why all the methods DO work...

:-)

[lenardthefast]

Gee, Jeff,


"..to consider why all the methods DO work." ??

And you think we will be able to come up with ONE answer to that question? And to what avail? And how will it be possible for us all to agree? I already have MY answer, have stated it many times here before, so do lots of other members and they have done likewise. Most of us have our own beliefs about it, and, most of those ideas differ, sometimes a lot, sometimes merely on minor points. IMHO, if you did a site search on this question you would find those answers. The archive is full of them.

If you are looking for THE ONE TRUE WAY, I would humbly advise you to use the method that WORKS BEST for YOU. ...and that will be YOUR WAY that works, for YOU. I personally don't think there is any ONE way. We all use what works for us, and you could do the same.

Please understand me here, I am not trying to denigrate your question, I AM saying that it has been answered many times before, and those answers exist in the archives. Along with an entire world of knowledge on the Yi; virtually all aspects, not just that one.

Namaste,
Leonard

[jte]

Thanks, I'll fish around...

- Jeff

[chrislofting]

> Subject: How to toss the coins

>
> By Jte (Jte) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 04:10 am:
>
> Yes, that is my point, to consider why all the methods DO
> work...
>

ANY method works simply because the WHOLE of the IC is applicable to any moment. Each hexagram is a PART and so EVERY hexagram will be to some degree 'meaningful'.

Our consciousness is PARTS oriented and as such not attuned to 'holistic' processing, that task is done by our instincts/habits.

The WHOLE of the I Ching is applicable to any moment. The PARTICULAR nature of that moment, the LOCAL dynamics will sort the parts, the hexagrams or dodecagrams or trigrams etc, depending on what scale one is working from, into a sequence of 'best fit' to 'worst fit'.

Our consciousness, being attracted to the 'light' will focus on the 'best fit' and so ignore the rest, even though the rest is informative.

Any form of hexagram derivation by 'random' methods will give you a 1 in 64 chance of selecting the 'best fit'. Understanding brain dynamics allows us to format GENERAL questions about a moment that can give us a better chance of getting the 'best fit'.

(http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/proact4.html)


Many dont want to get into this and prefer to toss coins in the belief they are communicating with 'someone' or 'something' - and thats fine if that makes them happy ;-)

The originators of the IC had no clear idea as to what they were dealing with. They did a good job in general but to get the 'idea' in toto you need to include in your reflections the last 3000+ years of work on neurosciences, cognitive science, psychology etc that enables us to validate the IC as something 'useful'; a useful METAPHOR for understanding reality.

Chris.

[lenardthefast]

Hi Chris,

quote:
The originators of the IC had no clear idea as to what they were dealing with. They did a good job in general but to get the 'idea' in toto you need to include in your reflections the last 3000+ years of work on neurosciences, cognitive science, psychology etc that enables us to validate the IC as something 'useful'; a useful METAPHOR for understanding reality.

Intuitively, I would have to disagree with these statements. I believe 'they' knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, I would go one step further and be so bold as to state that the intervening years have probably done more to muddle the IC than clarify it. Just my humble opinion.

Namaste,
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex04.gif
Leonard
Leonard

[jte]

Chris -

"Many ... prefer to toss coins in the belief they are communicating with 'someone' or 'something' - and thats fine if that makes them happy ;-) "

I'm afraid that I'm very much of that school. I've gathered from reading your posts that you are not - and that's fine if it makes you happy, too =).

"Any form of hexagram derivation by 'random' methods will give you a 1 in 64 chance of selecting the 'best fit'."

I definitely don't believe that, based on personal experience. However, I believe I understand why you do - it's what most people educated in a Western country would believe, based on statistical science.

"The originators of the IC had no clear idea as to what they were dealing with."

They probably didn't use modern scientific approaches to problem solving and explaining phenomena (or at least didn't use these approaches with the same ubiquity and ease which we do today). However, I personally think that some of the things they were dealing with are precisely the kinds of things that modern scientific approaches are weakest in - that is, questions of spirituality, religion, and metaphysics.

