Puzzled by very contraddictory lines

[avatorotava]

My two latest readings were these (the question doesn't matter)

50.3.4.6 > 7

and

58.1.2.3.5 > 62

as you can see, if you have the patience to analyze the moving lines, in both cases they are so much in contraddictin with eachother.
What do you do in such cases? How do you relate to the answer when on one line is black and the other is white?
Which is the adviced behavior?
I never know how to interprete such contraddictory occurances

best

Carlo

 

[thisismybody]

The question does matter. You may see them as contradictory because you know the question. We don’t. How can we advise behavior without knowing what the subject is? We can’t read minds.

 

[breakmov]

Hello avatorotava

What do you do in such cases? How do you relate to the answer when on one line is black and the other is white?

This is the question that "opens Pandora's box".

What to do and how to do it has everything to do with how one looks at the I Ching and the "personal belief constructed of how the I Ching interacts" to respond to the reality posed by each reading. It ends up being a very personal theory of how the I Ching responds coherently to each reading.

Have you ever imagined, for example, two people:

One believes that he can "read" the future, thoughts or emotions of others and therefore guides his entire study on a "personal theory" where his belief is necessarily linked to the way of doing the readings and their interpretation.
The other believes that "reading" the future, thoughts or emotions of others is not possible, that it does not make sense and hence guides his way of approaching the I Ching, "his personal theory of how to read the I Ching" in a way that is possibly antagonistic in some respects to the first-person approach.

...As you can see, this is a complicated topic, a "Pandora's box" topic and perhaps it shows the reason why many readings resonate more with some people and less with others... all very linked to " personal belief of how Yijing works.”

For example, I look at the two readings you presented and I see no contradiction.... both are two complementary photographs, two different angles of a common situation and both respond quite well together or individually to your situation.

I have a habit of deliberately not initially reading the context of the readings, as I believe (personal theory) that the structure of the reading shows something independent of the context of the reading and therefore common to all readings equal to the current one.

Even without a question and exposed context, there is something fundamental that coherently relates the structure and image created with the texts associated with the lines... once again we inevitably enter the domain of "personal theory".

In 50.3.4.6 -- 7 imagine something related to a context where you try to improve something but you are not yet in a position to do so... perhaps because you still don't know, or are undecided, how to leave something that is not compatible with the improvement that you want... or the need to gain clarity about what is "safe" or not to do... and meanwhile in this "uncertain terrain" where there is no strong enough personal and common purpose with others, a "common space with reasonable rules(*)", you "choose not to ruin" what currently exists.

In 58.1.2.3.5 -- 62 imagine something related to a "standby", a careful waiting in search of something better, because you don't know how to intuit this "common space with reasonable rules(*)" in order to interact, or communicate, in this space for improvement with others.

..anyway, here's this general outline based on the structure, so you can see if it makes sense or not...the link between the two readings is directly related to "common space with reasonable rules(*) in order to improve something".

breakmov

 

[avatorotava]

The question does matter. You may see them as contradictory because you know the question. We don’t. How can we advise behavior without knowing what the subject is? We can’t read minds.

Yes I understand, but the question for both ansers was just something very simple like: "Should I take this course of action? Should I do this?" I feel like the answer in this 2 cases is very simply "yes you should do it because the output is very positive" and "no you shouldn't because the output would be tragic" Feels almost like the quantic Schrödinger's cat...

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[avatorotava]

Hello avatorotava




This is the question that "opens Pandora's box".

What to do and how to do it has everything to do with how one looks at the I Ching and the "personal belief constructed of how the I Ching interacts" to respond to the reality posed by each reading. It ends up being a very personal theory of how the I Ching responds coherently to each reading.

Have you ever imagined, for example, two people:

One believes that he can "read" the future, thoughts or emotions of others and therefore guides his entire study on a "personal theory" where his belief is necessarily linked to the way of doing the readings and their interpretation.
The other believes that "reading" the future, thoughts or emotions of others is not possible, that it does not make sense and hence guides his way of approaching the I Ching, "his personal theory of how to read the I Ching" in a way that is possibly antagonistic in some respects to the first-person approach.

...As you can see, this is a complicated topic, a "Pandora's box" topic and perhaps it shows the reason why many readings resonate more with some people and less with others... all very linked to " personal belief of how Yijing works.”

For example, I look at the two readings you presented and I see no contradiction.... both are two complementary photographs, two different angles of a common situation and both respond quite well together or individually to your situation.

I have a habit of deliberately not initially reading the context of the readings, as I believe (personal theory) that the structure of the reading shows something independent of the context of the reading and therefore common to all readings equal to the current one.

Even without a question and exposed context, there is something fundamental that coherently relates the structure and image created with the texts associated with the lines... once again we inevitably enter the domain of "personal theory".

