#37: Your Family Is Not Quite Correct [Archive]

petrosianii

March 16th, 2008, 05:00 AM

dobro

March 16th, 2008, 09:48 AM

Thank you for explaining what you meant by the top line of 37 being 'incorrect'.

martin

March 16th, 2008, 06:47 PM

Hmm, in my family, the one I was born into, it was surely not only the top line that was not quite correct. :D
Not much to complain about really, less and less as I become older, somehow the good things stay with me and the not so good stuff, I forget it. It was weird though. A hexagram 64 case?
But well, I hope my kids don't read this, because they might have something to say about the family _they_ were born into.
"Family?! Which family?" :rofl:

hilary

March 17th, 2008, 12:37 AM

dobro

March 17th, 2008, 02:34 AM

Dobro, why do you like the argue so much?

I don't enjoy arguing actually. But here's something for you to consider: when you read an idea on this site, there are different ways to respond to its content:

1 You can ask for clarification. (That's what I did in response to your idea about 37.6 being 'incorrect'.)

2 You can agree with it.

3 You can agree with it, and add to it.

4 You can disagree with some of it, and offer a slightly different idea for the bit you disagree with.

5 You can disagree with the whole idea, and offer a completely different idea in its place. (That's what I did with your idea that dysfunctionality was such a central idea in Hex 37.)

Perhaps you don't like it when somebody disagrees with your ideas, but that's life on the internet, right? You know, if you don't want somebody to disagree with something you think, then don't post it on the internet. lol

Furthermore, when you make an argument, it's good practice to back up your claims with some solid facts and research, rather than just spouting off opinions to be contrary.

Mmm, on this board, it's not common practice to back up your view with academic citations. Not only that, but I wasn't 'spouting off opinions to be contrary'. I was drawing on my own experience of two Asian cultures I know of to back up my idea that Asians tend to put a very positive value on family, and that they tend not to see family as dysfunctional. I've studied Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, and in that branch of Buddhism they talk a lot about 'mother sentient beings', the idea being that you should deal compassionately and harmlessly with every lifeform you meet in your life because at some point in the past, every sentient being in the universe has been your own mother in a previous lifetime. (This idea often doesn't go down very well with the western students in the class because westerners often have negative associations with their mothers. This puzzles and amazes some of the Tibetan teachers when they first encounter it. They don't get it. Everybody just l-o-v-e-s their mother, they think.) As for the example of the Philippinos I gave, that comes out of dozens and dozens of interviews I've conducted with Philippinos, and based on that, I know that Philippinos put a VERY high value on family - it's right up there next to God for them.

So, as you see, I wasn't just spouting off, I was basing what I said on personal experience. If anybody was spouting off, it was you, being defensive. You had no idea what I was basing my idea on, but you presumed to know.

On your point about the concept of dysfunctional family not existing in ancient civilizations...

No, I didn't say that family dysfunctionality was absent from ancient civilizations, I said that the concept of it was largely absent from Hex 37. I did point out, however, that deviation from the ideal family was imaged in 37.3. Learn to read, petrosianii.

"Confucius, living in a time of failed families, said that virtue derives from the [setting in order of proper family roles]..."

This is the only quote that has anything much to do with what we were talking about, and it's interesting, cuz it shows clearly that ancient China knew very well about dysfunctionality in families. (I wonder if their idea of dysfunctionality was the same as ours, though? I wonder if Confucius might have seen 'dysfunctionality' in children who were more independent and less 'filial' than the traditional standard?) And yet despite Confucius' observation, it is still true that Chinese culture, ancient and modern, puts a huge positive value on family, and if you don't take that into account when you use Hex 37, then I think you're not getting full value out of its image and what it's saying to you.

In your first post, you said:

One thing I noticed recently about the lines of #37 is that they are "almost" correct, but not quite. Replace one yan line with a yin and you have #63, Already Fording. This seems curious to me... Family is "not quite correct."

If you follow this line of thinking, then only one hexagram in the entire Yi is correct - 63 - and all of the others are 'not quite correct'. Is this what you think? Or does the 'not quite correct' idea only strike you in relation to 37?

And which line is "incorrect?": The top line - the line of authority. And who are the authorities in the family: Mum & Dad, of course!

Well, no, not really. In 37, the fifth line is the ruler. (Check Wilhelm/Baynes - look, I'm citing my sources!) That's why the king is imaged in line 5 rather than line 6. In fact, if mum is imaged anywhere in 37, it's in line 3, and in the main text. Dad doesn't seem to get a look in, unless you see him as the family 'king' in line 5.

In short, the I Ching confirms what teenagers all implicit know: that all families possess at least some degree of dysfunctionality.

I don't think Hex 37 paints a picture of a dysfunctional family, but I'll say again that line 37.3 clearly images 'something not correct' as one possible variation on family dynamics. But I do agree with you that all families (well, not all, but almost all) possess some degree of dysfunctionality. And it's not just the teenagers that perceive this, but adult children of dysfunctional families as well. Did you know that one of the highest incidences of depression is among people in their 20's? Apparently, one reason for this is cuz when you're a kid or a teen growing up in a dysfunctional family, you're too busy simply surviving, and you don't have time to deal with the psychological issues involved, but when you hit your twenties your system knows it's time to deal with unfinished business and wham! you get hit with depression (which is nature's way of letting you know there is something in you that needs to be addressed). And in my life, the dysfunctionality in my own family became more evident the older I got. The teen years were just a glimpse lol.

Whew! I was just beginning to worry that I'd never live up the the Ching's impossibly noble familial standards!

Well, you don't have to live up to it, because it isn't impossibly noble at all, it's just positive. And if your family is somewhere on the dysfunctional scale (hey, welcome to the club), then it ain't the end of the world, it's a backhand blessing - you'll be working harder on yourself than the complacent people who come from balanced, loving families (why do work on yourself if you feel you're just peachy and really okay already?).

Finally, Hex 37 isn't just about the genetic family, it's also about ANY inner group, ANY group that you can belong to as a participating member. This Clarity site is a bit of a family. And is it dysfunctional? Sure, it's as dysfunctional as its membership lol. Seems you're found another dysfunctional family. :lol:

Yours Functionally

dobro

lindsay

March 17th, 2008, 02:52 AM

If you consider Hex 63 to be the "perfect" hexagram, with its evenly alternate distribution of yang and yin lines, then Hex 37 does indeed have one "incorrect" line in the sixth place. This at least is the view of Wilhelm and others who look to the Song philosophers for structural analysis.

I don't think this necessarily implies that the Family - actually the hexagram is called "jiaren" meaning "family people" or "family members", which may not mean exactly "family" as a unit but more what we imply when we speak individually of "relatives" or "relations" - is a flawed institution. Quite the contrary, in China and other Asian cultures, the family is the foundation of society, the indispensible unit of human civilization. Practically speaking, I think very few traditional Asians would have viewed their extended family as dysfunctional, no matter how difficult or demanding or eccentric its individual members might be. This would be like us calling some institution we believe in - the business corporation or modern political party or board-of-directors model or democratically-elected local government or sports team - as inherently dysfunctional. Some specific examples may operate poorly, but this does not call the whole nature of the institution into question.

When you look at the texts associated with Hex 37 - texts which predate the "correctness/incorrectness" distinction by 1000 years or more - you notice that all are favorable except for Line 3 - which is itself a "correct" line in the Song scheme. In fact, the textual content of the Yi is often at odds with meanings derived from the structural organization of the hexagrams.

Where does this leave us? Some people will always favor a tidy, systematic, symbolic approach to the Yi over a less consistent textual interpretation. Others will find room for both. But in neither case is the Yi making judgements about abstract concepts. Strictly speaking, there are no abstract principles in Yi divination, only individual concrete applications. The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.

Lindsay

meng

March 17th, 2008, 04:47 AM

Interesting thread. Loved Hilary's comments. Line 6 as grandparent makes lots of sense.

Evidence of family corruption is also reflected in 18, through the mother and father's methods: being too soft and too hard, too lenient and too strict, unconditional vs conditional love.

When I moved into an apartment alone a few years ago, the next store apartment had a continuous stream of Taiwan people coming and going. I don't know how many lived in that two bedroom flat, but there were at least a dozen. They spanned all generations, and I think they were all related, some, such as college students, were what we would call distant relatives. But there seemed no distance between them that I could tell. I never heard an argument through the thin wall which separated us, not even a raised voice. Very different from any family I've ever known.

willowfox

March 17th, 2008, 06:42 AM

Line 6 as grandparents sounds very correct as the Chinese show great respect to their grandparents and when they eventually die their photos are put in a place of prominence in the household and are often prayed to for guidance. Don't forget ancestor worship and the special festivals that the Chinese have for the departed.

hilary

March 17th, 2008, 11:08 AM

On the subject of 37.6...

'With truth, hence making an impression. In the end, good fortune.'

