candid
March 5th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Hi Hilary,
Now that some dust has settled here awhile allowing me to better focus coherently, I?d like to again address where we were going in an earlier thread.
I guess its just my nature to swim against the tides of fixed thinking and convention. I?ve followed the debate for 20 years on which Bible translation/version is the ?correct one.? Near the end of my belief in that particular ?faith system? I read and re-read the King James cover to cover again and again for myself with no authority to interpret it for me. Then after gaining a clearer perspective with the help of two rabbis, I was able to reorganize the scripture structures in a way that finally made sense to me.
Over time I?ve done much the same with Yi. I?ve noticed the same type of static structures dictating set meanings, and I?ve noticed the same formalism in adherence to traditions. I?ve also over time began to create and assign my own meanings to the Yi structures based on my own practical experience. Granted, I am not an authority on Yi?s history and tradition the way some here are, and while I do respect their background knowledge, I prefer to go the way that has been successful for me according to my own hands-on experience and aptitude.
I?ve stated earlier that the trigrams are enough to provide a coherent interpretations, but that doesn?t mean it is a fixed assignment either. Its more fluid than that. This is where and why Chris? approach has been interesting to me personally. Not that I follow his complicated formulas, but I do allow the mental room for my intuition to travel along with the impressions spontaneously sparked by the lines visually and symbolically. I?ve not eliminated the set interpretations of Wilhelm, as they are still a springboard to evoke meaning for me, but I no longer see each gua as set in stone.
I realize this approach draws contempt from those who hold to the infallibility of early translations and traditions. I can?t help that. I?ve drawn contempt from priests and pastors all of my earlier Christian life, as I have with about every formal teaching I?ve been exposed to, but I don?t see any of that as my problem. Call it arrogance or whatever, it just isn?t and has never been my way. I?m not suggesting my way is better than anyone else?s; its just my way. I?ve never been very smart academically, and so I?ve developed, or had to develop, through whatever means my life would allow, even if it flies in the face of convention.
I?ve realized that I could never write a book about it or even thoroughly explain it because it is too fluid and intuitive to set into a cognitive and definitive format. So I content myself with the ability to interpret for myself and others as best as my own mind allows. I completely realize it?s fallibility. Yet more often than not the people I read for seem to get from it what they need at the time.
Yi is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get.
That?s all I have to say about that.
C
Now that some dust has settled here awhile allowing me to better focus coherently, I?d like to again address where we were going in an earlier thread.
I guess its just my nature to swim against the tides of fixed thinking and convention. I?ve followed the debate for 20 years on which Bible translation/version is the ?correct one.? Near the end of my belief in that particular ?faith system? I read and re-read the King James cover to cover again and again for myself with no authority to interpret it for me. Then after gaining a clearer perspective with the help of two rabbis, I was able to reorganize the scripture structures in a way that finally made sense to me.
Over time I?ve done much the same with Yi. I?ve noticed the same type of static structures dictating set meanings, and I?ve noticed the same formalism in adherence to traditions. I?ve also over time began to create and assign my own meanings to the Yi structures based on my own practical experience. Granted, I am not an authority on Yi?s history and tradition the way some here are, and while I do respect their background knowledge, I prefer to go the way that has been successful for me according to my own hands-on experience and aptitude.
I?ve stated earlier that the trigrams are enough to provide a coherent interpretations, but that doesn?t mean it is a fixed assignment either. Its more fluid than that. This is where and why Chris? approach has been interesting to me personally. Not that I follow his complicated formulas, but I do allow the mental room for my intuition to travel along with the impressions spontaneously sparked by the lines visually and symbolically. I?ve not eliminated the set interpretations of Wilhelm, as they are still a springboard to evoke meaning for me, but I no longer see each gua as set in stone.
I realize this approach draws contempt from those who hold to the infallibility of early translations and traditions. I can?t help that. I?ve drawn contempt from priests and pastors all of my earlier Christian life, as I have with about every formal teaching I?ve been exposed to, but I don?t see any of that as my problem. Call it arrogance or whatever, it just isn?t and has never been my way. I?m not suggesting my way is better than anyone else?s; its just my way. I?ve never been very smart academically, and so I?ve developed, or had to develop, through whatever means my life would allow, even if it flies in the face of convention.
I?ve realized that I could never write a book about it or even thoroughly explain it because it is too fluid and intuitive to set into a cognitive and definitive format. So I content myself with the ability to interpret for myself and others as best as my own mind allows. I completely realize it?s fallibility. Yet more often than not the people I read for seem to get from it what they need at the time.
Yi is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get.
That?s all I have to say about that.
C