For all that we are on very different pages, I do appreciate you answering my question. I've not yet studied your IDM material in depth, but I'm have no doubt that you have valuable insights (not to mention a unique approach which you have clearly devoted a lot of serious effort to). I intend to at least give it a read through when I have the opportunity (when that will be depends on a lot of things, such as the ebb and flow of the unfortunate social malady know as work, among other things).

Keep on keeping on.

- Jeff

[portakal]

Mr. Loft,

I have been in forums about technical analysis of stocks' movements for a long time, sometimes some socialist/ communist oriented people come in and talk against the system while by time it gets clear that they take part in the market...
I do not understand them, i cannot understand you.
You are sure that there is nothing extraordinary about the Yi, so why are you still so interested with it ? or with the people that are into it ? As an antichrist ? As an heretic ? As a facts sayer ? As an illuminator ?

[chrislofting]

> By Lenardthefast (Lenardthefast) on Monday, March 15, 2004 -
> 05:02 am:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> quote:
> The originators of the IC had no clear idea as to what they
> were dealing with. They did a good job in general but to get
> the 'idea' in toto you need to include in your reflections
> the last 3000+ years of work on neurosciences, cognitive
> science, psychology etc that enables us to validate the IC
> as something 'useful'; a useful METAPHOR for understanding
> reality.
>
> Intuitively, I would have to disagree with these statements.
> I believe 'they' knew exactly what they were doing.
> In fact,
> I would go one step further and be so bold as to state that
> the intervening years have probably done more to muddle the
> IC than clarify it. Just my humble opinion.
>

No. The data suggests that their LACK of precision 'muddled' the IC. To understand what is going on you need to look under the bonnet and into the engine - the brain/mind.

IT has adapted to the context by internalising some of that context's main characteristics. IT then externalises those characteristics in the form of making maps. In 'ancient' times the lack of understanding led to the only form of communication being overly rich in metaphor. 3000+ years later we can identity what the metaphor is dealing with, what it represents and THAT makes things more precise, clearer... unless you fear clarity, it feels safer to operate in the realm of the vague. ;-)

Here we have one of the best metaphors around for fleshing out perspectives on self and others etc and you choose to avoid that precision. LOL! thats funny! ... and also sad. Our species needs all the help it can get and you turn away from it ;-)

Chris.

[chrislofting]

>
> By Jte (Jte) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 05:33 am:
>
> Chris -
>
> "Many ... prefer to toss coins in the belief they are
> communicating with 'someone' or 'something' - and thats fine
> if that makes them happy ;-) "
>
> I'm afraid that I'm very much of that school. I've gathered
> from reading your posts that you are not - and that's fine
> if it makes you happy, too =).
>

you miss the point. coin tossing is fine in that it can bring to your attention a particular PART of the WHOLE that you have not considered but that hexagram may not be the 'best fit' and so is the second or third or last and so you dont get the 'true' picture. The idea is to get the best fit and with that comes the full sequence of hexagrams to give you the full story.

> "Any form of hexagram derivation by 'random' methods will
> give you a 1 in 64 chance of selecting the 'best fit'."
>
> I definitely don't believe that, based on personal
> experience.

you mean personal CONSCIOUS experience. If EVERY hexagram is meaningful for ANY moment, where the only difference is in the intensity of expression of that hexagram compared to others, then for a parts-oriented consciousness tossing coins can SEEM to be 'meaningful' and our brains/minds will even FORCE the issue.

