Inconsistency in Hexagram Shapes

[crystal_blue]

Is it just me, or are the actual Hexagram shapes somewhat inconsistent with what they represent? I mean, sometimes the shape itself is taken to be the meaning (Hex #27 ('Corners of the Mouth'), Hex #50 ('The Cauldron')); sometimes it's the interplay of broken and solid lines, with time progressing downwards (Hex #24 ('Returning'), Hex #44 ('Meeting')); sometimes it's a description of the Trigrams (Hex #36 ('Darkening of the Light'), Hex #48 ('The Well')).

I guess what I'm saying is: is there any way to infer the meaning of a Hexagram from just it's shape (and if not, why not!)?

[martin]

It's indeed possible to derive the meanings of the hexagrams from their shape, at least more or less.
Nigel Richmond wrote a book about it, "The Language of the Lines".
The book is out of print now but you can download it (and a later manuscript) here: http://biroco.com/yijing/richmond.htm

Another approach that leads to quite different results is that of Chris Lofting (who used to post on this site).
See http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html

[martin]

Btw, if you are new to this it's probably best to start with Richmond. Lofting's work, based on a theory that he calls 'IDM', is much more complicated and most people find him a difficult read.
Personally I also believe that Richmond makes a whole lot more sense, but that is just me. :)

[crystal_blue]

Btw, if you are new to this it's probably best to start with Richmond. Lofting's work, based on a theory that he calls 'IDM', is much more complicated and most people find him a difficult read.
Personally I also believe that Richmond makes a whole lot more sense, but that is just me. :)

:D

Thanks, martin. I've checked-out Lofting's work before, and I do indeed find it too complicated to understand.

[bradford]

Crystal Blue (BTW I have a daughter with that name)

All of these different dimensional aspects of hexagrams, like shape or symmetry,
seem to have been used by the authors only when they were convenient sources of
images. You won't find a single one that was used with perfect regularity or
mathematical consistency, although a lot of scholars have wasted a lot of time
trying to make the Yi follow hard and fast rules of construction to bring the text into
line with their "Image and Number" theories and assumptions. I would suggest we
do the same - use the dimensions when they are convenient and they make sense,
or use them to try to stimulate new ideas. But don't demand a perfect fit.

[crystal_blue]

All of these different dimensional aspects of hexagrams, like shape or symmetry,
seem to have been used by the authors only when they were convenient sources of
images. You won't find a single one that was used with perfect regularity or
mathematical consistency, although a lot of scholars have wasted a lot of time
trying to make the Yi follow hard and fast rules of construction to bring the text into
line with their "Image and Number" theories and assumptions. I would suggest we
do the same - use the dimensions when they are convenient and they make sense,
or use them to try to stimulate new ideas. But don't demand a perfect fit.

The conclusion being, the Hexagrams themselves are largely arbitrary - one may as well generate two numbers between one and sixty-four in order to select which parts of the Yi to refer to.

[dobro]

The conclusion being, the Hexagrams themselves are largely arbitrary - one may as well generate two numbers between one and sixty-four in order to select which parts of the Yi to refer to.

Rather, the meanings in the Yi were chosen/selected/inspired according to their utility, and not according to an intellectual system. Not arbitrary. Meaningful. But not systematic, no.

[bradford]

To my mind the most systematic, consistent and useful analysis of the hexagrams was done centuries after the Zhouyi was written - that's the breakdown into component trigrams found in the Da Xiang. Some of them took a long while for me to understand, and that had to be in Chinese, but now they all make perfect sense to me. That at least suggests that there may have been something more systematic long before. Other than that, I'll stick with the half-on, half-off consistency, which to me doesn't imply arbitrary or random.

[crystal_blue]

Rather, the meanings in the Yi were chosen/selected/inspired according to their utility, and not according to an intellectual system. Not arbitrary. Meaningful. But not systematic, no.

Yes, that sounds more accurate. I should stop jumping to conclusions.
- :duh:

To my mind the most systematic, consistent and useful analysis of the hexagrams was done centuries after the Zhouyi was written - that's the breakdown into component trigrams found in the Da Xiang. Some of them took a long while for me to understand, and that had to be in Chinese, but now they all make perfect sense to me. That at least suggests that there may have been something more systematic long before.

Except the Trigrams are rarely consistent, either - sometimes it's wind, sometimes it's wind; sometimes earth above hides, sometimes it allows permeation. And so on and so forth. Although, I'm beginning to get the impression that a Trigram is only fuzzily defined in and of itself, and meaning is largely granted through interactions between pairs of them.

[hilary]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/images/misc/progress.gifAlthough, I'm beginning to get the impression that a Trigram is only fuzzily defined in and of itself, and meaning is largely granted through interactions between pairs of them.
That's exactly the feeling I get, too, though there's some mileage in looking at all hexagrams with mountain above, etc, and looking for things their Images have in common. (Brad's book has an excellent section - whatasurprise - on the range of possible meanings for each trigram above and below.)