In 50.3.4.6 -- 7 imagine something related to a context where you try to improve something but you are not yet in a position to do so... perhaps because you still don't know, or are undecided, how to leave something that is not compatible with the improvement that you want... or the need to gain clarity about what is "safe" or not to do... and meanwhile in this "uncertain terrain" where there is no strong enough personal and common purpose with others, a "common space with reasonable rules(*)", you "choose not to ruin" what currently exists.

In 58.1.2.3.5 -- 62 imagine something related to a "standby", a careful waiting in search of something better, because you don't know how to intuit this "common space with reasonable rules(*)" in order to interact, or communicate, in this space for improvement with others.

..anyway, here's this general outline based on the structure, so you can see if it makes sense or not...the link between the two readings is directly related to "common space with reasonable rules(*) in order to improve something".

breakmov

Thank you, breakmov. Let me take some time to metabolyze this and meanwhile here is the link of what I feel we are talking about sounds like

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you think there is any section on this wonderful webpage were I can find some insight on this and close the Pandora Box? I am calling hilary@onlineclarity.co.uk on this!

 

[cris]

The more the changing lines, the less their relevance. In these cases the hexagrams take the stage. In my experience Yi is often more straight forward than we expect.

 

[breakmov]

Do you think there is any section on this wonderful webpage were I can find some insight on this and close the Pandora Box?

This whole website is a wonderful testing and learning lab for each of us to evolve in our way of interacting with the I Ching... I particularly enjoy, but also follow with interest other parts, the hexagram essays and the blog.

breakmov

 

[thisismybody]

Yes I understand, but the question for both ansers was just something very simple like: "Should I take this course of action? Should I do this?" I feel like the answer in this 2 cases is very simply "yes you should do it because the output is very positive" and "no you shouldn't because the output would be tragic" Feels almost like the quantic Schrödinger's cat...

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That helps a lot. Thank you. Now the lines can be looked at in relation to taking an action or not. I don’t see them as contradictory. Breakmov‘s input is much more than I could have imagined. And Chris’ idea that the hexagrams take center stage hits for me too. I’d read from there.

 

[moss elk]

My two latest readings were these (the question doesn't matter)
50.3.4.6 > 7
and
58.1.2.3.5 > 62
What do you do in such cases?

The question does matter as much as the context and answer do. When you get 3, 4+ lines,
it's a good time to zoom out and do 'the sentence thingy'
Then include the lines as details (zoom back in) to flesh out a 3-D picture.

50 (7) = is a 'pot luck effort'.
[I)Cooking it up via a combined team/resources[/I].
Someone's effort was not appreciated.
& Someone screwed up.
But, There is something of genuine value. Combine elements, people, into a team that works together to accomplish the goal (7).

58(62)
In this Friendship, one should aim to lower their expectations. You'll not get the totality of what you seek here.
It's not BFF, more like aid to & from travelers on a bus trip or an exchange under an awning during a downpour. Lines 1 and 2 feel positive Line 3 'sits and dreams of the future' and line 5 lets you know something here is not sustainable. (As does the 62)

 

[moss elk]

The more the changing lines, the less their relevance.

This.

1.7 and 2.7 are the examples that clue this to us.

 

[moss elk]

What to do and how to do it has everything to do with how one looks at the I Ching and the "personal belief constructed of how the I Ching interacts" to respond to the reality posed by each reading.

Except that no belief of any kind is required to comprehend a reading.
Our constructed beliefs and culturally inherited/unconsciously absorbed beliefs can often limit our perception.

When I did my very 1st reading, I did not even believe Yi worked. (I only knew that what I was trying wasn't working) Then I saw how the simple answer was showing an objective verifiable fact (which also is not dependant on belief or a single person's perception) about the situation that I wasn't seeing, and the truth hit me like a ton of bricks.

 

[Liselle]

Re: posting questions and information and whether the questions matter.....

• Default: the question matters. Please tell us the exact question you asked in the exact words you said to Yi. This is true even if it was something like "Help???" or even just "?????" It helps just to know that, instead of having no idea at all how you asked - it'll give you the best chance of getting helpful interpretations. Most of the time, Yi answers the question you ask, so we need to know what it was. And then give us as much background as possible (extra important if the question was vague).
• If you had trouble forming a question, and what you wrote down was different from what you had in your head, still tell us what you wrote, but also explain something like "What I really meant by that was...". (Many of us have had this happen. )
• Rule of thumb: give us as much information as you can in your post. The more background we have, the better we'll be able to apply the reading to the situation, which is what people want most of the time.
• We understand there can be privacy issues. Get as close as you can, but there are options:
  • Disguise things. Tell us the problem is with a friend instead of with your brother. Substitute "X" and "Y" for people's names, names of cities, and so on.
  • Tell us you've disguised things. That way, for instance, we'll know not to put importance on our conception of a friend relationship when it wasn't a friend. We still won't know it's about your brother, but we can avoid thinking in terms of any specific relationship at all.
  • If certain facts are crucial, don't disguise those, or again get as close as you can. If it matters that it's your brother ("friend" won't do), substitute "sister" or at least "immediate family member." If you asked about moving hundreds of miles away or to a different country, and that's important, don't make believe it's across town.
• If you really can't tell us anything, please just say so. "This was a real reading about a problem, but I don't feel comfortable even hinting about it on the internet. Please could you give some thoughts anyway?" or something.

