Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Wasserdrache
visitor
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2023
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 5
Having lived abroad many years and as a traveler I have come to understand how one can mistake many things about a foreign culture when trying to use one’s own as guiding principle, especially through language. A good example to illustrate this idea would be looking at Eastern plurality versus Western singularity. If you see things from the “eastern” paradigm of plurality, integration is a must, there will be many words for and related to it. Changing polarity, cycles and opposites working together, complementing each other, is the norm, "us".
But if you look at it from the “western” paradigm, separation and singularity is the order, and there will be many words to describe that phenomenon. Whether good or bad, God or Devil, but never working in tandem, reality is created in the West through antagonism, drama and the narcissistic search for "MORE", while in the East "LESS" is more, flow and peaceful submission to fate is seen as valuable and honored. Who in the West sees peaceful submission to fate as a desirable state? WEST is like "WE", "THEM" "DEATH". It's a generalization (so western of me) but still could this reality created by the language/culture affect the interpretation or translation of a text? I would think so. Country rats see things differently than city rats.
I don´t have to live somewhere to know about the place, but to understand it truly, I am sure I have to live there for at least one complete change of seasons or if representing a community, maybe even a whole generation. Unless I do so, I will always be a “tourist”, migrant or visitor and understand probably "half" of what it really means to live like the natives in that specific host culture and their language. I hope nobody takes this as an insult, it’s just a way of trying to conceptualize the implications of what I said above. It is probably also valid vice versa, for those who live in a place and receive me as traveler. They will never know what it is about this stranger unless they travel to my homeland and live there for a while. Then they will know. Unless they do so, I will always be a stranger, no matter how long I live among them as long as I still have a homeland. Tough luck, Superman. You are stuck with us humans.
I learned a lot about China and their people and culture, but I haven´t lived there, I can´t speak their language, and whatever I know about the IC text, comes from translations and certain cultural “appropriations” others have done. My own experience has taught me, the essence of things gets lost in translation, and only a skillful translator, knowledgeable in both “worlds” or cultures (native languages) can bring harmony to this topic. But there are not many of them, because being native in one culture impedes ontologically being native in another culture at the same time. So, I don´t want to sound disrespectful, but in our western hemisphere it feels like there is a lot of “Chinese whispers” going on, one translator/commentator uses another´s work, and then another uses his work, over and over, without reflecting on the translation or deeper meaning until the message has become unrecognizable.
Many times, this is done with a lot of extra “prose” and “poetry” going on, augmenting the ambiguity of the original text, rather than dispelling it. Imagine that. Somebody gives you a riddle and then somebody else "helps" you by interpreting it with another riddle. Some even say, it has to be like that, because of I Ching´s special condition as never failing (because divine) and impenetrable oracle. Karcher´s material is a lot like that, mysterious, obscure. But there are many other contemporary authors who invite the querent to feel their way “through” the interpretation, instead of accurate information like Chinese astrology provides by various methods, like Meihua Yishu, (plum blossom numerology).
Why? Why don't "they" (eastern paradigm) have this postmodern problem with math? It's not just math, it's science in general that many people despise in our western culture. Plenty of people prefer a poetic approach to analyzing data. It's understandable. You become a participant and stop being just a repository of a laconic conjectural statement. You become "divine" by association. Somewhat deviant, but benign narcissism. Is this really what the IC does? Or is it a reactive Western response to Eastern determinism? Would King Wen, Fuxi, or even Confucius revere us as "divine," as worthy participants at the level of the sage's counsel?
That’s why I try to take all commentaries with a grain of salt. But here is the thing: when there is an ordered set of integers operating in a finite group, there is accuracy, not ambiguity. In fact, numbers express literally marks, they specify things, they label. This is the “native” language to I Ching, the mathematical paradigm or why not, the computational paradigm. It’s been there for more than 3000 years, probably even longer. Apparently, it was there before the text. Its precise and we are already using it in some degree in certain methods.
Since many people utilize nuclear hexagram or changing pattern method to generate insight, let me add this thought about isomorphism in concatenations. As you probably know (and there is no intention to school you, but only to be clear) Isomorphism means similar shape or function; concatenation means you use only part of the hexagram to construct a new string or new related hexagram. This new hexagram has proportionality in regard to the original hexagram. It has parts unchanged and parts transformed (changing lines). It’s not the same (equivalent or congruent) unless the casting was unchanging, but when not, it’s a proportion of the original. If more lines change, there should be then less proportionality. That at least could be the hypothesis to test for, as part of IC theory.
The related hexagram, what we call the nuclear hexagram, or how we use the changing pattern method, are all based on concatenations, on this "proportionality", often inverted. It's math, and you can probably prove those methods using group theory and algebra. First you have to display evidence that the I Ching and its 64 hexagrams work as a group, or set, and what algebraic operations are applicable. Sounds trivial, probably already done, but still, a proof is necessary before proceeding further with group or binary set theory. Since the I Ching has intended characteristics based on the principle of mathematical pairing (of example, odd/even numbers), and although we sense there is a higher purpose that remains a mystery, the I Ching has a structure (abelian?) that can be known and openly discussed.
