Blog post: Yi, or the Yi

[pantherpanther]

Hi Panther^2,

Are you responding to my witticism about Jung as a person, or just using the opportunity to take up the antique debate amongst the various schools of psychoanalysis?

Not at all clear what relevance to the question of I Ching as a book like other published texts or a special entity in relationship to those who use it for divination, however. Though it is always instructive to have the Wilhelm Judgment to hex 4 quoted again. Many superficial aficionados of the Oracle live in mortal terror of that hexagram and take pleasure in inflicting its Judgment against others. Thus, there is always magical power to quoting that terrible Judgment to frighten those of lesser merit.

Or more to the point, in your divination do you just read the Book for interpretation or find yourself in relationship with the Oracle Spirit?

Frank

I answered Hillary's question :

I think of the I Ching as a teaching and a book (and "an old friend") that may open an attentive mind to the realm of active higher intelligence (as "the Immortals et al."). I don't sense a specific personal oracle or teacher, although I accept this is true and right for others.

I seek to prepare a quiet,impartial state (or space) in myself before I form a query, feeling "I don't know" but I am bringing my wish to learn. What is received may help me deepen my question and then I have to work with that. Whether I make certain decisions or take certain actions is my concern.

(I find Bradford's recent thought on the use of "I" in the I Ching relates to how I feel:
I have in the past found myself using You, intending it in the plural, and imagining this to be something like an artificial intelligence brought to life by a convention or congress of diviners and shamans (a wu xian in Chinese). And I say it as though I'm addressing superiors, not just buddies.)

Wilhelm's view of the I Ching sharply contrasts with Jung's . Richard Wilhelm writes in his introduction to the I Ching, to which Jung wrote a foreword:

The holy men and sages, who are in contact with those higher spheres, have access to these ideas through direct intuition and are therefore able to intervene decisively in events in the world. Thus man is linked with heaven, the suprasensible world of ideas, and with earth, the material world of visible things, to form with these a trinity of the primal powers,

 

[rodaki]

The Yi itself uses the first person (wo3) in several places.
It's used as if in quotes at 52.4 and 61.2, seemingly to put words into the subject's mouth.
The plural (we, our, us) is used at 9.0, 20.3, 20.5, 42.5, 50.2 and 62.5 in a way that seems to refer to the Yi as an involved and responsible member of the society.
It's more obviously referring to itself as an oracle in three places - 04.0, 27.1 and 48.3.
The authors of the Wings were a lot more timid, and only try to make the Yi refer to itself in two places - 05.3x and 40.3x.

Given all of this first person usage, it seems intended to have an intimate relationship with the querent, but I don't think it was intended to be a casual one, a first-name-basis kind of friendship. There isn't enough of the right kind of respect in that.

I have in the past found myself using You, intending it in the plural, and imagining this to be something like an artificial intelligence brought to life by a convention or congress of diviners and shamans (a wu xian in Chinese). And I say it as though I'm addressing superiors, not just buddies.

It reminds me of 1.3 . . be creative but tread with respect . .

. . still, I couldn't help but ask:
-How should one approach you Yi?
-40

:bows:

 

[bradford]

By the way - when you say 52.4, do you mean 56.4?

Yes. I was being persnickety without being concomitantly fastidious.