Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
From perusing what was available in the "Look Inside" feature, it looks to me like the author really doesn't know what science is. Neither does he know that Yin-Yang theory didn't come along until at least five centuries after the Yijing was first created and should therefore be treated as an afterthought rather than fundamental or foundational. But obviously he isn't alone in not knowing that.
It seems that everything hinges on dating. Archeology keeps disrupting our assumptions. Bradford, could you explain your reservations about Rutt?
I go on an extended rant on the subject in my introduction, particularly under "Problems with Academia," citing the numerous logical fallacies in play. I won't re-rant all that here.
Did you get any response from the academic world? It's difficult for me as a newbie to come to a conclusion in this matter on the basis of one side of the story only.
Mixed responses. Some appreciated it. Some thought it too polemic. Some were defensive.
You should study both sides, of course, but I would read the Kunst and Shaughnessy dissertations before I read Rutt or Gotshalk. They are all found here: http://www.hermetica.info/YixueBib.htm
Kunst, Richard Alan. The Original Yijing: A Text, Phonetic Transcription, Translation and Indexes, with Sample Glosses. Doctoral dissertation in Oriental Languages: University of California at Berkeley, 1985. 690 pp.
(BH- The most useful of the modernists)
(RS- Excellent analysis of the early Changes with a great deal of material on later Yijing scholarship)
(Digital Library: The Original Yijing - Kunst.pdf)
(Digital Library: The Original Yijing - Kunst (OCR).pdf)
Shaughnessy, Edward Louis. The Composition of the Zhouyi. Doctoral dissertation in Chinese Studies: Stanford University, 1983. 382pp.
(Digital Library: The Composition of the Zhouyi - Shaugnessy.pdf)
(Digital Library: The Composition of the Zhouyi - Shaughnessy (OCR).pdf)
But even if you like what you have to day, bear in mind the true believers quit learning.
'Need' is an awkward word. It certainly vastly improves the quality and depth of readings, makes it much easier to connect and relate to what the oracle's saying. But yes, you can do helpful readings without looking at it. (Not sure why you'd want to, though.)Do we really need the King Wen sequence to use the I Ching as an oracle ?
Er... if you limit yourself to looking for a connection between 2-3, 4-5 etc you're unlikely to find one, I agree. However, if you start looking on a larger scale... especially if you look at groups of 10 hexagrams and think 'onion'...It's there to confuse, rather than clarify, being 55% order and 45% chaos.
There is meaning in the placement of the first two and last two guan,
and in the alternate pairs, 1-2, 3-4 ... 61-62, 63-64.
But there is no meaning in the pairs 2-3, 4-5 ... 60-61, 62-63 except what pareidolia provides.
These are just randomly scrambled, even though patterns may be hinted at in true random numbers.
Well, let us know how that works out for you...The problem is rather practical - my study of the I Ching is meant to be only a side-project.
Leerling, it all starts with questions.
You will wake up ten years later, surrounded by stacks of books.
You are already hooked!
I am with Hilary as to order. I think there's more there than meets the eye.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).