PDA

View Full Version : How it works?


remo
August 23rd, 2002, 12:07 AM
A couple of recent posting raise, even if in different ways, one of the fundamental (I believe) question about the I Ching.

Is the same question that everyone asks me when I spoke about I Ching: "How does it works? How could a set of coins or stalks be related to my present or my future?"

Before I try to share with you my opinion on the subject, I would like to be sure that one thing is clear: I do respect every opinion or belief, I absolutely don't think I have the ultimate truth. I'm just a wanderer looking for a light.

I'm open to accept every comment on what I think.

Hilary said (apart from the real meaning of her phrase):

> if (and only if!) there is no power (God, spirit, cosmic order, call it/him/her
> what you will) who guides the fall of the coins and gives you a meaningful answer.
> [...]
> if there really was nothing more to it than arid, random chance [...]

I see here a deep dicotmy, the question looks like:

"There exists an entity that is physically able to turn each coin (stalk, dice, ...) in the exact position that is required to give me a meaningful answer OR everything is just a meaningless random event?"

Sincerely I have a lot of difficulties to answer to a question like this. In the first case we are asking for a (sort of) miracle (a suspension of everyday physical laws) every time we cast a hexagram, in the second case why are we here talking about it?

Having grown up in a roman catholic environment (like the vast majority of the italians) I would not dare to ask God for a miracle just to answer my questions. Yes, maybe in His infinite goodness He answers every time, without exceptions, but if this were the case I would prefer that His attention would not be distracted by my requests.

Personally, I don't think that there is "someone" or "something" that just suspends the laws of physics to give me an answer, exactly as he (or it) does not suspend the law of gravity when I have to move upstairs something very heavy.

To work around arguments like the ones above, there are theories that explain how the I Ching is related to our phenomenical world through some ontolgy that is different from the one underlying the physics (and the common "objecive" western thought).

I've tried, many many years ago, to understand some of them but I did not succeded. They looked to me too complex or too far away from my everyday life to be applicable.

I also do believe that there is no predefined "future" to foretell. I just cannot accept that everything is (more or less) predetermined, what about my "free will", then? What about my "freedom of choice"? So, generally, I'm not interested in the "future divination" methods.

If the only other option left is that everything is meaningless, why I'm writing this mail?

When someone asks me a question about "what's behind" I Ching, my usual answer is:

"I don't "why" or "how" it works, but it works!"

Of course, it depends on what "works" means: if you want to know exactly when there will be your next car accident (hopefully never!) so you can stay home, it could not work (even if I know of someone who claim it is possible).

Maybe a more interesting question would be:

"What's the effect of I Ching on you?" (It looks like the question on "lessons learned" that Hilary posed some time ago).

As I said before, I'm a wanderer looking for a light. To me "works" means to gain understanding of the moment I'm living in so to better explore the future implications.

The question I write down, the table, the coins, my hand who is throwing them, the way they fall, my eyes who are reading the response, my brain who's trying to understand the answer, everything HAS a meaning in that precise moment.

And the process of trying to have a meaningful answer becames the process of posing a meaningful question. The words "crossing the river" remaind me of aspects that I neglected at a first sight or warn me about the difficulties that I tried to minimize in my mind. Every sentence of the answer refines the question, because "a good answer is silver but a good question is gold" they say.

At the end, the lights are shed, the landscape is a little bit clearer, the mind a little bit more focused. It worked again!

Should I say that God is behind this? Yes, of course, He's behind everything why should I exclude Him? He may guide my feelings, enlight my mind. The coins are just a mean, exactly like everything else.

But what if I don't believe in God or any "non-physical" entity? Where is "statistics"? Why a random event should be related to my question?

From a statistical point of view, I know of studies that tried to prove that the distribution of hexagram casting is not uniform (i.e. hexagrams do not appear "at random") but none of them is conclusive and frankly I don't think that someone will ever prove that.

From this perspective every hexagram will appear "at random".

On the other hand if you measure the relevance of the answer with respect to the question you surprisingly will find that it is very very close to 100% (I would rather say it is 100% but let me have some doubt).

In this case there is no randomness at all!

It looks like a paradox.

No surprise: paradoxes appear everywhere when you try to separe what happens "outside" you (objectively) and "inside" you (subjectively).

