Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?
http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?
Yes, something like "an article about the Yijing published in a place called 'The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' is showing its hand before the bets are placed..." Would you think that for a work that has an accumulated exegesis of at least 3000 years this is the first time it is confronted by a "logical construct" bent on debunking it? Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan's article is half-baked and shows a very superficial knowledge of the Yijing. Only enough knowledge to find lightly educated faults in it.
D
1. In addition to the concepts of archetype and archetypal image, the concept of symbol will also be important for this thesis. The word "symbol" is based on the Greek symbolon, from sym, "together," and bolon or ballein, "to throw or fit."15 The Greek word refers to the practice of breaking a coin or other small object in half when friends parted. Each half of the object would serve as a reminder of the friend during his or her absence. Then when the friends were reunited the re-fitting together of the two halves would serve as a kind of proof of his or her identity. One friend could also entrust half of the object to a further friend or relative and thus show to the holder of the original half that this stranger was entitled to recognition or hospitality. Thus, as Verena Kast puts it, "... the symbol is a visible sign of an invisible reality. ... When we interpret, we seek the invisible reality behind the visible and the connections between the two."16 In contrast to signs, for example, the road sign "+" (meaning "crossroad ahead"), a symbol points to "... an intuitive idea that cannot yet be formulated in any other or better way."17 As A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis expresses it,
"Symbols are captivating pictorial statements .... They are indistinct, metaphoric and enigmatic portrayals of psychic reality. The content, i.e. the meaning of symbols, is far from obvious; instead, it is expressed in unique and individual terms while at the same time partaking of a universal imagery. Worked upon (that is, reflected upon and related to), they can be recognized as aspects of those images that control, order and give meaning to our lives. Their source, therefore, can be traced to the archetypes themselves which by way of symbols find more full expression ....18"
And
2. There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
Some things can't be known in the same way other things can.
Traditionally, people turned to divination. But how can any system of divination really help you? Whether it is turtle shells, yarrow stalks, crystal balls, psychics, or spirit possession, are the forces “out there” really going to provide any true reassurance? Depending on divination means giving up control over your own life. It’s also avoiding responsibility — you are able to say it wasn’t your fault if things don’t work out.
I'd ask questions about the 'only' and the 'inside' in that question.
I asked: Do you only mirror what's inside?
And received 14.1,3 > 24
I wonder if that reading does confirm that we are not divining the future? That the Yi does not claim to be a fortune teller? Rather, it is itself limited to the consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the enquirer?
:bows:
I'd ask questions about the 'only' and the 'inside' in that question.
No, I was just responding to the topology that seemed to be implied in the question - it sounded as though 'inside' were hermetically sealed off from outside, like a pot with a lid. What if 'inside' were more like the inside of a well, or a wormhole, or something? So if you look further inside, who knows where you might end up?Hi Hilary
Not quite with your train of thought here - but are you saying that that is precisely it's wondrous ability - that it can externalize our whirring thoughts and emotions into hexagrams of great literature!
...though this is another really good point.Because it does seem to do that - helps your organize and compartmentalise - providing a stop-gap that encourages you to un-stick yourself from whatever issue you have and take steps towards dealing with it. It should be appreciated for its ability to make us see things from another point of view and enables us to handle our problems more objectively. So yeah it doesn't deserve the 'only'.
I find that when I dig in and look for the question that most directly addresses what I want to know now, it's normally along the lines of 'how best to be, in relation to this, right now?' Maybe I need to know other things (like what will happen next or what someone feels) in order to know what to do, but maybe I don't.But in that way, are you more of the opinion that it is confined by our subjectivity and the boundaries of space and time - thus every Q should be along the lines of 'How do I consider my relationship with X...' or 'Help me with this problem in this moment'? Rather than 'How does X feel about me?' or 'What will happen in the future?' Do you limit those types of Q's? Do you not ask them at all? Or do you ask anything you feel like? and perhaps limit your expectations?
Oh - that would be exciting - but it looks as though someone has just drawn trigrams onto a photograph of a blue blur. Ah well. Maybe when they get a better microscope we will finally have photos of subatomic trigrams.Let the skeptics chew on this:
http://dailyrevolution.net/?p=7523
The Earlier Heaven arrangement of the trigrams reflected a bit in the electron cloud of a single carbon atom by latest research.
Frank
I asked: Do you only mirror what's inside?
And received 14.1,3 > 24
I wonder if that reading does confirm that we are not divining the future? That the Yi does not claim to be a fortune teller? Rather, it is itself limited to the consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the enquirer?
:bows:
Therefore what concerns us here's the problem of clearly defining these discriminations, which are, so to speak, the backbone of morality. Unlimited possibilities are not suited to man; if they existed, his life would only dissolve in the boundless. To become strong, a man's life needs the limitations ordained by duty and voluntarily accepted. The individual attains significance as a free spirit only by surrounding himself with these limitations and by determining for himself what his duty is. W/B h 60
I don't think it should be used as a vehicle to carry your hopes - confirming or opposing them - because, that's not helpful - even if it does sometimes give you a momentary lift.
Oh - that would be exciting - but it looks as though someone has just drawn trigrams onto a photograph of a blue blur. Ah well. Maybe when they get a better microscope we will finally have photos of subatomic trigrams.
I found that for me the best question or questioning method is not to ask a question at all.When we frame a question we narrow the field of action to what we want to get from the situation thus limiting the scope of the reply.I found it is better to describe the situation or matter at hand and then cast the I Ching ,in that way I allow not only more latitude in the reply but also I open myself to appreciate other areas of the problem that need to be addressed other than my own vested interest. .
Sergio
Chu Xi in his introduction to the I Ching and its usage clearly states that the sages created the Yi to help humans in times of great turmoil and to help them take the right course of action when situations are not clear thus allowing them to be in harmony with the forces at play in a given moment.
If we accept that the flight of a butterfly would produce a chain of events resulting in another event somewhere else in the world then we must also accept that the actions of an unrelated person would also produce a chain of events affecting my own situation in ways impossible to foresee for me.
Sergio
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).