... the awkward phrase 'making an impression' ('commanding respect' in W/B) is wei1, 威 . The character shows a woman and an axe, and is translated in the online etymological dictionary as
"dignity / majesty / authority / might / power / awe / awe-inspiring / the mother of one's husband" :)

sparhawk

March 17th, 2008, 02:52 PM

I don't think this necessarily implies that the Family - actually the hexagram is called "jiaren" meaning "family people" or "family members", which may not mean exactly "family" as a unit but more what we imply when we speak individually of "relatives" or "relations" - is a flawed institution. Quite the contrary, in China and other Asian cultures, the family is the foundation of society, the indispensible unit of human civilization. Practically speaking, I think very few traditional Asians would have viewed their extended family as dysfunctional, no matter how difficult or demanding or eccentric its individual members might be. This would be like us calling some institution we believe in - the business corporation or modern political party or board-of-directors model or democratically-elected local government or sports team - as inherently dysfunctional. Some specific examples may operate poorly, but this does not call the whole nature of the institution into question.

I like that and also agrees with what Dobro said before about Asian families, with whom I also agree. I also agree with the precept of "dysfunctional families" being a Western concept and a quite modern at that too. I suppose there was a need to put a name to what was perceived as less than "ideal" for a family interaction, whatever the measure of that "ideal" is.

The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.

One of the best descriptions of a logical approach to the Yi I've read in eleven words... :bows:

sparhawk

March 17th, 2008, 02:56 PM

the mother of one's husband" :)

That should make innumerable wives shudder with anxiety and contempt... :rofl:

martin

March 17th, 2008, 03:44 PM

"Dear friends, I asked the Yi if I should marry him and received 37.6>63. What do you think?"

"Forget it, this line says that you will end up with a jewish mother in law! :eek:"

dobro

March 17th, 2008, 07:20 PM

"Forget it, this line says that you will end up with a jewish mother in law! :eek:"

Yes, even if she's not Jewish to begin with, after a few years of axe-wielding, she becomes so.

It was one my mother's big regrets that she wasn't actually a Jewish momma. She tried on a Yiddish accent sometimes, and the occasional 'just so long as he loves his mother' line once in a while, but it was just all pining and yearning. If having her son circumcised could have done it, she'd have been a paid-in-full member of the club, of course. Which accounts, I suppose, for the fact that a part of me finds Jewish women rather attractive. A small part.

lindsay

March 17th, 2008, 07:42 PM

"Dear friends, I asked the Yi if I should marry him and received 37.6>63. What do you think?"

"Forget it, this line says that you will end up with a jewish mother in law! :eek:"

I think Martin's interpretation definitely proves at least one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel ended up in China. How else explain such a clear reference to Jewish mamas?

petrosianii

March 21st, 2008, 01:07 AM

Is the sixth line the 'authority' position? I'd think of that as line 5. Line 6 might be more the position for grandparents. The ideal expressed in hexagram 37 is a space where everyone finds their own place and can be themselves within that role. (I think.) Ron Masa tells an interesting story of a reading he used to supplement therapy with a woman who came from a thoroughly messed-up family, but who was inclined to idealise it. He was horrified when Yi came up with 37.5, thinking this would just support her delusion. Instead, it was the catalyst that brought her to realise that her father hadn't been anything like that. Anyway... while I don't see any 'incorrectness' in 37, it does contain the idea of incompletion and flux in its nuclear hexagram. And some historian please correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe that Chinese homes were for the extended family, with internal walls moved around to re-define the space as needed.

you're right, hilary, the fifth line is authority...my mistake. And the sixth is insight, wisdom, or revelation, more properly...
The point I was trying to make to dobro was that #37 is "incorrect' in a 'lofty' or 'exalted' (i.e., heavenly) place...in other words, 'dysfunction' in the family - even if it be slight - is 'in accordance with tao', the way it's supposed to be, the way fate would have it, the way the heaven's have decreed it...or whichever terminology you wish to use to express the idea.

petrosianii

March 21st, 2008, 01:25 AM

there are no abstract principles in Yi divination, only individual concrete applications. The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.

Lindsay

Oh really?

There are no abstract principles in the Yi? I beg to differ on that. The concept of the tao is itself abstract if, in fact, "the tao that can be named [some versions say 'conceptualized'] is not the true tao." I'm not sure I follow your line of thought there.

I would say that the yi asks us to reason primarily by intuition; and, if it help, by analogy, deduction, induction, observation, experience...and whatever else humans have always used to understand the world in which they live.

And it is true that there are dysfunctional corporations, organizations, institutions..

But I wasn't trying to argue that the every family is dysfunctional; I was merely stating the intuitive insight that we all already possess: namely, that every family possesses at least some dysfunction, and that this dysfunction is in the proper order of things. In other words, the "incorrectness" of #37, is, in light of the tao, "correct".

petrosianii

March 21st, 2008, 01:35 AM

I also agree with the precept of "dysfunctional families" being a Western concept and a quite modern at that too. I suppose there was a need to put a name to what was perceived as less than "ideal" for a family interaction, whatever the measure of that "ideal" is.

One of the best descriptions of a logical approach to the Yi I've read in eleven words... :bows:

On the first point. Just b/c a concept is "western" and/or "modern" does not mean:
(a) that it is wrong
(b) that "Eastern" cultures did not have a similar concept
(c) that the yi philosophers, therefore, did not intend it in their writing

This is just a plain non-sequitur. It doesn't follow, has no justification in actual academic research; and, if you think about, actually tacitly insults the yi philosophers by saying that they didn't have the conceptual vocabulary with which to speak about the most universal human experiences.

On the second point. If Lindsay's description of the yi was, in fact, "logical", then it also was deductive in nature; logic is not analogous reasoning; it is deductive reasoning, the very kind of reasoning Lindsay claims we're really not supposed to rely on when interpreting the Ching.

petrosianii

March 21st, 2008, 01:48 AM

I don't enjoy arguing actually....
dobro

...then proceeded into perhaps the single longest diatribe i've seen to present an argument of how you don't like arguing. hmm. You've just proven my point.

btw, I've watched your posts since I've been a member of this forum, and not once have I seen you just agree with someone else's ideas - or if you do, you then later pick some part of it apart.

As a wise old friend of mine used to say, and it took me a long time to fully understand what he meant:

"I ain't just listenin' at what you say, I'm watchin' what you do." :rant:

dobro

March 21st, 2008, 02:39 AM

...then proceeded into perhaps the single longest diatribe i've seen to present an argument of how you don't like arguing. hmm. You've just proven my point.

It wasn't a diatribe. Here's the American Heritage Dictionary's defintion:

"di·a·tribe: n. A bitter, abusive denunciation"

There was nothing bitter about my response to your post, there was nothing abusive about it, and it wasn't a denunciation - it was a critique. And I'll reiterate - I don't like arguing. But you seem to confuse arguing with the back and forth of online discussion and debate. So, you see, I didn't prove your point at all. No, I don't enjoy arguing, but I do enjoy picking apart a bad argument if I think the other person deserves it. You know, I spent a lot of time with that long post to you because I wanted to clarify stuff, but you've failed to mention ONE thing I said in it. You only mislabelled it as a diatribe. You know what I think? I think you're not really very interested in ideas, but are more interested in being argumentative and judgemental.

btw, I've watched your posts since I've been a member of this forum, and not once have I seen you just agree with someone else's ideas - or if you do, you then later pick some part of it apart.

You've read some of my posts perhaps, but if you haven't seen me agree with somebody once, then you haven't read many of my posts.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5416

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5413

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5383&page=3

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5327&page=2

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5394&page=2

These are currently the top five threads in this forum. If you take the trouble to read them, you'll find that I agree with somebody, to various degrees - sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes mildly - in each of them. (Okay, that last link was to this very thread we're in now, and I was agreeing to a joke, but it's still agreement :D.)
You obviously see me as a contrary sort of person, but if you look at the evidence, you'll see there's more to me than that.

And while we're on the subject of contrariness, I'd like to shine the spotlight on YOUR contrariness in this thread. If you read a couple of posts above you took issue with what Lindsay said (you could have asked Lindsay what Lindsay meant, but instead you took issue with it - that's contrary. Also, you took issue with it stupidly, because you quoted the Tao Te Ching to prove that abstract principles are built into the Yi. That's like quoting the Bible to prove that something in the Koran.) Then you took issue with what Sparkhawk said, not granting any validity to any of things he said. That's pretty contrary. I think what's happening is that you're projecting a bit here, seeing in me the very thing that you're guilty of, but not admitting.

I'll be interacting with you less in future. But I've enjoyed the way you've taken on other people in this thread. You've sort of generously spread yourself around. Good work.

meng

March 21st, 2008, 03:24 AM

I was pretty taken by Eric's initial observation of the "dysfunctional family". Unlike the neatly arranged and bundled digital world, the organic world is full of imperfections and contradictions. Life's a bitch. And that's how it's supposed to be. That's how it survives.

My (now very old) business mentor once told me "What appears on the outside as a tight-knit organization is really a group of individuals, loosely linked by a common passion."

LiSe's 37.3
"The family people scold with severity. There is regret and discipline. Auspicious. Women and children giggle-giggle. Ends in distress.

When people trust each other, hard words will be no problem. They can be said when necessary, and dealt with in an easy manner. Laughter holds up the heaviest loads, as expression of freedom and life. Respect is a matter of what functions with ease and health. Not too rigid from fear, but with wisdom and joy."

sparhawk

March 21st, 2008, 03:36 AM

This is just a plain non-sequitur. It doesn't follow, has no justification in actual academic research; and, if you think about, actually tacitly insults the yi philosophers by saying that they didn't have the conceptual vocabulary with which to speak about the most universal human experiences.