Casting I Ching hexagrams is not something that happens objectively (measurable, governed by predictive laws, ...) or subjectively (unclear, discretionary, ...).

It is both and you have to take it or leave it. You may create your own justification (as I did here) or take someone else words to explain it but the basic fact is that he works.

By the way, one of the reasons I created my site on casting hexagrams is that I wanted a method that came both from my hand and from my mind. I felt much more confortable with my cards or my bead string than I ever was with stalks or coins. I hope that this could be useful for someone else.

Hopefully not too boresome.

Remo

candid
August 23rd, 2002, 01:01 AM
Hi Remo,

Anything but boring to me!

Like yourself, I?m a wanderer with more questions than answers for the questions. I can not deny the obvious synchronistic value of I Ching?s answers to my questions, so mere random coincidence does not satisfy my logic or my intuitive senses. Neither do I perceive that the laws of physics alter to satisfy my inquiry. I vacillate on the concept of deistic intervention, though its difficult to not believe, especially after being knocked off my feet by such specific details in the answer I receive.

The closest I?ve managed to get to the answer is contained within nature herself. There is nothing unreasonable about nature, nature makes sense. There is nothing biased about nature, it takes its own course. There are certain things which are repeatable within nature, these can be reasonably counted on. Nature is limited, it works within certain universal principles. If we observe the patterns within nature, we observe all that happens on heaven and earth.

To this, let me add a quote from Nietzsche: ?When one speaks of humanity, the idea is fundamental that this is something which separates and distinguishes man from nature. In reality, however, there is no such separation: "natural" qualities and those called truly "human" are inseparably grown together. Man, in his highest and noblest capacities, is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual character.?

So then, how is it that Yi can so accurately ?nail? the answer to my question? I?d hypothesize that it does so because Yi IS nature, whereas I am not always so. Where pure nature and I part ways is in my egotistical illusion of my self - that part of me I can not consider to be purely nature, but rather a superimposed image of who I think I am. What I Ching does for me is to peel back that illusion and show just how comical my illusion is, AND how to make the needed adjustment to become truly real and truly natural.

The problem which arises when we attempt to understand HOW it actually works, is that the part which is trying to understand isn?t truly nature, only a reflection from the superimposed illusion of self.

?The less one thinks about how the I Ching works, the more soundly one will sleep at night.? ~Carl Jung

~Candid

lindsay
August 23rd, 2002, 02:58 AM
Dear Remo,

How does the Yi work?

I doubt if we settle this question here today.

But is it really such a mystery we do not understand how the I Ching works? I would suggest that we humans do not really understand how much of anything "works" in this world. Take something you know really well, and start back-tracking with the question, "And how does that work?" For example:

How does an automobile work?
It works because it has an internal combustion engine.
And how does that work?
It works because certain flammable substances produce a lot energy when they are ignited.
And how does that work?
It works because combustion causes a chemical reaction called oxidation which creates energy when large molecules are broken into smaller ones.
And how does that work?
Etc. etc.

You get the idea. I would maintain that no matter how much science or other training one has, it does not take very long before you hit a wall of incomprehension. Of course, we tend to paper over these moments of staring into the void with concepts that are specifically designed to settle such questions. Sooner or later, when a child keeps tormenting you with endless "Why?" questions, you find yourself saying something like "because it's God's will" or "because it's a natural law" or "because I said so" or "because!" These are not explanations, but terminations of inquiry.

Another way of saying this is there are limits to the power of analysis.

And yet we are part and parcel of this world. We are made out of the same stuff as everything else. As far as we know, we "work" pretty much like other creatures in Nature. We belong here, we are "here" and nowhere else. So why don't we really understand how things work?

I have some ideas about this (of course), but in the end I do not know the answer to this unanswerable question. So when we realize we live in a world where everything is ultimately a mystery, not understanding the Yi is not very mysterious at all, is it?

Lindsay

candid
August 23rd, 2002, 05:53 AM
I think I may have paraphrased Jung?s quote. I wasn?t able to locate it but I?m sure you get the general idea.

Most here have probably read his forward to the Wilhelm translation. For those who may not have or those who would just like an online copy, you?ll find it here. I feel it speaks to the question in this thread.

http://www.iging.com/intro/foreword.htm

hilary
August 23rd, 2002, 04:59 PM
Has anyone got any easy questions?!?