> However, I believe I understand why you do -
> it's what most people educated in a Western country would
> believe, based on statistical science.
>

I was not educated in the West, I was educated in the West and the East ;-)

> "The originators of the IC had no clear idea as to what they
> were dealing with."
>
> They probably didn't use modern scientific approaches to
> problem solving and explaining phenomena (or at least didn't
> use these approaches with the same ubiquity and ease which
> we do today). However, I personally think that some of the
> things they were dealing with are precisely the kinds of
> things that modern scientific approaches are weakest in -
> that is, questions of spirituality, religion, and
> metaphysics.
>

Science, Religion, Metaphysics, Spirituality are labels for specialisations used to interpret reality. As such they are all metaphors for what the species deals with - differentiating and integrating, objects and relationships, WHAT and WHERE.

The I Ching is also a specialisation. Each specialisation will generate its own language to represent the linking of ONE set of general qualities with a unique context - the language allows for the communications of that unique context using the ONE set of qualities simply by relabelling them.

It is this process that allows us to make analogies to the I Ching from all other specialisations - it is not the words that are the same, it is the feelings.

Our consciousness is so focused on expression that it loses sight of what is behind them - the words get taken literally rather than as metaphors.

EVERY moment is representable as a WHOLE at the level of our species-nature and we interact with that whole through instincts/habits IMMEDIATELY and so UNCONSCIOUSLY. To go for more details we take that whole and cut it into parts but in doing so we make each part appear as if it is a whole. It is and it isnt. It is in its immediate context, it isnt in relation to all other parts of the greater whole. We cannot sense that greater whole other than as an ordering, a sequence, of parts.

Thus you can use any method you like to derive a hexagram since for each moment you derive all of them, just sorted from best to worst and, if using random methods no guarantee you have the 'true' best fit to focus upon.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

>
> By Portakal (Portakal) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 05:50 am:
>
> Mr. Loft,
>

oh not so formal, Chris is fine ;-)

> I have been in forums about technical analysis of stocks'
> movements for a long time, sometimes some socialist/
> communist oriented people come in and talk against the
> system while by time it gets clear that they take part in
> the market...
> I do not understand them, i cannot understand you.
> You are sure that there is nothing extraordinary about the
> Yi, so why are you still so interested with it ? or with the
> people that are into it ? As an antichrist ? As an heretic ?
> As a facts sayer ? As an illuminator ?
>

you misunderstand totally. Allow me to enlighten you.

My work PROVES the IC. It proves it as a metaphor for what our brains deal with, differentiating/integrating, objects/relationships, WHAT/WHERE.

The IDM material (http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html) opens up the IC way beyond any published texts and as such transcends Wilhelm or Legge, or any other 'traditional' text.

The problem seems to be that the METHOD being used by all of the 'coin tossers' actually BLOCKS access to what the IC can do as an aid in personal and social development as well as in prediction IN GENERAL.

The IC reflects our brains as our brains reflect 'out there', and that is demonstratable from a scientific perspective where the 'small world networks' of 'out there' are also 'in here' and also expressed in the form of the IC.

My IDM work focuses on HOW we, as a species, derive meaning and how we communicate that meaning. The SOURCE meanings, the core qualities come from our unconsciousness, our species-nature. Our consciousness seems to have developed from that and can take those cores, link them to any context, and derive a language to communicate that context - from sameness comes difference.

To address the IC in its root format means to see it as in its binary ordering for structure, and in a reverse format for process (the movement is from yin to yang for context. Text can be yin or yang and applied to both contexts and so elicit 'novelties'.

As for stock markets etc - the boom or bust cycles are mapped to the IC yin to yang dynamic, aka egalitarian to aristocratic - see the diagram http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/aristo.jpg - or see it in such articles as that on Historical Materialism - http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html

There is a new paradigm emerging ;-)

Chris.

[arien]

Regarding that discussion of whether it is just selective thinking or there is some higher force at work accounting for the literal efficacy of some answers, it is important to notice that the arguments in favor of the former are easily deducted, while the arguments in favor of the latter cannot be, except by personal conviction.

But in the end intuitive convictions always prevail over intellectual ones...