Did I say they didn't have a "conceptual vocabulary" for it? One only has to read Mencius and Confucius to find said vocabulary... What I meant to say, as apparently wasn't clear, is that our modern, western concept of "dysfunctional," as applied to "families" has no real parallel in the Eastern "functionality" of families, even in our present. The family dynamics are just plain different.

On the second point. If Lindsay's description of the yi was, in fact, "logical", then it also was deductive in nature; logic is not analogous reasoning; it is deductive reasoning, the very kind of reasoning Lindsay claims we're really not supposed to rely on when interpreting the Ching.Main Entry:
log·ic
Pronunciation:
\ˈlä-jik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
Date:
12th century
1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance, propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
Yes, I can find "analogous reasoning" within the realm of Logic... :D

fkegan

March 21st, 2008, 04:16 AM

This is a peculiar thread with folks combining vast detailed scholarship with a total lack of philosophical understanding. It is a remarkable lesson to me of how to butt one's head against the tree bark to not notice the whole tree or the larger forest around those interesting patterns in the bark (and now in your forehead).

The first, third, and fifth line places are odd numbered. When they have odd numbered or Yang lines in them they are called correct. When a Yin line is in an odd or Yang line place it is called incorrect or contrasting, which depending upon the meaning of the whole hexagram --quite independent of whether its odd-numbered places have odd or even mathematical values or Yang or Yin lines)--- can be described as bringing new energy, being out of place or whatever makes sense within the overall context.

The meanings of the hexagrams are given in a number of ways. The most technically detailed is by their location in the King Wen Sequence, which is not at all mathematical but rather philosophical based upon the sets of ten also known as the Pythagorean Tetraktys. Their meaning can also be seen in the line pattern itself, that is which places in the hexagram matrix have Yang lines and which remain background for the overall process.

Hexagram 37 is the seventh hexagram of the set of ten whose monad is hex 31 or the fundamental sexual attraction that is the bedrock foundation of families since what we call a family is originally a pair of us human mammals established as a socially certified sexual pair and the offspring resulting from their interaction.

The seventh hexagram of a set is the negative horizontal pole or x-axis extreme of this set about socially regulated and organized familial structure. This is in contrast to hexagram 38 which is the positive pole or other x-axis extreme--the two younger sisters caught in the house because of the rain fighting with each other since they are bored and the parents and elder siblings are otherwise engaged. 37-family is the static framework of family structure, in contrast to 38 which is the dynamics of children screaming or living family interaction.

Hexagram 37 has Yang lines in all but the 2nd and 4th places. Thus it represents overall process without specific focus upon the exact local structure or overall organization. Families are based upon their social and human relationships with the details of how they all fit together or get along left open for specific development by the folks involved.

Hexagram 37 is composed of the trigram of Wind over the trigram of Fire, so it is the wind (energized exhaust gases and smoke) that is generated by fire. In terms of its overall set, the societal relations built upon the private intimacy of husband and wife (why they have their own household with their own bedroom) producing and supporting resultant children, this is the hexagram of the results that follow from the energy involved. The family with its children and social relationships is what the fire of the bond between husband and wife has produced from the resources and assets it has and consumes in their daily life (that is why ideogram for the name of this hexagram has a picture of a pig under the roof--ancient Chinese sewage system--and a person--humans living a socially organized and civilized homestead.

Q.E.D.

Hexagram meaning is deep philosophy; however it is also clear, simple and quite insightful once you get beyond the technical details of the ancient Chinese and academic commentary and notice the actual symbolic structure. The sequence is not mathematical. The details of line value even or odd, thus correct or incorrect in an even or odd place do not determine anything, they follow.

It is a marvel that such a simple philosophical system manages to simultaneously fit every complexity of philosophical insight and deep sophistication. The reality of the Universe is accessible to all who bother to watch the sun and shadows and human interactions. The King Wen Sequence was 500 years old when the entire globe shared the universal understanding of basic philosophical principles that became the metaphysics of Pythagoras which continues to inspire although rejected by the "modern" or academic faith-based detail obsessed myopics.

Step back, smell the roses, notice the shadows of the straight trees and live in the timeless world beyond the cloister...

Dr. Frank R. Kegan
www.stars-n-dice.com :bows:

emc2cme

March 21st, 2008, 05:54 AM

Sometimes I wonder if some people wouldn't be better off just affixing a pair of stag antlers, and bashing it out in a field somewhere...

Nancy

hilary

March 21st, 2008, 10:36 AM

sparhawk

March 21st, 2008, 02:14 PM

Sometimes I wonder if some people wouldn't be better off just affixing a pair of stag antlers, and bashing it out in a field somewhere...

Yes, I tell you, that Dobro character is something else... :D

sparhawk

March 21st, 2008, 02:23 PM

The seventh hexagram of a set is the negative horizontal pole or x-axis extreme of this set about socially regulated and organized familial structure. This is in contrast to hexagram 38 which is the positive pole or other x-axis extreme--the two younger sisters caught in the house because of the rain fighting with each other since they are bored and the parents and elder siblings are otherwise engaged. 37-family is the static framework of family structure, in contrast to 38 which is the dynamics of children screaming or living family interaction.

See, Eric? The dysfunction happens in 38... :D

Frank, don't mind my --intendedly so-- funny side... I'm still trying to figure out why this thread jumped tracks. Besides, I'm sure, if Dobro is being watched, I'm not escaping the scrutiny... (I hope... What does Dobro has that I don't?? Feeling insecure now... :rofl:)

sparhawk

March 21st, 2008, 03:44 PM

Welcome to the field. ;)

Somehow I'd missed your work on the sequence, Frank. I'm definitely going to study it - having noticed assorted patterns in 'decades' myself. Hm - have you heard of Scott Davies' work on this? And looked at Danny van den Berghe's 'landscape' in the sequence?

Hi Hilary,

You asked me the same question before in the other thread on 23. Yes, I have, of course, however, I don't believe they have significantly influenced my views or ideas. Danny was a member of Hex-8 and his sequences/landscapes were discussed then, if I'm not mistaken (the archives are there, anyway). Even Richard S. Cook was a member and, if I remember correctly, participated in those discussions. Frank Kegan, writing here now, has been writing and publishing about the Yi for, at least, three decades. As I commented before in your blog, or implied, we are "re-discovering" a lot, by sheer force of careful observation and reasoning (analogous and otherwise... :D). The only great difference, between the Han and Song dynasties and our time, is the distribution and accessibility of information. Thinking of it, that applies even between the early 70's and now... :D

Mind you, this comment is not intended to take credit away from anybody, on the contrary; it is a testament to the fact that serious study and dedication to the Yi, does and will bear fruits, even in a near information vacuum. Finding those fruits on your own, having those epiphanies, are your proud property, indeed.

Frank, here is the link to Scott Davis. (http://www.miyazaki-mic.ac.jp/faculty/sdavis/)

dobro

March 21st, 2008, 07:11 PM

Sometimes I wonder if some people wouldn't be better off just affixing a pair of stag antlers, and bashing it out in a field somewhere...

Nancy

Yeah, right lol. But setting aside for the moment what sounds like sarcasm or you taking the moral high ground or irritating sexism, I'd like to look at what you said for a minute. In this thread, there's been a concern with what's true, and there's also been a clash of egos, for sure. So, do you see a clash of egos as always on the animal level (in the case of males, testosterone-driven and concerned with dominance; in the case of females, you tell me...?) I mean, if the ego gets involved, if a debate degenerates into a contest, is it *always* animalistic? Isn't it sometimes purely psychological? I'm not suggesting, I'm asking. I want to know. And you seem to see a pattern.

trojan

March 21st, 2008, 08:29 PM

(I thought she was referring to petrosiani )

fkegan

March 21st, 2008, 08:35 PM

Perhaps the calendar change that changed me from junior member to member combined with entry of Pluto fully into the 1 Capricorn 01 is giving me more visibility. Actually, I have published my perspective in 5 books in the 1980's and worked out the King Wen Sequence from Pythagorean tetraktys after reading The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. I even went over it briefly in a post on this site back in my junior member days.

I also was on Hex 8 back in the day, and I have both the landscape pdf and Scott Davis open in my browser from the links given here, thank you. I will read them in due course.

Hillary-- my tetraktys page just went online this week, I got absorbed in the threads here before I got around to announcing it in I Ching News. Also new is the Stars-n-Dice Perspective (or process) page that explains what my work is all about and a page about PTSD politics using Socrates' mental problems from the defeat at the Battle of Delium to illustrate how politics gets skewed by those (like Plato) whose mentors (like Socrates) filled their heads with their nightmares which were taken on faith to be reality.

The sets of hexagrams by 8 were developed to make it easier to remember the names and structures. The actual change in Sequence from the older binary number counting or circle of those binary numbers marking out a sine-wave or T'ai Chi patterns were based in the primitive binary math and sine wave physics we in the West use today.

The revised King Wen Sequence, which dear ol' Legge noted was occult in origin is part of the new understanding of the integrated Cosmos which came to global awareness in the 6th century BCE with Lao Tzu, Pythagoras, etc. I do not believe folks will be finding dice cubes in Chinese tombs of the period, it is not a concrete transmission but a 100th monkey--or the time is ripe for everyone to make their own realization of the same insight.
There was one of those in the late 60's era when the insights of The Historical Jesus (not quite the same as in the Gospels) were re-experienced by folks in their own ways all over the globe.