A couple of thoughts for the mix...

Firstly, that I'm familiar with the feeling that I can't really expect God (in the classic Christian sense, also what I grew up with) to intervene in your own little coin-tossing etc to alter the laws of physics just for you. Then again, nor is there any reason to expect God to create a universe where life is possible, or sustain the existence of (say) gravity from moment to moment, or... you get the idea. One of the insights of Christianity I like is that this whole idea of what you can 'reasonably' expect or think you 'deserve' self-destructs on close examination.

Lindsay has a nice point. To which I can only add, that I can see why the world of science doesn't like the explanation 'because God makes it happen'. In terms of logical analysis (at least!) this is equivalent to saying 'I don't know how; I can't explain it' - ie it's not really an explanation at all. (And yes, I still stick with it when it comes to the I Ching, and yes, it is a glorified way of saying I don't know.)

hm, were those thoughts, or ramblings around what other people have already said, only better?

Think I'll put a link to this page in the newsletter...

lindsay
August 23rd, 2002, 06:21 PM
Dear Hilary,

In a similar debate over the paradox of the Christian Incarnation (i.e., How does Christianity work?), the Church Father Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) retorted to his opponent Marcion, who was a bit of a logic-chopper:

?Credo quia absurdum est!?

Literal Latin translation: ?I believe because it is absurd!?

Free translation: ?I believe this must be true because the whole thing is so crazy no human being could have dreamed it up!?

Nice to have you back. Hope you had a refreshing vacation.

Lindsay

candid
August 23rd, 2002, 06:33 PM
Hilary- I join with Lindsay in welcoming you back!

Lindsay, as always, I enjoyed reading your perspectives.

Remo, Thanks for beginning this interesting topic.

remo
August 24th, 2002, 01:17 PM
Thanks everybody for your replies!

I'm happy to see I'm not the only one that accepts the I Ching as he is.

Lindsay, I agree with you that there are many things we don't understand and many things we will never be able to understand.

I would be tempted to ask: "To which category the I Ching belongs?", but maybe, almost certainly, it's a ill-posed question.

It's not a real "mechanism" I'm looking for, I'm interested in your view of the whole thing: we have to handle a situation, we look for an advice in a thousands years old book and we found it! Regardless of age, sex, country, religious background, we found it!

It looks like the I Ching talks directly to our being humans.

Candid, if I correctly understood, this is more or less what you said talking about a "natural self". I like the view of this emerging "natural self" that wipes away a "false" superimposed image of our self.

My translation of Wilhelm has Jung's foreword, very interesting! (Btw, it also has an appendix with the Ten Wings, very interesting too!)

Hilary, welcome back!

Do you mean that it would not be too much to ask God to correctly drive the fall of the coins, since He coordinates all the rest?

Couldn't it be, as someone says, that God settled the rules and the initial conditions and only exceptionally intervenes to change it?

hilary
August 24th, 2002, 02:21 PM
Two thoughts here (gosh, how many does that make in two days?). First - the idea that some things are too much to ask implies that other things aren't. "OK, God, you can supply me with water that freezes into an infinite variety of crystals and refracts light into a rainbow, and with a sense of beauty - nothing to it, it's just natural after all. But I wouldn't expect you to do anything beyond the limits of possibility." Hm - maybe not.

For the rest - apart from being an idea of God I can't relate to, it doesn't make sense. The ultimate creator doesn't just make things and act within time, as we do; s/he also creates time.

'Creating time' is not something we can really get our heads round, thinking as we do with one thought following another, and in verbs with tenses, etc. But we can at least be sure that it's as true to say 'time is being created now' as it is to say 'time was created n billion years ago'. (Or 'time will be created in n billion years' time, and then all this will have existed,' or...) And since time is part of the fabric, you can experience every millisecond as the moment of creation.

Hm - what does all this do to the idea of 'predicting the future' through divination? Never really thought about that...

remo
August 24th, 2002, 03:27 PM
Time is a really fascinating subject!

Have you read "The fabric of reality" by David Deutsch?