Nowadays I dont really care, though, and I think that like many interesting things in life (women, for instance), we are not meant to understand http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[arien]

Chris, just one thing. I understand what you are saying, and I agree with most of what I can understand from your theories, but besides from the vaue of this theoretical model you use as a metaphor for human knowledge, do you actually have any practical use for the Yi in this manner? I mean, can your work help in identifying the best fit? how can you sort best to least fit without using some random casting method, and then, how does this differ from any other method?

I mean, if I would ask you for a synonim for some particular english term, would you reply with a dictionary? And would that help me in my peasant's way of simply wanting this question answered?

[portakal]

Mr.Lofting;

You misunderstand totally. Allow me to enlighten you. My work PROVES the IC. It proves it as a metaphor. The IDM material opens up the IC way beyond any published texts and as such transcends Wilhelm or Legge, or any other 'traditional' text. (Nothing new, you say you are great, you are for the IC, though nothing i read says so)

The problem seems to be that the METHOD being used by all of the 'coin tossers' actually BLOCKS access to what the IC can do as an aid in personal and social development as well as in prediction IN GENERAL. (Because you do not believe in anything ?random? ? You want to have it all positive ? I had thought i would meet some experiments done in controlled lab rooms in your IDM book , but couldnt...)

The IC reflects our brains as our brains reflect 'out there', and that is demonstratable from a scientific perspective ... (I am not interested with your scientific perspective, or anybody?s scientific perpective of IC, could you have misunderstood this ? I have graduated from a famous college on social ?sciences? with a high degree, learning very deeply that there is no social neither psychological ?science,? maybe hordes of warriors fighting for certain ideas. I have defined the areas i want to understand via ?science? (cosmology, cosmogony, finance, economics etc), ic is not there.)

My IDM work focuses on HOW we, ..., derive meaning and how we communicate that meaning. The SOURCE meanings, ...-nature (I am not interested with how you think you have solved all the problems of meaning on earth either. Your IDM Workbook is one of the most boring workbooks i have ever had to gaze through, you repeat and repeat and advertise, what?s your core in working so hard for it ? Platon, Marx, Nietzche worked probably harder than you ;-) and the ?essential? hardcore of their lives? works can be summarized in at most a paragraph, you invite all the people you can to read your IDM material, Mr.Lofting, if you want to be read, you gotta write well)

If you think i am just being rude as a simpleton, please consider taking your ?book? to a publishing house.

Hope i am very wrong about this all...

[lenardthefast]

Hi Chris,

No, I don't fear clarity at all, in fact, to me the answers I receive from the Yi are almost always 'crystal clear'. And I definitely don't need any 'scientific' explanation of, what to me, is a wholly intuitive process. If you feel that you must have the empiricism in order to understand a process, than more power to you. Different strokes for different folks. Just...Please! don't expect me to agree with you that YOUR process is the only one that works. It's just the only one that works for YOU.

I do believe that it is a bit arrogant to disregard the original wisdom that went into devising the Yi. After all, without the sages, 'modern science' would have nothing to say about the Yi in the first place, simply because, without them, it wouldn't exist. I am quite sure that the sages knew way more about 'science' than 'science' pretends to 'know' about the Yi. They, unlike us, were totally in tune to the natural world. Yes, I also feel sad for modern man, but, for totally different reasons than you. Your vaunted 'science' has had us poised on the brink of total planetary destruction for the last half century or so, and the tossed 'coin' is still in the air. I see nothing in the Yi which supports planetary desolation, only natural enhancement.

Namaste,
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex04.gif
Leonard

[portakal]

Hi Len,
We are together.
For all the readers, let's see my ridiculous random way of enquring the metaphorical ancient antiIDM text says for, "What is Mr.Lofting trying to do here ?" 20:36 p.m.

6.(2)
CONFLICT. The image of CONFLICT. Nine in the second place means: One cannot engage in conflict; One returns home, gives way. 20:41 p.m.

