Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
sparhawk said:they all died with an amused smile in their faces...
L
That was never a part of the argument. I never said that you did. You most certainly do not have to believe any anything to ask, "will I get that job", and receive.. 14.2.6 (55) let's say, and interpret the answer as, "Great luck! You have been deemed capable of this responsibility. You've been chosen."you said:Some people do not believe in God, or at least not your God, and still have success with divining, which means belief in God is not a pre-requisite.
Your response is not material to the comment that I made, but- again, the separation of mind/brain is not the argument. What I said was "YOU" whatever you want to call cannot know certain things. And yet, we ask questions about those things that are most precisely the most elusive. YOU (as we understand and experience our world communally- as a limited, finite place) cannot know what will happen in a meeting tomorrow with 5 different people. And if you can guess well enough, then why ask the I-ching at all? You can meditate to access your unconscious if that's all you want to do.you said:I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain - how can we separate them completely? nothing operates in a vacuum)
The word brain must be confusing you. If the answer is coming from inside YOU then it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to walk into a room, see a person sitting on a couch, and say, "I-ching, will I marry that person?" Does it? No. It doesn't . It does not make sense to do that becasue regardless of where you think the answer is coming from within YOU it is a GUESS.you said:Why does the brain need to know the answer in order for you to get a sensible answer?
Ah, you use the word 'over-knowing' in a different sense then. I meant overlooking, i.e. not knowing. We tend to overlook the subtler parts of ourselves and our subtler knowing.bruce_g said:Over-knowing, that’s an interesting idea, which sounds a bit like over-eating or over-indulging in general.
But then it is 'educated', brainwashed that is ...But I have become increasingly aware that an alert child already intrinsically knows all this stuff.
lightangel said:I think the bottom line is: does it make any difference???
For all intents and purposes, does it matter where the answer is coming from? It either works for you or it doesn't. Why should we try to figure out how it works?
It might sound very 10 BC but the truth is that nobody alive is any more certain than those good old folks from 10 BC were about how the I Ching works. Some think they do know, but then again some others think they know the precise number of people that will pass through the gates of heaven, etc. etc. etc.
lightangel said:.. but the truth is that nobody alive is any more certain than those good old folks from 10 BC were about how the I Ching works
and so therefore that must mean some form of divinity must be present, in order for oracles to work. Is that an incorrect conclusion?
But assuming that conclusion, I am saying, a belief in God is not necessary, since some people divine without a belief in God.
That is an incorrect conclusion. I never said anything must be present at all in a reading. Now, if you mean, "something else must exist"- just generally, do I believe in something other than the physical brain as the basis for all existence, then yes, you are correct, I am not a materialist- or... maybe a more correct way of putting it is I that I believe that there is something more than what we perceive, and I do believe in personal divinity, but none of those individual beliefs are a part of my reasoning for how a reading must work.pauku said:I take that to mean, the materialist view does not explain enough for you, and so therefore that must mean some form of divinity must be present, in order for oracles to work. Is that an incorrect conclusion?
No, what I said was that isn't the level of the argument. Mind or brain or subconscious or creativity-for the purpose of this particular argument it is irrelevant. I personally don't think the "mind" is necessarily separate from the "brain" at all. I think they are perhaps different levels of existence. But again- what I think about it doesn't make any difference, because for the purpose of the argument I am contrasting the ability of the individual to know something with the realities of what can be known about the world.pauku said:You keep saying brain as if it's separate from mind.
We know what job we should take, on the basis of understanding the future of 1,000 different variables? We can perceive completely hidden variables in situations we have never visited and construct the formulas to discern the answers? AND then we can effectively manipulate the images in a "randomly" constructed hexagram to perfectly match that prior knowledge? Ok.pauku said:I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain "
pauku said:I think what I'm saying, bottom line, is your examples are not enough evidence (for me) that there must be something other than a materialist something going on, and therefore doesn't justify having a belief strong enough to say "this is it" (again, for me).
autumn said:I wasn't talking to you, Chris,
autumn said:..
Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain.
trojan said:I often throw the same hex consecutively, say within 10 minutes I may receive 55 twice with same moving line. I mean how can that be random ?
trojan said:Then I feel like I'm talking to someone.
you ignore what I said on this matter and read your own conclusion into the words.pauku said:I'm confused when you now say a reading (or oracles in general?) doesn't require divinity, when based on my above quotes it seems you previously said it does, or at least, divinity was involved.
you imagine that I have given you several examples to support a belief in God, when in fact I did nothing except encourage you to reason out of your own experience and ask yourself whether your answers truly could have originated within you (as you understand yourself). I've given you no examples to support my belief.pauku said:I was questioning that belief, and for every example you (and Martin) gave in support of that belief,
I am absolutely lost as to what point you are attempting to make. This seems to support my position that experiences of fore-knowledge are real. If you truly are a materialist, then you will reason correctly that the brain cannot predict the future about invisible matters (the inner states of others and the fortuitousness of a potential partnership on first sight).pauku said:I think the critical piece you mean, is that you think the mind/brain can't know some things. Is that correct? But I did respond numerous times to that statement/belief, eg the person who "knows" they will marry someone and then they do so (without using Yi).
You once again ignore the level of the argument, and split hairs regarding the definition of mental phenomenon, which is wholly irrelevant.pauku said:I don't like the using the word fantasized. Why must it be fantasy? If it's true for the person then it's not fantasy, regardless of how it developed.
the point has been drowned. I don't know where to begin to retrieve it. The point was that different paths have different consequences, and we therefore try to choose the path that is best for us overall according to our objectives in life. The better job can be chosen without the Yi, of course. What does that prove about the potential usefulness of the advice, or about the accuracy of its advice, if a person were to consult the Yi before choosing a job?pauku said:people have been getting jobs for many years now, without using Yi, and dealing with each other in complex situations. Somehow we draw the right conclusions from all those variables.
autumn said:Now, I know this will continue, but I cannot spend my energy here anymore. Chris has already accused me of being mentally ill and insinuated I am an insufficient mother because I disagree with him, so I choose to withdraw from this discussion.
martin said:It's just a question, it doesn't say "I will kill that guy!" and WF was very probably kidding anyway.
Jesed also knows that, of course.
martin said:Since when is "Do I have to fly to Mexico and personally shoot the guy or what?" (that is what Willowfox wrote) a death threat?
It's just a question, it doesn't say "I will kill that guy!" and WF was very probably kidding anyway.
Jesed also knows that, of course.
What's the matter with you anyway, you don't suddenly have a crush on mr Lofting or his poo, or do you?
trojan said:I feel quite angry you feel the need to minimize this and go on about Chris. You weren't on the receiving end of the threats so who are you to trivialise them ?
Not anymore. I finally (much too late, in retrospect) came to the conclusion that it is useless to try to communicate with him. I keep him on ignore now, because if I read his posts I might be tempted to respond again ...You engage with Chris more than anyone else here.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).