I learned the about the tetraktys from applying it to the King Wen Sequence. I didn't know much of anything from what fragments persist in the Sourcebook. From that matrix it is truly everything the ancients said it was and more. The Yi unfolds as its majesty as the simple line patterns and the four perspectives work together.

Nancy-
Stags running against each other's antlers is actually a highly sophisticated and humane way to apportion territory according to strength, health, and ability to make the best use of that resource for the greater good of the species (something rare amongst humans, especially since the Guns, germs, steel and frigates made global conquest so much more attractive). Thus to see such lofty natural process on this thread is quite a compliment.

Frank

emc2cme

March 21st, 2008, 08:44 PM

Touche, Hilary. THAT'S the kind of response I understand and respect. But sometimes I wonder just whose field this is...

Hi, Luis. I think this thread degenerated from neutral comments to territorial one-upmanship. One can see it slipping from philosophical to ego-driven, from message to message. You mentioned Dobro's name, not me. He wasn't the only one...And, is the conversation jumping track because I protest the manner in which the conversation was being conducted by supposed scholars? I suggest that it jumped track the minute it went from philosophical to personal. In all the threads I've studied (and I'll have to admit I'm still in the process of reading the archives), you've been nothing but informative, scholarly, funny and to-the-point. I've seen you support a lot of people, but never undermine or attack them.

Dobro. Yes, you're right. There's a bit of sarcasm and implied criticism in the "stags in the field" message. I'm fifty-four years old--no spring chicken--and have been involved in a lot of political/philosophical/educational endeavors in my time. There is a way that men fight for dominance in these (and other) fields that I find particularly distressing, time-consuming and boring. It sounds sexist, and may be, but I see women fighting in other ways, and this ego-bashing seems to be a particularly "male" endeavor. It's like they don't go right for the jugular--they have to play at fighting so that other people will have time to stop them before it gets too nasty. Or maybe it's like they're picking apart every single nuance of contention and savoring the delicacy of their response. It implies that other people are watching (which we are) and caring (which I, at least, mostly am not).

Now, Dobro, you ask if I think that this is animal behavior. I think most of our behavior is either hormonal or primal, and we're just beginning to understand (in the past few million years or so) what it is to be human (which, btw, may just be totally mutant behavior). I don't think that it's a case of animal/spiritual being bad/good. To be truthful, I think it's appalling that the animal or material ("mater" or "mother") is considered the opposite of the spiritual, as if the material were bad or as if we could somehow "outgrow" being animal/human and become a totally spiritual being. I just think that we should be aware of our behavior, and decide whether or not it is serving a function in this particular time or place. Preening, baiting, territoriality and other "animal" (aka "human") behaviors may function for some of us, some of the time. But there are other behaviors that might serve better. This particular thread, started by Eric and others, regards dysfunctional families. If we could do one thing that would help us sort out our experiences of being from dysfunctional families, or to help us make our own families "functional" (or beyond that, joyful, loving, caring, nurturing, strong, powerful, etc.), then this thread will have served its purpose. Otherwise, it's just nattering.

emc2cme

March 21st, 2008, 08:57 PM

And Frank. I understand about the stag performance, and agree that it's more
"humane" than just bashing each others' brains out. I have a son who has gone through his teen years, a daughter who drew a bevy of boys, and taught adolescents for about thirty years. But I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss how a particular hexagram relates to dysfunctional families and to learn from it, not to reenact the same old dysfunctional behavior of one-upmanship.

Hilary has gone to a great deal of time and trouble (not that she needs or wants my defense of her site) to create a "field" where the Yi can be honored, loved and learned from. I'm just not sure that engaging in territorial behavior shows honor or respect for Hilary or the Yi.

What began as an observation has now turned into the kind of thing to which I objected in the first place. I'm beginning to defend myself and I don't want to waste bandwidth doing that. So with a bow to the scholar in all of you, I'll just say "good afternoon". I'm going to take my daughter and granddaughter to the park so we can enjoy this beautiful afternoon.

hilary

March 21st, 2008, 09:22 PM

Hope you enjoyed the park. :) My brother and I had a very scenic train ride home between bright sun and spectacular storm clouds, with a couple of rainbows.

One thing I've noticed over a few years of this forum: different people have different tolerance levels/ thresholds for conflict, so one person's interesting debate is another person's ferocious attack. These differences add (*cough*) interest to encounters online and off. (BTW, would you agree the male of the species tends to have a higher threshold?) Anyway, it's a nice, big, spacious field.

And now I should think I've comprehensively derailed the thread. Sorry about that.

dobro

March 21st, 2008, 10:46 PM

Hilary has gone to a great deal of time and trouble (not that she needs or wants my defense of her site) to create a "field" where the Yi can be honored, loved and learned from. I'm just not sure that engaging in territorial behavior shows honor or respect for Hilary or the Yi.

From where I'm sitting this comment is completely non-territorial or testosterone-driven, coming from both the dry, intellectual part of me and also a more balanced concern for the what's true -

Thanks for elaborating on your idea of the animal-based behaviors in us all. I found it unusual though that you highlighted the negative aspect of the male of the species and didn't describe the female variant, which is what I was really hoping you'd supply. (What? Girls' egos don't contend?) But as for honoring and learning from the Yi, that's exactly why I engaged with petrosianii in the first place - you see, I find his ideas pretty suspect and not true to the Yi, and I wanted to point this out, both for his sake and others' - I thought I did this pretty politely, without any direct attacks on petrosianii. Not only that, but I also thought that petrosianii's internet style leaves a lot to be desired - I raised a lot of what I thought were valid points, and he chose not to answer one of them (unlike yourself - I mean, you either care about this stuff or care about politeness enough to have responded to my post to you). One of the reasons I challenged him on stuff he'd said was to find out if he knew what he was talking about, and the other reason was to see if maybe I could learn something more about the Yi. The conclusion I've drawn is that petrosianii cares more about drama than about the Yi or clear thinking or playing nicely with others. So, if you see my behavior as territorial, I'd be interested in you helping me to see it as well, cuz I thought that for the most part, the differences of opinion in this thread were expressed in a pretty civilized way, and in a way completely acceptable to this site. In other words, show me how differences of opinion can be expressed in a better way. Show me how women do it.

fkegan

March 21st, 2008, 10:51 PM

Nancy--
The thread started by Eric jumped from hex 37 --The Family in Wilhelm, Homing in Flux Tome, Family Member in Gia-Fu Feng's Taoist translation to the notion of dysfunctional families based upon the English word "incorrect" used to describe the yang line in the top place which as an even 6th place is incorrect or not congruent between line value and line place.

There was a bit of a challenge in the original thread,"Your family is not quite correct" and folks responded in their posts to both the implications of hexagram 37, the entire decad from hexagram 31, and the modern notion of dysfunctional family. The spat that so disturbed you was an excellent expression in context of hexagram 38--the other pole of hexagram 37 and your outburst was a good attempt to be the eldest daughter whose absence is noted in Wilhelm. Even down to the feminist-teacher rant about keeping to the text and not talking with your neighbor.

Personally, having turned 60 and still very much feeling my youngest son origins, I just didn't much notice the dust up though I did notice the attempts to claim "the field" and clear the sibling rivalry by brute authority. Male ego and female ego express themselves differently but with the same deviation from proper conduct. Boys may scrap and little girls speak out their barbs, but only teachers can truly twist and distort all their students' souls to fit into their strangely inappropriate desks.

We each have our unique perspective and personal realities which show themselves in our posts. Judging one another has its own karma (judging begets judging)

The thread is weaving its way into the tapestry of I Ching remarks both by what is objectively said and what is subjectively demonstrated. The difficulties of the thread arose organically from the limitations in the original premise. They will work themselves out in the continuing conversation.

Returning to Eric's original point, if hexagram 37 were correct in its line structure it would be hexagram 63 a fundamental logical contradiction. Hexagram 37 is thus not hex 63 After Completion or The Morning After because it brings in the Yang energy in the line at the top. Wilhelm notes the rulers of the hexagram are the Yang line in the fifth and Yin line in the 2nd as they represent the fundamental marriage partners that create the family.

That yang line in the 6th place would not be the grandfather, since 37 is about the Family as the outgrowth of the marriage relationship not the social structure or genealogy of all the folks in the family household. The yang line in the first place would not be a baby son, it is about the origin of the family as an independent unit built upon the privacy of the marriage bed.

The yang line in the 6th place represents a focus upon the transition toward the Next as the family is judged by its future results in terms the success of the children when they grow up and form their own families (basic society elder perspective, which is also Darwinian Natural Selection or philosophical Karma or Justice).

The hexagram, despite having a yang line in the 6th, structurally incorrect in detail, the notion of dysfunctional family doesn't appear. Whatever the inner dynamics within the walls of the home, it is only the results in the future development that is part of the notion of the family. Like smoke rising from fire, carrying the essence of the fire in the smell of its smoke-- it is not the burning passions of the fire but the heavenly destination of the smoke of the smoke that expresses its meaning in an ancient Chinese perspective of sacred burnt offerings.

The more I focus upon the lines of the hexagrams, the more I am awed and delighted by the wisdom packed into such simple elegant symbolism.