[lenardthefast]

Basically, I have no problem with Chris and his system. I would like to emphasize that it is HIS system. It apparently works for him, and for his sake, I am happy for that. It is when he attempts to foster HIS system as THE system that we have differences of opinion.

I am quite sure that MY system is within the minority here on the site. I have no problem with that whatsoever, it's STILL MY system and I will continue to achieve excellent results utilizing it. Should someone else here wish to try my system, fine. If it works for them, great! If not, thats OK, too.

I do strongly believe that the Yi emerged from the distant past and was based on the natural world and subsequent symbolism evolving from observations of that world. To try and convince me that modern science, with all it's many foibles and contradictions apparent everyday, is superior to the ancient wisdom of all those sages is just plain ludicrous.

Namaste,
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/hex04.gif
Leonard

[lenardthefast]

Oh, and yes Portakal, we are together! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Namaste,
Leonard

[hilary]

So there you go, then. For those who are made happy by believing they're communicating with someone or something (like me): Chris isn't trying to dominate you or force you into anything. If no messages get through here (12), he's more likely to go back to talking with his own list of people on the same wavelength.

(I've an idea that asking a question like this about someone else's intent will get you an answer which is just what you need to know about it.)

[portakal]

Have meditated about this discussion; sincerely believe what has been said.
Perseverance furthers, discussing furthers too.
Tried hard not to refrain from public life, sorry Dharma, Val, Kevin, Tashij, Jte and Len, my time is not yet.
Do not regret one word i have posted.

In a school of orthodox atheism some "superior man" lectures how the bible is the way to explain everything and atheism is a ridiculous way of life. Then a pupil asks for a concrete paragraph of core/crux from the lecturer, pupil is told to read the reveliations in the first place. The owner of the school says, nasty boy, the lecturer is of a higher wavelenght, now he will 12.

Taking another guy away from public life.

Funny, goodheartedly.

[kts]

I haven't read the whole of the foregoing discussion, but hope I've got the gist of it - I hope the following is relevant.
I've just asked a question today (by coin tossing) where I thought the most relevant answer, given the situation, would probably be a version of H53 - not 'predicting' the answer, but just expecting it to be something of the sort, just as you might when consulting a parent or friend about the problem.
As the lines built up it looked increasingly likely that this would indeed be the answer. As I threw the last line, I thought, "It doesn't necessarily have to come out as you expect". The top line was a moving yin line, making the primary hexagram no. 39, and the resultant one no. 53! What process was going on here? Making the 'best fit' surely comes after receiving the hexagram, not before. Chris Lofting has probably already covered this, but I'm afraid I haven't had time to wade through all his material, as interesting as it is.

[kts]

'Wade through all his material' - no disrespect intended - it's just a long read, and takes time to digest.

[arien]

Hey Kts,

I have noticed, many many times, that whenever I can "guess" what hexagram will come out it ususally gores my expectations. For me its hard not to think of the possible outcomes as I build the lines up, and when I'm drawing the 6th line I get that effect you describe often, like by simply thinking that you know what the last line will be, you disrupt the randomness and it falls the other way round. I often get a changing line at the top when this happens, like the yi is saying "ok, Im not gonna let you have your way, but here's a compromise"

Expanding on this thought, and since the 6th line is the realm of god (heaven), I think that many times it is worth changing the last line to see what would we get if the gods were favoring us more. For instance, say I want to get 50, then at the 6th line the Yi pulls the rug and I get a 6 (32.6->50). This is a bad line, but you can think that if you change your heavenly side, if you tune in to god so they favor your intentions, you wouldnt get this line but a 9 (50.6, a very good line)

In any case its worth changing the 6th line to see what would you get (and the 6th line sometimes makes a huge difference in the quality of the reading) if you were more in-tune with god . This isnt sucha hard line to change, either, doesnt take physical effort of any sort, only a heart's effort and thats it... the gods can forgive us in the snap of a finger if we just correct our hearts)

[arien]

Chris, I've started replying you several times, but I dont know where to start, nor where to finish, and actually not what to say in the middle...