You may disagree with him entirely but his exposition on time made me think.

candid
August 24th, 2002, 07:00 PM
I?m not stating any of this as fact, only something I can get my head around. I realize that words are just metaphors to communicate ideas and that this adds no actual validity to what by nature already is. But this is a forum to communicate, so I?ll put it out here just because.

When something happens in a given moment of time, it happens at the exact same moment that everything else is happening, has happened and will happen. At the exact moment when three coins are dropped, it is in synch with everything else that happens within our universe. We are able to mark a moment in time, a sort of curser or bookmark within the pages of events past, present and future ? ?the whole book.? By accessing this ?whole book?, we are able to read the past and future, thereby giving us access to and a certain control of the present. And, since the present is all that really is, its really no wonder we have access to it all.

It makes sense to me that this is an entirely natural phenomena. Its just that a timeless paradigm isn?t something which we are accustomed to thinking much about. We do it all the time but because its natural it doesn?t stand out as unusual. If we consciously think of a specific event, a moment in our lives, we will actually in a real sense be there ? and yet are still here in the now. I think its entirely natural.

It isn?t the element of time which confounds me but the issue of morality and the consistent guiding toward it. In an amoral universe, there would be no such guiding influence, other than one I might imagine to exist. This has been my dilemma for a very long time, and its this dilemma that leads me to consider divinity. But even such divinity would be broad in scope and able to effectively function within a variety of human social standards or mores. In this sense, it isn?t at all like the Christian view of God - whose morality is exclusive to one set of standards. Nor like Islam or Judaism.

I?d be very interested to hear your views on the subject of morality as it applies to the working affects of I Ching.

~Candid

lindsay
August 25th, 2002, 03:13 AM
What a brainy bunch the friends of Clarity have become!

Yet I can't resist coming back for one more round; abstract speculation and chocolate are my two biggest temptations, never to be missed though often to be regretted. Three points:

(1) Time. Time cannot exist without movement, and movement implies change. What is time but the ongoing flow of events? First A happens, then B. Time moves forward from A to B, and marks the interval between them. If nothing "happened" in the universe, if everything was static (without movement), then time would not exist. In that case, you might have A, but you would never see B occurring, so there would be no interval between A and B, in other words, no time.

Simple so far, but there is another aspect: A and B are different events. Something happens in the time between A and B that we call "change". Change is based on the idea that every moment in time is unique and unrepeatable; remember, you cannot step into the same river twice. At this point we don't need to talk about causality, which is a good thing, since that idea has many tiresome philosophical problems. If you see A, and then a bit later you see B, something has "occurred" called "change".

So there is a pretty firm link between time, movement, and change. Isn't the Yijing called the Classic of Change? Doesn't it seem reasonable that time would be an important consideration in thinking about the main subject of such a classic? No time, no change.

(2) Divining the past. Candid wrote: "We are able to mark a moment in time, a sort of curser or bookmark within the pages of events past, present and future ? ?the whole book.? By accessing this ?whole book?, we are able to read the past and future, thereby giving us access to and a certain control of the present."

This is a very interesting observation when one considers the development of divination in China. For a very long time, divination has been used to predict or at least influence the future. Less familiar, however, is the practice of using divination to uncover the past. Many of the questions recorded on the Shang oracle bones (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.) are concerned with discovering what gods or spirits were responsible for some past misfortune. For example, the king has a toothache, so his diviners try to find out what spirit is responsible for causing it. Once the culprit has been identified, then appropriate sacrifices can be made to mollify the spirit and remedy the situation. This practice can only be described as divining into the past. If the Yi came out of the same cultural matrix as the Shang turtle oracle, then it is very likely that its early use included similar divinations. As Candid points out, the present is always the focal point of divination -- but divinations can go backward into the past as well as forward into the future.

(3) Morality. One thing to keep in mind on the topic of morality is the matter of its relative nature. Morality at its simplest is about distinguishing the "good" from the "bad". Unfortunately, such judgments are never universally applicable. One must always begin with the question, "Good for whom?" A world free of disease might seem an incontestable good, but not if you happen to be a certain kind of virus or bacteria -- then your very life depends on having a disease-prone host. One being's "good" is nearly always another being's "bad". Morality is a very difficult subject to talk about in general terms.

My poor brain needs a rest. Perhaps some chocolate will help.

Lindsay