Frank

hilary

March 21st, 2008, 11:03 PM

Women, Dobro, are often more interested in grazing ;) . (My husband calls this intellectual sloppiness and fuzzy thinking. And oddly enough, he's also been known to interpret my responses as school-teacher-ish, so maybe - speculating wildly here - that perception of Frank's also has to do with a m/f difference?)

Frank, I'm sure the fire of 37 is in the hearth. The woman cooks at it, and I imagine the ancestors also have their place round the pot. At the 6th line, maybe...? It's a place for fu, a prerequisite for good offerings.

BTW - I thought that for the most part, the differences of opinion in this thread were expressed in a pretty civilized way, and in a way completely acceptable to this site.
- me, too.

sparhawk

March 22nd, 2008, 12:53 AM

Hi, Luis. I think this thread degenerated from neutral comments to territorial one-upmanship. One can see it slipping from philosophical to ego-driven, from message to message. You mentioned Dobro's name, not me. He wasn't the only one...And, is the conversation jumping track because I protest the manner in which the conversation was being conducted by supposed scholars? I suggest that it jumped track the minute it went from philosophical to personal. In all the threads I've studied (and I'll have to admit I'm still in the process of reading the archives), you've been nothing but informative, scholarly, funny and to-the-point. I've seen you support a lot of people, but never undermine or attack them.

Thank you Nancy. :) Mentioning Dobro was meant as a joke for him... He knows that... :D

emc2cme

March 22nd, 2008, 03:39 AM

Okay, I had most of this answered and accidentally sent it out to cyberspace, so I'm not going to go into as much detail as I normally would (and did). But for now:

First of all, thanks, Hilary. I did have a great time in the park with my daughter and granddaughter, and am glad you had a good timeon the train with your brother. The storm, sun and rainbow experience sounds like a metaphor for this discussion right now, I'm thinking.

Dobro. I see that you're not unfamiliar with sarcasm, either. I couldn't begin to tell you how to respond, except to say that over the years, I've learned that both "masculine" and "feminine" strategies have their uses. I don't see that Eric was being deliberately obtuse or evil in his comments. I think he saw a way to shore up the original author of the #37 post with some personal comments on his own experience. If we're now going to discount experience as being of no importance, then I'm more than happy to drop out. But as far as I'm concerned, it's the scholarly as well as the personal conversation that teaches me so much about the Yi.

Frank. First, I'd like to say that you are truly astounding in your ignorance about me--you have no idea what kind of teacher I am, or how hard I've worked over the last thirty years to reform education in my state. As a matter of fact, the last time I was hired to teach, I was asked what I'd change about the district, and I said everything, I'd tear it down and start all over again--which I then proceeded to do (which included my being one of the first to be granted a co-partnership of a charter school, and my current involvement with our state's virtual schools program). So you can keep your snarky comments about teachers to yourself. Second, I'd like to thank you for illuminating us on Hexagram 37. You've given us a lot to think about.

And Luis. I know why you made your comment;-) You're always gently poking fun, which is a good reminder to keep us on the light side...

dobro

March 22nd, 2008, 06:13 AM

Dobro. I see that you're not unfamiliar with sarcasm, either.

You see nothing of the kind. I know how to be sarcastic, but I put nothing in that last post of mine to you that was intended as sarcasm. You're seeing something that isn't there.

I couldn't begin to tell you how to respond, except to say that over the years, I've learned that both "masculine" and "feminine" strategies have their uses.

I didn't ask you for help in how I can respond; I asked you to describe the way in which women differ with each other that might be different than the 'locking antlers' method you were denigrating earlier on. I suppose you either don't want to, or can't, do that?

I don't see that Eric was being deliberately obtuse or evil in his comments.

Neither do I.

fkegan

March 22nd, 2008, 06:35 AM

Hexagram 37 is about the family as the relationship of smoke to fire that is what is produced and sent heavenward from the combustion--a rather abstract image but when put back into the concrete context of an ancient Chinese family quite insightful.

In line 2, the yin ruler of the hexagram is instructed to disappear wherever to prepare food for human and religious use under the husband's instruction. Not quite a recognition of the importance of the hearth to the family. The smoke and fire of the hexagram is not a cooking hearth--consider the Ting in hexagram 50--no fire or food preparation there, that is done out of sight and then placed in the Ting for ceremonial display (not really a cauldron, but Wilhelm chose the German to describe the shape not the purpose).

The smoke and fire in hex 37 I would suggest have to do with the relationship of how wood gets consumed by fire to produce smoke that ascends upward into the next level--that is what the inner process of 37 is about which is then put back into the family metaphor for the trigram image and each line. The theme of each line is about regulating the process to produce the best final result after all is played out through the decades.

Nancy,
You and I have different opinions about education reform and about how much is changed if the students are not required to sit in class while given the same academic training as in the old millennium just past. That is different from my transgressing your unstated boundaries about your special achievements. Unfortunately, a reaction I remember from decades of education professionals when challenged about their illogical statements.

My remarks were based upon how you relate to others in your posts and how you have one set of standards for yourself and a totally different one for others.
It is more your expectations and lack of open listening that I was referring to than anything else.
I was trained as a teacher and recruited into a remarkably strange public school system, though my daughter attended the hipper virtual charter school. Outside my training I read up on education reform and was astounded at the ignorance of that movement. I also study history on a multi-millennial time frame, and the biggest problem in education now is that it is still based on the medieval Scholastic notion of the "academic" and the education reform notions highlighted in Huxley's Brave New World.

I suggest it will be more productive for you to reflect on what in you was so piqued by my aside rather than assume (with equally astounding ignorance about me) that the important issues in education reform from the '70's aren't just as obsolete today as everything else academic.

To return that education reform riff back to hexagram 37-- it is the results of the teachers' work seen in the students' adult life that matters. That is what relates to the smoke over fire of The family process.

Many of the worst problems of young adults today (the next generation from whose success and problems we judge the smoke from fire of their education) can be traced directly to the blind arrogance of the education reformers of the whole 20th century and particularly those in the last 30 years who were changing the deck chairs on the Titanic without caring about steaming full speed ahead into the ice fields or even knowing they were in them.:bows:

There is a special process to any open discussion in knowledgeable community which relates more to the hexagram 58 process than the more specialized and focused process of building a family from a marriage that is judged by the success of its children. What may seem dysfunctional to those glued to the speck in everyone else's eyes and avoiding the stick in their own also gives us all a lot to think about.

We can look for what we condemn in others or we can learn from our experience together and find examples to correct what needs correction in ourselves.

Peace and Power,
Dr. Frank R. Kegan

dobro

March 22nd, 2008, 06:52 AM

This is a pretty interesting thread. It started out talking about the dysfunctional family as a possible theme of Hex 37, and if you take our little online group as a family of sorts, this thread has demonstrated bits of dysfunctionality from time to time. But the humor and balance and restraint that I've seen in it has countered that and kept it civilized. I wish my own family had been more like this thread.

emc2cme

March 22nd, 2008, 10:08 AM

I apologize in advance for the format I'm using to answer Dobro's and Frank's comments, but I'm not yet accustomed to the various options here. I want to answer in as plain a way as I know how, and it's going to be difficult. Previous comments are written as is, while current responses are written within asterisks:

Quote:
Originally Posted by emc2cme
Dobro. I see that you're not unfamiliar with sarcasm, either.

You see nothing of the kind. I know how to be sarcastic, but I put nothing in that last post of mine to you that was intended as sarcasm. You're seeing something that isn't there.

**I wrote that because you said, "Thanks for elaborating on your idea of the animal-based behaviors in us all. I found it unusual though that you highlighted the negative aspect of the male of the species and didn't describe the female variant, which is what I was really hoping you'd supply. (What? Girls' egos don't contend?)" For some strange reason, I didn't really "feel" the thank you part of this response. To me it suggested (and still does) sarcasm. I apologize if that's not what you intended, since I'm not a mind-reader. You also say that you find it unusual that I highlighted the negative aspect of the male of the species. Women have their ways, as well. And I'm not suggesting that they're not interchangeable. Women can be boringly pedantic, and men can be bitchy. I said that because the remarked upon behavior was between two males of the species--you and Eric. And now another male has thrown his ego into the ring, although why, I'm not sure.**

Quote:
Originally Posted by emc2cme
I couldn't begin to tell you how to respond, except to say that over the years, I've learned that both "masculine" and "feminine" strategies have their uses.

I didn't ask you for help in how I can respond; I asked you to describe the way in which women differ with each other that might be different than the 'locking antlers' method you were denigrating earlier on. I suppose you either don't want to, or can't, do that?

**You said, "So, if you see my behavior as territorial, I'd be interested in you helping me to see it as well, cuz I thought that for the most part, the differences of opinion in this thread were expressed in a pretty civilized way, and in a way completely acceptable to this site. In other words, show me how differences of opinion can be expressed in a better way. Show me how women do it." To me, this is a pretty clear way of asking how you think a woman would respond ("show me how differences of opinion can be expressed in a better way. Show me how women do it.") . And in as equally a clear way, I thought I said that men and women, while having strategies equally effective or repugnant, aren't restricted to gender roles. In fact, that we should be pretty much beyond gender roles, since while they may be effective in instinctive or animal behavior, they seem to have developed a quasi-mutant response in people. In other words, dominance-seeking behavior served to cull out the weaker males or females; in particular, with the males, it also served to aid in the selection of the alpha male, which in turn, enhanced the breeding pool. I see nothing about dominance behavior which would enhance the breeding pool of an online forum, or enhance anything at all, for that matter.**

Quote:
Originally Posted by emc2cme
I don't see that Eric was being deliberately obtuse or evil in his comments.