I'm still interested in your work, as always, but I dont see a point in disagreeing with you. Im not head into the materials you use as ground, and you dont seem to be willing to look at things from a more prosaic side.

But that offer to buy you a drink is still up http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[kts]

Yes, Arien, it does very often happen that expectations are overturned on line 6. However, I was pleased that my expectations were confirmed, rather than challenged - I did get H53, even though not as first hexagram. I've had H39 in this context a number of times before and line 6 is a rather good line.

[chrislofting]

Kts,

The 'best fit' is already determined from the first line - iow toss coins and you already cut out 32 hexagrams, and then cut out 16, and then a further 8 etc etc Thus the process allows you to see where you are going and so even 'predict' what is coming.

The 'best fit' HEXAGRAM will come up 1 time in 64 from the beginning -IOW prior to considering any particular derivation process. Using the three-coin derivation process, throw the first coin pattern and the base line chance is 1 in 2 so a good chance of getting the 'best fit' base line. The chance NOW for deriving the 'best fit' *hexagram* is 1 in 32. The chance of deriving the best fit's second line is still 1 in 2. If derived then the chance of getting the best fit is now 1 in 16, and so on. If the first line is NOT that of the 'best fit' then I am off into a different area and from that position there is NO CHANCE of getting the 'best fit' but some chance of getting the variation on the best fit - e.g. I could get 24 rather than the best fit of 02. Since there is a strong 'variations on a theme' aspect present here, so the brain will 'fill in the dots' and force interpretation of the 24 as if it really is the 'best fit'.

The ancient perspective has been on the importance of that first line and you can see here their reasoning in that you cut off 50% of hexagrams if you get that 'wrong'.

The coin toss method is incremental rather than immediate. IOW if I have a pool of 64 hexagrams and I have ONE step to extract ONE hexagram then the chance is 1 in 64. If I use an incremental process, line by line building, then I have 1 in 2 chance for each LINE and at the end the SUM of the lines gives me a hexagram.

The Yarrow Stick method is complex enough to introduce a bias where the overall focus is on the yin state overall. From a historic perspective this is valid in that the 10th century BC was more reactive than proactive. Thus modern culture is more 'me' oriented and so more valid to 50/50 coin tosses -- UNLESS the life of the individual, the local context, is more 'yin' oriented such that the yarrow stick method will work (note the bandwidth/time relationships here, a collective high in bandwidth is more NOW oriented, lower the bandwidth and ritual etc (time) takes over for generation of patterns)

The questions method focuses on the most likely nature of each *line* rather than leaving it to chance - IOW there is a built-in bias where the user's local knowledge is included in the process and so reflection on each line is carefully considered. THAT inclusion has a better chance of deriving the true 'best fit' *consistantly* - which is my point in that with that consistancy comes the sequences of hexagrams that will reflect the WHOLE situation from best to worst fit and each hexagram contributes some aspect of the whole. You dont NEED the full sequence in that you can work off the 'best fit' but in doing so need to recognise that some details are missing, details that may aid in fathoming the situation.

Now, the use of 'random' processes allow you to come up with some aspect of the WHOLE you may not have considered. For example, you may get the 35th hexagram in the best fit to worst fit sequence. Particular aspects of that hexagram WILL be applicable to the situation but those aspects are PARTS of the greater whole, the IC.

The 'traditional' perspectives are focused on ONE hexagram reflecting a moment and that is not correct. There is a BIAS at the local level that fits best to one over the others but all of the others also have their 2c worth of input.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Arien,

The hexagrams are generated to form into PAIRS. The relationships of those pairs is identified by the TOP line. e.g. hex 02 and 23 are a pair. 02 reflects unconditional devotion, 23 reflects conditional devotion (pruning). The PAIRS are covered in the binary ordering.

See such pages as http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icpoints.html

The derivation method is represented in the diagram:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/btree.gif

Chris.