Sadly for some, this is part of the human domain. But Superman is with us now. Don´t worry.
H.
But if you look at it from the “western” paradigm, separation and singularity is the order, and there will be many words to describe that phenomenon. Whether good or bad, God or Devil, but never working in tandem, reality is created in the West through antagonism, drama and the narcissistic search for "MORE", while in the East "LESS" is more, flow and peaceful submission to fate is seen as valuable and honored. Who in the West sees peaceful submission to fate as a desirable state? WEST is like "WE", "THEM" "DEATH". It's a generalization (so western of me) but still could this reality created by the language/culture affect the interpretation or translation of a text? I would think so. Country rats see things differently than city rats.
I don´t have to live somewhere to know about the place, but to understand it truly, I am sure I have to live there for at least one complete change of seasons or if representing a community, maybe even a whole generation. Unless I do so, I will always be a “tourist”, migrant or visitor and understand probably "half" of what it really means to live like the natives in that specific host culture and their language. I hope nobody takes this as an insult, it’s just a way of trying to conceptualize the implications of what I said above. It is probably also valid vice versa, for those who live in a place and receive me as traveler. They will never know what it is about this stranger unless they travel to my homeland and live there for a while. Then they will know. Unless they do so, I will always be a stranger, no matter how long I live among them as long as I still have a homeland. Tough luck, Superman. You are stuck with us humans.
I learned a lot about China and their people and culture, but I haven´t lived there, I can´t speak their language, and whatever I know about the IC text, comes from translations and certain cultural “appropriations” others have done. My own experience has taught me, the essence of things gets lost in translation, and only a skillful translator, knowledgeable in both “worlds” or cultures (native languages) can bring harmony to this topic. But there are not many of them, because being native in one culture impedes ontologically being native in another culture at the same time. So, I don´t want to sound disrespectful, but in our western hemisphere it feels like there is a lot of “Chinese whispers” going on, one translator/commentator uses another´s work, and then another uses his work, over and over, without reflecting on the translation or deeper meaning until the message has become unrecognizable.
Many times, this is done with a lot of extra “prose” and “poetry” going on, augmenting the ambiguity of the original text, rather than dispelling it. Imagine that. Somebody gives you a riddle and then somebody else "helps" you by interpreting it with another riddle. Some even say, it has to be like that, because of I Ching´s special condition as never failing (because divine) and impenetrable oracle. Karcher´s material is a lot like that, mysterious, obscure. But there are many other contemporary authors who invite the querent to feel their way “through” the interpretation, instead of accurate information like Chinese astrology provides by various methods, like Meihua Yishu, (plum blossom numerology).
Why? Why don't "they" (eastern paradigm) have this postmodern problem with math? It's not just math, it's science in general that many people despise in our western culture. Plenty of people prefer a poetic approach to analyzing data. It's understandable. You become a participant and stop being just a repository of a laconic conjectural statement. You become "divine" by association. Somewhat deviant, but benign narcissism. Is this really what the IC does? Or is it a reactive Western response to Eastern determinism? Would King Wen, Fuxi, or even Confucius revere us as "divine," as worthy participants at the level of the sage's counsel?
That’s why I try to take all commentaries with a grain of salt. But here is the thing: when there is an ordered set of integers operating in a finite group, there is accuracy, not ambiguity. In fact, numbers express literally marks, they specify things, they label. This is the “native” language to I Ching, the mathematical paradigm or why not, the computational paradigm. It’s been there for more than 3000 years, probably even longer. Apparently, it was there before the text. Its precise and we are already using it in some degree in certain methods.
Since many people utilize nuclear hexagram or changing pattern method to generate insight, let me add this thought about isomorphism in concatenations. As you probably know (and there is no intention to school you, but only to be clear) Isomorphism means similar shape or function; concatenation means you use only part of the hexagram to construct a new string or new related hexagram. This new hexagram has proportionality in regard to the original hexagram. It has parts unchanged and parts transformed (changing lines). It’s not the same (equivalent or congruent) unless the casting was unchanging, but when not, it’s a proportion of the original. If more lines change, there should be then less proportionality. That at least could be the hypothesis to test for, as part of IC theory.
The related hexagram, what we call the nuclear hexagram, or how we use the changing pattern method, are all based on concatenations, on this "proportionality", often inverted. It's math, and you can probably prove those methods using group theory and algebra. First you have to display evidence that the I Ching and its 64 hexagrams work as a group, or set, and what algebraic operations are applicable. Sounds trivial, probably already done, but still, a proof is necessary before proceeding further with group or binary set theory. Since the I Ching has intended characteristics based on the principle of mathematical pairing (of example, odd/even numbers), and although we sense there is a higher purpose that remains a mystery, the I Ching has a structure (abelian?) that can be known and openly discussed.
Sadly for some, this is part of the human domain. But Superman is with us now. Don´t worry.
H.