Neither do I.

**You originally said, "...The conclusion I've drawn is that petrosianii cares more about drama than about the Yi or clear thinking or playing nicely with others...", which pretty much correlates with being obtuse. Perhaps you've drawn this conclusion from more than one encounter on the forum, but I don't see much in his original comments that would indicate that he is alone in caring more about drama than about the Yi, or clear thinking or playing nicely with others. Also, you yourself said that "there's also been a clash of egos, for sure." That is what the original comment was about.**

emc2cme

March 22nd, 2008, 10:09 AM

Same format, with my replies in **.

fkegan
Member Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Nancy,

You and I have different opinions about education reform and about how much is changed if the students are not required to sit in class while given the same academic training as in the old millennium just past. That is different from my transgressing your unstated boundaries about your special achievements. Unfortunately, a reaction I remember from decades of education professionals when challenged about their illogical statements.

**I'm not sure what you're talking about, exactly. Would you please clarify what you think I mean about educational reform and how you would agree or disagree with it? Until then, I don't think we have much of a basis for conversation. And I'm not sure what you mean about my "special" achievements". I've lived a life, I've done my job, I've learned some things about doing my job that would make life better for a lot of students. Is there anything "special" about that?**

My remarks were based upon how you relate to others in your posts and how you have one set of standards for yourself and a totally different one for others.

**On how I relate to others, or how I relate to you? As far as I'm concerned, my original comment referred to the nattering back and forth between Eric and Dobro. I'm not sure how you got involved in this at all, or why it concerns you.**

It is more your expectations and lack of open listening that I was referring to than anything else.

**My expectation for this forum is that we're here to learn more about the I Ching, and not to indulge in ego-gratification. And I think that my open listening was what started this in the first place--I just didn't happen to like what I was hearing and commented on it. Do you have a problem with that?**

I was trained as a teacher and recruited into a remarkably strange public school system, though my daughter attended the hipper virtual charter school.

**I happen to think that most public school systems are strange, as well as greedy and ruinous. I taught in the Kansas City, Missouri school district during one of the biggest, most expensive and fraudulent desegregation lawsuit periods in American history. As for a virtual charter school, that's a new one for me--the virtual schools in our state are based on computer instruction, where the student takes classes online. The charter schools, while having more leeway and flexibility in many areas, are oftentimes just as bad as the public schools, but they are run for-profit, have very little experience compared to public schools, and have most of the problems as public schools, in addition to having to reinvent the wheel.**

Outside my training I read up on education reform and was astounded at the ignorance of that movement.

**I wouldn't disagree with you there.**

I also study history on a multi-millennial time frame, and the biggest problem in education now is that it is still based on the medieval Scholastic notion of the "academic" and the education reform notions highlighted in Huxley's Brave New World.

**What would you have education based on? I hesitate to tell you what I consider the biggest problems in education are, since I'm fairly certain that you'll pick them apart, but just for the record: I happen to believe four basic things about education should be changed, all of which I learned from my own personal stint in school, thirty years as a teacher, and the experience of my children: 1) the system as we know it was designed primarily to funnel children into their "appropriate" places in society as employees and consumers, and not to really educate the child at all, 2) that children are much more intelligent than we give them credit for, and given the proper framework, could learn twice as much in half the time, and probably, without teachers as we know them at all, 3) that places of education should serve two functions: a) as adults, we show students what society expects of a well-educated person and b) that students have a great deal of creativity--new blood, so to speak--to bring to the table, and help create an on-going idea or norm for what "well-educated" means, and 4) some very simple changes would provide an automatic scholarship for each child to pursue the career of his/her choice upon completion of secondary studies. In addition, at present, everyone involved in education benefits from it except for the students. The parents get a built-in babysitter so that they can pursue their careers or whatever it is they do. The
"educators" get paid for whatever it is they do. The children are the ones who suffer from our disaster of an educational system, and spend the most important and formative years of their lives in a virtual prison..**

I suggest it will be more productive for you to reflect on what in you was so piqued by my aside rather than assume (with equally astounding ignorance about me) that the important issues in education reform from the '70's aren't just as obsolete today as everything else academic.

**I'm not sure what you mean when you say that something in me was piqued by an aside of yours (are you a mind-reader now as well?)--maybe you know which aside, or which part of something inside of me it is that you are referring to, but I don't. Regarding any personal suggestion that you have about my productivity, I'm inclined to say thanks, but no thanks. Having seen your web site, and scrutinized your increasingly pompous and spiralling up into the stratosphere remarks, I have little faith in your ability to even think what's best for yourself, let alone other people, since you spend so much time propping up your persona as Xyz.D and I Ching guru. Of course, that's just MHO.**

...Many of the worst problems of young adults today (the next generation from whose success and problems we judge the smoke from fire of their education) can be traced directly to the blind arrogance of the education reformers of the whole 20th century and particularly those in the last 30 years who were changing the deck chairs on the Titanic without caring about steaming full speed ahead into the ice fields or even knowing they were in them...

**Ah, now you've found a particularly juicy bone to chew on--the fact that I'm an educational reformer, so I must be like all the other educational reformers for whom you have so much disdain. Now THAT'S an example of the wisdom that I feel I can do without, thank you very much.**

**Anything else that either of you'd like to talk about, I'd be happy to discuss, though I'm fairly certain that neither of you will want to continue this in private without others to impress by your wit and wisdom. I think that we've about reached the gutter and don't need to elaborate on our personal differences here anymore. My email address is [Hilary's edit: click on Nancy's username above this post to send her a pm]. My deepest apologies to any forum members for having contributed to the unpleasantness in this thread.**

hilary

March 22nd, 2008, 11:23 AM

Two technical notes for you, Nancy:
1. If you highlight text in your reply and click the button shaped like a speech bubble above the posting box, that text will be formatted as a quotation.
2. If you leave your email address in plain sight online, you will get 500+ spam messages daily. Believe me - I've done it, I get them. However, this forum comes with safe ways to make private contacts: private messaging (you can edit your profile to ensure you get email notification of new messages) and also emailing (you would need to turn this back on). Click on anyone's name above their posts to access these options.

And a non-technical note: while in theory, the personal stuff is meant to be dealt with in Open Space, from time to time people take time out within a thread and say things they feel need saying. It happens... and generally any clashes blow over this way before I have time to start being officious about them. Same here, no doubt. However, if anyone wants to keep discussing education reform, you could always start a thread for it over there.

Frank -
In line 2, the yin ruler of the hexagram is instructed to disappear wherever to prepare food for human and religious use under the husband's instruction.
Beware confusing what the text says with what commentators would have liked it to have said. The line says something as simple as:
'No direction to pursue,
Stay put in the centre and cook.
Constancy, good fortune.'
Nothing about disappearing: staying in the centre, highly visible. Nothing about the husband's instructions, and come to that, nothing about a wife.

About the ding and cooking - I know it's said that these were ceremonial vessels used only to present food, not to prepare it. However, if you look at the shape of the things, it's fairly clear they were designed to cook things in. The Tuanzhuan specifically says the hexagram is about cooking, and the 'consolidation' mentioned in the Daxiang is also an effect of cooking. For me it's definitely a space for transformation.

Hexagrams - big places.

lindsay

March 22nd, 2008, 12:22 PM

Nancy -

Wow! What a beautifully-written rebuttal! I enjoyed every word. I hope you stick around and share more of your ideas. If you can express yourself half so well outside the heat of battle (which gets tiresome quickly and rarely lasts long in this forum), then we are all in for a treat. Nice job!

Lindsay

meng

March 22nd, 2008, 01:59 PM

This is the most fun I've had reading a thread in a long time. It's good to see/hear/read fresh blood, especially with such a healthy pulse.

petrosianii

March 22nd, 2008, 05:02 PM

dobro

March 22nd, 2008, 05:08 PM

Nancy, thanks for explaining your feelings and thoughts, cuz now I understand where you're coming from better. I was hoping you'd respond this way - it's so frustrating when the communication goes completely awry, and most people don't take the time to sort it out. Thanks. Stick around - this is a really good group to be part of, dysfunctionality and all.

**I wrote that because you said, "Thanks for elaborating on your idea of the animal-based behaviors in us all. I found it unusual though that you highlighted the negative aspect of the male of the species and didn't describe the female variant, which is what I was really hoping you'd supply. (What? Girls' egos don't contend?)" For some strange reason, I didn't really "feel" the thank you part of this response. To me it suggested (and still does) sarcasm. I apologize if that's not what you intended, since I'm not a mind-reader. You also say that you find it unusual that I highlighted the negative aspect of the male of the species. Women have their ways, as well. And I'm not suggesting that they're not interchangeable. Women can be boringly pedantic, and men can be bitchy. I said that because the remarked upon behavior was between two males of the species--you and Eric.