[chrislofting]

oops...

for changing line patterns applied to trigrams/hexagrams so the chances per line are 1 in 4, not 1 in 2. For rigid hexagram derivation (A OR B, no middle) it is 1 in 2.

These changing line patterns in fact reflect the expression of a single dodecagram where each hexagram is a compression of 64 dodecagrams into one form. The 'pure' compression is one particular dodecagram that compresses to one hexagram as in:

110011110011 to 101101.

The other 63 are symbolised as 101101 with changing lines. thus the dodecagram of 110011110010 compresses into 10110x where x represents the compression of 10 to be a yang line changing into yin.

Chris.

[jte]

"For me its hard not to think of the possible outcomes as I build the lines up..."

Definitely feel the same tendency to predict what I'm going to get. I end up saying to myself, around the fourth or fifth line, "just let it tell you the truth, don't interfere". Kind of takes some mental discipline.

Arien your idea of examining the 6th line is interesting, I'll have to try that next time I feel this and get a moving top line...

- Jeff

[chrislofting]

Jeff,

as I pointed out to Arien, each hexagram is a member of a pair of hexagrams where their pairness is distinguised by their sameness other than the top line.

Remove the top line and the pair are reflecting the same thing. The top line then differentiates between a differentiating perspective vs an integrating perspective.

Thus hexagram 02 has a top line of yin and so integrating, holistic, group, focus. Its associate has a top line of yang (hex 23) and so a differentiating, partial, individual focus.

The general devotion of 02 reflects an unconditional and so total, holistic, attitude of devotion. In 23 the focus is particular, on the individual's pruning of the 'weeds' to reveal the true faith. BUT what is the 'true' faith is up to the individual and so the focus is on CONDITIONAL devotion.

When we move to a more light/dark interpretation so 02 is total darkness whereas 23 reflects the last element of structure prior to that collapse and so again a particular.

From a development perspective the path from 02 to 23 reflects the path of faith from its total u conditional state to a development of 'weeds' that eventually are in need of pruning.

Thus focusing on one hexagram and then changing its top line will give you the other half of the story, that which shares the same lines from 1 to 5.

To map out the pairs see the binary ordering in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icpoints.html Once you understand the general binary format so out come all of the other sequences of hexagrams that eventually allow one to pair ALL hexagrams in all combinations and they will 'say' something.

Chris.

[hilary]

Chris, is the 'pair' that differ by just their top line more closely thematically connected in your book than those that differ by any other single line?
(Replies in the form of links are fine by me http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif )

[chrislofting]

Hi Hilary,

> By Hilary (Hilary) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:48 am:
>
> Chris, is the 'pair' that differ by just their top line
> more closely thematically connected in your book than those
> that differ by any other single line?


From the perspective of the 'natural' derivation process, the recursion of yin/yang, yes. You can also derive other sequences that bring out patterns in pairs related by different lines. The closeness is in sharing the general context from general to particular.

Thus the binary sequence is made-up of level 6 of recursion of yin/yang that gives us 32 pairs, where the elements of each pair reflect differentiating vs integrating perspectives of the general theme introduced at level 5. These perspectives map to synonyms to the differentiate/integrate dichotomy, E.g. at the other end of the scale, 43 is about spreading the word and so integrating (top line yin) whereas hex 01 is more 'singleminded' in its self-devotion, more differentiating (top line yang). But BOTH are overally differentiating due to the yang base line as well as all of the other yang lines.

These patterns reflect the movement in hexagram derivation from bottom to top, from general to particular. Thus there are 32 hexagrams that share the bottom line and are overall 'yin' oriented. These can map to the 32 to share the bottom line as yang. Thus if the only difference is the bottom line so the hexagrams reflect variations on a theme from the GENERAL perspective as compared to the variations on a theme with only the top line difference.

The top and bottom line variations form quartets of meaning - see the page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icpoints.html and work through the table at the bottom where these sorts of patterns are covered.

Chris.