If you want to discuss lines and hexagrams purely in theory, Exploring Divination is a better place than here. But if you want to share or get help with an actual reading with a question, those go here in Shared Readings.

To Breakmov's point, of course it's possible to say something about a casting without any information at all, but naturally interpretations will be a lot more general. It depends on what you want from your thread and what you're able to explain.

About contradictions within a reading or between readings - often those can be resolved, but it's not always easy or obvious. Hilary wrote a couple of helpful blog posts about multiple moving lines (here and here), and the Foundations course has entire modules on it.

Brief attempt to summarize:

• Read the answer as an answer to the question.
  You: "What if I do this?"
  Yi: "If you do this, [reading]." (Repeat for the second reading.)
• Read the lines as a story. Lower lines can be the immediate past, the present, or the first steps of a solution, depending on what you asked and how you recognize things. (If you recognize the first line as the thing that just happened, that's what it is.) Later lines can be more the future. If you don't understand them, it might be because real life hasn't gotten there yet. Look out for them as things go on - it might be advice about how to react.
• Or, read the lines as alternatives, and not as contradictory things that somehow are both supposed to be true at once.
• To help sort all of that out, look at the steps of change and the line positions. Those can help explain how the moving line applies if or when this-or-that is true. E.g. fifth lines are "the king's line," so the fifth line might apply when you're in a kingly position (have the ability to choose, etc.)

 

[Liselle]

If you don't understand them, it might be because real life hasn't gotten there yet. Look out for them as things go on - it might be advice about how to react.

Actually I've come to realize more and more how important this is. It's impossible to apply a reading now if it depends on things that haven't happened yet. The best you can do is understand it without applying it. Also don't worry or panic about not understanding it.

Example -
You: "How to handle this with my boss?"
Yi: (answer you don't understand)

But then, lo, when you're actually talking to your boss, your boss will say something you couldn't have predicted but fits the reading, and you'll know how to react.

Obviously the trick is to memorize the reading well enough that it comes to mind when you need it. This can be hard.....

(This might've all gone astray from Avatorotava's question, sorry if so.)

 

[Liselle]

1.7 and 2.7 are the examples that clue this to us.

That's interesting; I've never thought about those like that. Anything more you can say?

 

[moss elk]

That's interesting; I've never thought about those like that. Anything more you can say?

Hi,
I have mentioned it a few times in threads.

This time, I'll say:
Notice how the inauspicious omens in hex 1 and 2 (lines 1.6, 2.1 & 2.6) are not present in 1.7 and 2.7's messages.

This is a key to unlocking many-lined readings.

 

[Liselle]

Hi,
I have mentioned it a few times in threads.

Google, bless it (this time), seems like it might be helpful based on search-result-page snippets. Putting this here for later when I have time to click things:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:onlineclarity.co.uk+1.7+2.7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

(It's pretty impossible otherwise to find posts where anyone talks about 1.7 and 2.7. Hexagram search doesn't have a line 7 box, and Xenforo search won't find them, either.)

This time, I'll say:
Notice how the inauspicious omens in hex 1 and 2 (lines 1.6, 2.1 & 2.6) are not present in 1.7 and 2.7's messages.

So - checking to see if I understand - if 1.7 and 2.7 are meant to represent all-lines-changing, but they leave out the message of a whole category of lines (the ill-omened ones), then maybe all-lines-changing is something different from considering all six lines individually (the whole greater than the sum of its parts) - ? And then that applies to multiple moving lines generally, not only 1.7 and 2.7?

Do you think it's a continuum as Cris seemed to put it?

 

[moss elk]

if 1.7 and 2.7 are meant to represent all-lines-changing, but they leave out the message of a whole category of lines (the ill-omened ones), then maybe all-lines-changing is something different from considering all six lines individually (the whole greater than the sum of its parts) - ?

Yes, it seems to be different.

Just as an unchanging reading is similar to but uniquely different from a reading with a single change line. (For instance, when some single line omen contradicts the unchanging Oracle statement, be it in an auspicious or inauspicious way)

And then that applies to multiple moving lines generally, not only 1.7 and 2.7?

I think it does.

Do you think it's a continuum as Cris seemed to put it?

As in 'the more lines... the less relevant'
Yes, in my experience, I find that to be true.