Well, okay, now I understand what you were saying. I challenged Eric's initial idea because I thought it was flawed, simple as that. I followed it up because I thought his responses contained sloppy thinking that deserved more challenge. I don't think it was territorial or ego-bashing, I think it was about maintaining standards of good thinking, but if it *was* nothing more than head-butting, I'd like to see that cuz it's interesting to me, and that's why I was pursuing it with you.

**You said, "So, if you see my behavior as territorial, I'd be interested in you helping me to see it as well, cuz I thought that for the most part, the differences of opinion in this thread were expressed in a pretty civilized way, and in a way completely acceptable to this site. In other words, show me how differences of opinion can be expressed in a better way. Show me how women do it." To me, this is a pretty clear way of asking how you think a woman would respond ("show me how differences of opinion can be expressed in a better way. Show me how women do it.") . And in as equally a clear way, I thought I said that men and women, while having strategies equally effective or repugnant, aren't restricted to gender roles. In fact, that we should be pretty much beyond gender roles, since while they may be effective in instinctive or animal behavior, they seem to have developed a quasi-mutant response in people. In other words, dominance-seeking behavior served to cull out the weaker males or females; in particular, with the males, it also served to aid in the selection of the alpha male, which in turn, enhanced the breeding pool. I see nothing about dominance behavior which would enhance the breeding pool of an online forum, or enhance anything at all, for that matter.**

Yeah, fair enough. Earlier, I thought your comment about antlers was a cheap shot at what you were identifying as a typically male, stupid mode of dealing with issues of contention. But I think now that you weren't seeing what was happening between me and Eric as an exchange of ideas; you were seeing it as mere contest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emc2cme
I don't see that Eric was being deliberately obtuse or evil in his comments.

Neither do I.

**You originally said, "...The conclusion I've drawn is that petrosianii cares more about drama than about the Yi or clear thinking or playing nicely with others...", which pretty much correlates with being obtuse. Perhaps you've drawn this conclusion from more than one encounter on the forum, but I don't see much in his original comments that would indicate that he is alone in caring more about drama than about the Yi, or clear thinking or playing nicely with others. Also, you yourself said that "there's also been a clash of egos, for sure." That is what the original comment was about.**

This is the first time I've taken the measure of both Eric and you, in this thread. Yes, I think his idea about Hex 37 is flawed, and yes I think he's handled the exchange of ideas in this thread pretty clumsily, but no I don't think he's DELIBERATELY being obtuse or evil. I think he's just got it wrong, in both content and style of interaction. You've taken the time and trouble to work some of this stuff out with me, and I appreciate that. He hasn't though, and I've drawn my own conclusions about that.

petrosianii

March 22nd, 2008, 05:22 PM

i have thoroughly enjoyed the comments in this post. Frank, you're sharp! i gotta hand it to you. dobro, you're sharp, too. I apologize if I upset you. Please do continue to comment on my threads, b/c despite the fact I think you do like to argue - you were right in that there is that argumentative side in me, too. And you do offer refreshing perspectives.

Be well, all of you

dobro

March 22nd, 2008, 05:47 PM

What? Group hug? Damn, things surprise me sometimes.

hilary

March 22nd, 2008, 05:53 PM

:hug:

:eek:

(Somewhere between 37 and 38?)

maremaria

March 22nd, 2008, 05:56 PM

Is it just my impression or do you see it too ? While the Memorize 38 thread is still on progress, there are a lot of 38 :rant: situations in this forum .

I like from Candid’s blog his 38 comment : “ Never let anyone rob you of your own decent opinion. Neither be a thief. Agreement is not always necessary "

Hmmm, maybe if we all try to finish the 38 things will be calmer . :rolleyes: Come on . There are just 3 lines left …..:rofl:

Joking.... (half)

sparhawk

March 22nd, 2008, 08:43 PM

http://www.sorocabana.net/yitoons/images/grouphug.jpg

emc2cme

March 22nd, 2008, 09:23 PM

First of all, thanks, Hilary, for all your patience. I still don't see how the response part works, since I only see it at the bottom of the page, and it'll take some practice to figure out how to answer individual messages with the quotes and all. And thanks also for the heads-up on the email address. I knew that might happen (the spam, that is), but I preferred to put it out there rather than continue kicking that particular dead horse in front of all. I "get" a little bit about how the other options work, but will still need to practice. Most of all, thanks again for letting us play in your beautiful field.

To Lindsay and Meng--thanks for the positive words. I shouldn't have permitted myself to respond in an inappropriate fashion--one that I take exception to in others--and I appreciate that you can see past that.

To Dobro--I apologize for responding to you in a way that I criticized YOU for doing. There's no excuse for it, and I thank you for seeing past that to what I was really saying.

Petrosianii--I'm glad to see you back.

Maremaria and Sparhawk--ever the conciliatory diplomats even with your wicked sense of humor. Have either of you ever considered running for president? I bet the war(s) would be over in a NY minute.

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend.

Nancy

sparhawk

March 22nd, 2008, 09:48 PM

Maremaria and Sparhawk--ever the conciliatory diplomats even with your wicked sense of humor. Have either of you ever considered running for president? I bet the war(s) would be over in a NY minute.

You mean a Greek Goddess and a Wetback Latino? In this country?? :eek: We ran out of style a couple of years ago after Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc., started kicking their dogs for no good and apparent reason and Ricky Martin didn't look so macho anymore... Even hispanics with a family lineage in the States going back a couple of centuries before it was even called the U.S.A. are looked down with suspicion... :duh:

The Greek Goddess has a better chance. For her own sake, I'll stay out of the ticket. :D

I'm still amazed to see a woman and a black dude with such a good chance of reaching that pinnacle. :D

maremaria

March 22nd, 2008, 10:01 PM

The Greek Goddess has a better chance. For her own sake, I'll stay out of the ticket. :D

Lol Luis :rofl:

Maremaria and Sparhawk--ever the conciliatory diplomats even with your wicked sense of humor. Have either of you ever considered running for president? I bet the war(s) would be over in a NY minute.

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend.

Nancy

Well, It is not the right time for you (US) to have a Greek president. On the other hand, for us it would be the best time. We have some issues to take care.

Luis, I'll need the Chair for a couple of weeks. Then, you can have it .:rofl:

fkegan

March 23rd, 2008, 12:15 AM

Nice to see peace break out all over again!:)
Reminds me of this election season where everything changes totally from week to week. Total disaster seen by the pundits as the polls close in one primary with a totally different message of renewed hope or renaissance by the time the votes are counted enough to call the winner.

Luis, I would note that there is a difference between the individual hugs amongst the pickpocket club members and a true group hug--however they became obsolete after their expression and exhaustion in the '70's.

And I am pleased to see Nancy speak of her realization of her issues which a number of us were urging her to do, and even more pleased that she expressed herself as well in ignoring me--I appreciate the respect for my privacy.

As to the current election campaign in the US, it is all just commentary to the remarkable changes in the stars. Pluto in 1 Cap 01 for the first time since King George III tried to get firm control of his Empire--and raised a massive insurgency instead.

I expect diplomacy and candidacy to get a lot of new support as the ship of state moves into its next phase-- those on the Titanic who made it to the lifeboats had an entirely different perspective than those who stayed at the bar thinking the abandon ship order was just a lifeboat exercise for women and children [from testimony in Senate hearing by a woman who was taunted on her way to the lifeboat- to be sure to keep her boarding pass handy or she wouldn't be allowed back on board in the morning].

I can see the wisps of future hex 38 energy brewing, but hex 37 is in the set from 31 to 40 In which hex 40 is the periodic release of intense human energy -- the final quiescent state of the hex 31 set which also is the engine to keep the family process cycling. So, for now, time to roll over and take a nap.

Peace,
Frank

sparhawk

March 23rd, 2008, 01:33 AM

Luis, I would note that there is a difference between the individual hugs amongst the pickpocket club members and a true group hug--however they became obsolete after their expression and exhaustion in the '70's.

Oh, yes. When I was looking for a picture in Google, I just thought the pickpocket club metaphor for a group hug was more appropriate for this "family"... :D

I was about to post this one, but, even though it was a great example of a real 'group hug,' I thought it was too gay... :rofl:

http://deadon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/group-hug.jpg

fkegan

March 23rd, 2008, 02:02 AM

I enjoyed the original group hug cartoon and the photo is true to the definition of group hug, though I would agree in I Ching context--symbolic drawing trumps live photo. Although, nothing says family dynamics like a photo of glistening sweaty hugging.
That is another of the wonders of the Internet, not only do we only share a bit of what our total family experience would be, it is clarified and purified though the ether.
Frank

dobro

March 23rd, 2008, 08:13 AM

Luis, those guys in the photo aren't gay and they don't even like each other. They're just hanging on tight cuz they're so greased up they're scared they'll all just slip away...

emc2cme

March 24th, 2008, 07:22 AM

You said, "And I am pleased to see Nancy speak of her realization of her issues which a number of us were urging her to do, and even more pleased that she expressed herself as well in ignoring me--I appreciate the respect for my privacy."

I didn't respond to you because your name wasn't among those who made a comment after mine. I realize my issues, and I did address the fact that I found the "stag in the field" approach inappropriate for xyz reasons, thus my distress. As far as I'm concerned, it was an "AB" conversation, and has nothing to do with you. If you'd like to continue this conversation in private, you may contact me, as I'm finished with it on the public forum.

fkegan

March 25th, 2008, 08:01 PM

No, I appreciated the respect for my privacy, I too was finished with the conversation in the public forum.:brickwall: :duh:

emc2cme

March 26th, 2008, 03:43 AM

Although I initially had some respect for your opinion, after further reading of your site and "contributions", I no longer do. So I don't do anything, or not do anything, out of respect for you. I gave you my email address and you chose not to address me privately, but publicly. Quit it.

fkegan

March 26th, 2008, 04:23 AM

Nancy-- you said publicly..
If you'd like to continue this conversation in private, you may contact me, as I'm finished with it on the public forum.

I said publicly."..No, I appreciated the respect for my privacy, I too was finished with the conversation in the public forum."

I am well aware you can not appreciate my perspective and that you made your best case statement in the post awhile back. I have nothing more to say publicly or privately. I only respond at all when you keep making public calls to me as well as private email. But as the principle is now well established, I will not be making further response to either your public or private statements.:eek:

Frank

emc2cme

March 28th, 2008, 06:59 AM

First I responded to you in public, because you wrote something about me when I wasn't even talking to you. I also wrote to you in private because I thought you might really be interested in continuing the conversation, rather than just trying the one-upmanship with me. You're determined to have the last word, so go on and have it. No skin off my back.

fkegan

March 28th, 2008, 08:39 AM

Dobro, why do you like the argue so much? Furthermore, when you make an argument, it's good practice to back up your claims with some solid facts and research, rather than just spouting off opinions to be contrary.

--------------------------

Let me clarify what I meant by saying the top line is incorrect.

I didn't mean change line 6; I meant - if the top line of #37 were yin instead of yan, then all the lines of the hexagram would be in their "correct" positions (cf. #63). The only line not in its (philosophically) correct position in #37 is the top line of the outer trigram. If you study I Ching linear philosophy, then you know that the top line of any hexagram corresponds to authority - in this case, the authority of the family. Hence, #37 is almost correct, but not quite, as the authority-line or the authority-position is the incorrect one.

On your point about the concept of dysfunctional family not existing in ancient civilizations, a few quotes from some pretty authoritative sources on the matter:

"[The Oresteia, a Greek Tragedy] The trilogy tells the story of the House of Atreus, a dysfunctional family with a nasty episode of cannibalism in its closet. "

"...Sumerian, Egyptian, and other mythologies, then one is astounded by two facts. One is that these so-called gods and goddesses constitute a fundamentally dysfunctional family, not... to be enthusiastically emulated. "

" But beginning in 772 B.C.E. in Southern China (and extending until 481 B.C.E.), the so-called “Springs and Autumns Period” began. This consisted of eight lesser periods, when life and limb were cheap, barbaric, and toward the end, “philosophy became more important than war.” This is when Lao Tzu and Confucius arrived on the scene..."

"Confucius, living in a time of failed families, said that virtue derives from the [setting in order of proper family roles]..."

"In a given family, the hoju - or head of household ... is required to be wise and benevolent in the discharge of his responsibilities...However, [in ancient Korean families] there were no remedies if the hoju failed to fulfill his responsibilities, and misuse and abuse of the hoju's authority were frequent...During the 500 years of the Yi dynasty, which embraced the Confucian ideology, gender and age-based oppression became codified into law..."

Your original question raises a number of interesting points, though I can not agree with your answers....

Hex 37 has hex 64 as its nuclear hexagram. If its 6th line place were changed to Yin, it would be hex 63 which also has hex 64 for its nuclear. The Yi hexagrams are dynamic, so attaining the state of having all the lines in their "correct" positions or odd numbered places yang and even yin is not a good thing. It is considered in commentary on hex 63 as being a minor peak that must become more and more disordered.

Hex 37 in those purely yang-odd line terms has developed a bit of stability by changing its top line to Yang to prevent the immediate disorder of all correct places in hex 63. This is given Confucian commentary that a proper family has a yang line on top that is strong and does not impose on the others. It doesn't make much sense. In terms of its decad, this hexagram is part of the set beginning with hex 31 romantic attraction which becomes family when the couple marry and have children in their separate home. What good does a loner extra male do over the ruler in the fifth place--the husband?

A better explanation is that the family is a mechanism to turn romantic attraction into the engine of society through the famous Chinese family, and the family (which is the subject of hex 37) has a clear focus upon the final 6th place, that is the transition to the next or the success of the children when they grow up and move out into their own careers and families.

In terms of dysfunctional families ancient and modern. There wasn't much talk of family problems in the ancient world where they had more serious problems like famine, war and being sold into slavery to satisfy loan debts. They also had myth narratives for their psychology texts. The stories of the ancient gods are narratives of various psychological issues which folks could identify with. The Greek tragedies are narratives of what the various psychological issues, taken as immutable character flaws lead to as their ultimate consequences.
The Oedipus trilogy written through the years of the Peloponnesian War, is a all about the Lame King (Oedipus Gk for Lame) whose overcompensation for his disability first brings him unexpected success, but ends up ruining his career. The Freudian implications are just projections, incest and patricide were the only crimes that the divine punished but in the third play, Oedipus is deemed pure enough to be buried in sacred ground, his acts were not crimes but expressions of his character. Freud's favorite quote about Oedipus was that with one answer, he gained wealth and fame, which was Freud's life dream.

Missing the real meaning of the play, he missed the great psychological insight that Kaiser Wilhelm II's birth defect, rendering his right arm hanging useless at his side was the quirk in Queen Victoria's family dynamics that led to the cousin rivalry that erupted as World War I.

You cite the Springs and Autumns period, which includes the 6th century BCE when there was a global metaphysical and philosophical Great Leap Forward, with Pythagoras in the Mediterranean, The Buddha in Nepal, Lao Tzu in China, the development of the personal horoscope in the Fertile Crescent.

Confucius is a bit younger and like most a generation after the great insights, only caught a bit of the inspiration and came down with advice for Imperial Bureaucrats not keys to opening inner Portals to the Divine. Like Plato (and his PTSD ravaged mentor Socrates) who was only able to work with the objective math abstraction of Pythagorean insight.

In both most Confucian influenced systems, they talk about the need for proper human relations, but have no answers about how to improve human relations or how to live your own life even if you are in a bad environment, so indeed rigid family roles with political abuses built in became the norm at all levels from family to Emperor.

This thread developed a "family feeling" with personal psychological issues being exposed through the ensuing posts. Nothing is more destructive of hex 37 family as engine of the successful next generation than the comic parody notions of Stephen Potten and the School for Scoundrels based upon his work about training a new generation of confirmed bachelors competing with each other and using their sexual conquests as scoring points.
So, our family is not quite correct, but when it loses focus upon the hexagram being discussed it is totally incorrect and boring.

But you brought up a good thread and several intriguing issues to discuss.

Dr. Frank R. Kegan, Psy.D.

emc2cme

March 30th, 2008, 09:03 AM

You mean a Greek Goddess and a Wetback Latino? In this country?? :eek: We ran out of style a couple of years ago after Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc., started kicking their dogs for no good and apparent reason and Ricky Martin didn't look so macho anymore... Even hispanics with a family lineage in the States going back a couple of centuries before it was even called the U.S.A. are looked down with suspicion... :duh:

The Greek Goddess has a better chance. For her own sake, I'll stay out of the ticket. :D

I'm still amazed to see a woman and a black dude with such a good chance of reaching that pinnacle. :D

Hi--yes, I think our country would be much better off and I'll tell you why. I spent several years in Mexico, and was astonished to learn that not everyone in the world thinks like Anglo-Europeans. Not to idealize a whole group of people, because that's just as silly as trashing a whole group. Still, I found lots of people who were curious, kind, witty, educated (and those who weren't "educated" had great common sense--and btw, am of the opinion that most Mexican three-year olds have a better vocabulary than most high-school students from the USA), and compassionate--people who would go way out of their way just to help a person, much more so than their north-of-the-border counterparts. And it was from my Mexican friends that I learned what it was like to be "amigos del alma"--the best lesson I ever received.

As for the Latinos with family origins reaching back through the century--my cousin is in the process of untangling her family roots. She finds it kind of funny that the Anglo side is considered "old" when it goes back a few centuries, but that her Hispanic/Indigena side (well, you know what I mean) was here for millenia but that doesn't cut much cotton for some reason. Of course, all of our roots go back as far as anyone else's, but that's another story.

De cualquier manera, se lo agradezco por todo lo que ha hecho y dicho en este "forum" para hacernos reir, y comprender mas del espiritu del Yi. Usted es muy sabio y astuto.

As for the "Greek Goddess"--duh, probably the Greek characters on her beautiful website would have given it away to anyone smarter than me, but I can't claim the honor. All I really know about Greeks is that I love their wedding cookies, their architecture and their philosophy. And now an I Ching commentator as well.

I am going to write your names in on the ballot. I love the Obama/Clinton possibilites, but have pretty much reached the conclusion that we've been divided and conquered by the Democrat/Republican lines for a long time, and that it doesn't make much difference who we vote for, unless we do something really outside the box.

Ah, politics. #37 on a grand scale.

Buenas noches, y que suenes con los angelitos (you can tell I don't have the proper font for writing in Spanish...).:bows:

Nancy