When I read other people's interpretations of the IC lines, I get lost in trying to figure out what translation is being used. I have about 15 different translation/commentaries, many of which are very similar to one another, and some that seem to be a universe unto itself, like Karcher and also Anthony. I love using Karcher because he sees some good in just about every single changing line, with some exceptions like 23 line 4 and 50 line 4. But even 25 line 3 sounds okay in Karchers book and so does 58 line 6. Anthony always throws it back in your own lap and I think it is the most productive use of the IC cause it makes you discipline yourself and your mind.

One time I asked the Sage if it mattered what translation I was using as to how he answered my questions and I got hex 1 line 4, which I interpreted to say, "don't change horses in the middle of the stream". It seems that the Sage isn't limited to being able to answer you no matter what version you are using or even if you are using the dictionary.

If we are going to use the ICHING for communication with the Sage or our higher self, it would seem to me that the Sage's answers would be clear and to the point. Not that we wouldn't need to study and refine our perception, that IS the point of it, but rather, I don't think the Sage is going to play "guess which IC has the right answer" games with us. But that is a game that we play with one another.

So it stands to reason that the Sage is going to base his answers to us on the translation and commentary that we are studying/using at the time.

This is not to say that the Sage doesn't have a sense of humor either. I asked "should I fly or drive?" and I got 62, no changing lines, which I interpreted as "stay close to the ground" in other words, "drive".

Also, people tell me that you can't ask the IC yes/no questions. But I do so all of the time. "Is it going to rain on my wedding day?" Answer hex 62 line 5 "dense clouds no rain". That seems to say, no it won't. But if I were to ask, "will I get the job?" and I get the same 62 line 5, I would think that if it isn't with someone who is in retreat (in the cave) then it means, "even if it looks like you are going to, it will never come to pass". And this IS what happened when I asked the Sage that question and got back that answer.

Several months back I posted something about hexagram 27--I think as it pertained to addictions. Two responders replied that hex 27 line 6 was negative. But I can't see where they get that notion, because I can't find an IC that gives a negative interpretation of 27.6 "a source of nourishment exists"

In a current thread, someone posted that hex 30 line 6 is about 'change'. I can't find that version of the IC either. Most of mine say "just because you have the right to punish wrong-doers, you don't need to make it a slaughter". That doesn't directly pertain to change so much as it pertains to correction of a messy situation.

I hope people have patience with me if I ask you over and over again just where you get your answers from. Because I think I have collected as many variations as there are and I am totally befuddled as to how some people come up with their responses to other peoples' questions.

I really related to Val's comment that she likes the cryptic answers that come from the Zyoui (sp?)more than any particular commentary. I agree that it speaks more to the archetypal mind and is a more creative way to use the IC than looking for absolutes in a relative world.

And speaking of other people's questions, it seems to me that where relationships are concerned: if you have to ask, then the answer is "no", at least for now. 99% of all the questions about relationships I read seem to really be saying "is this person going to act out my fantasy world about him/her or not?" To me the answer to 99% of the relationship questions are either hex 32 line 1, or 24 line 6.

Pagan, you seem to answer most of your own questions. Perhaps that is what the IC does best?

I believe it does matter what translation/version a person uses, and I don?t believe the Yi conforms our answer to the one we happen to be using at a given time. I don?t see the wide scope of variations you speak of from interpretation to interpretation. What I see is varying levels of insight, both into the IC and into how life and things operate and interrelate.

About relationships inquiries, I don?t read the majority as a no, but I do agree that most relationship questions are seeking easy answers, to which there are few. I did a relationship reading for a client yesterday which was extremely well thought out and phrased. The situation was complex, warranting an inquiry, in my opinion. What made it a great question as opposed to being frivolous is that the ?sitter? asked ?What can I do to ensure the best possible outcome regarding...?? The IC is written entirely about relationships of one thing or person to another, and the best we can do is to ensure the best possible outcome through our own thoughts and actions.

Hi Candid,
But you can sum up a few things about what the IC tends to favor in relationships: it likes those relationships that are dictated by custom and tradition and protected by contract and legal rights. The IC seems to be very cautious about any relationship which is based solely upon personal inclination, lust or what goes against the grain of social norms. Especially the IC doesn't like any kind of relationship that will tarnish your honor or personal self esteem and seems to counsel seekers to be modest and moderate from the get go so that you won't create situations where you may be embarassed.

But when the seeker asks about a relationship of personal inclination or lust, grounded on the desire to have another codependent fix in the form of another person, I don't think that you are going to get good answers from the IC because "you ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer" and as in hex 4, the sage seems to expect the seeker to use what is already laid out in the IC, and if you don't and rather indulge in unenlightened questioning, then the sage has no alternative than to give you a chance answer.

Back to versions of the IC: I gave you two examples where Karcher diverges greatly from most other commentaries: 58 line 6 is one. Another I didn't mention is 22 line 2. But if you think that it does matter which commentary you use, then, which one do you use?

Pagan,

I don't really agree with your take on relationship questions. You are really assuming that most of them are motivated by lust or personal gain or neediness and you also assume that the I Ching 'condemns' this type of motivation. For starters, a relationship can be like you describe:
"relationships that are dictated by custom and tradition and protected by contract and legal rights"
and still be a relationship of convenience, or motivated by personal gain or totally destructive for one or both parties. How many people do you know that actually love their partner in the perfect way they should love them, anyway?

In any case, the truth is you don't know what motivates these people any more than you know what motivates other people asking other types of questions. If they seem codependent or needy or out of touch with reality to you, that might or might not be true. Who is to judge? In fact those qualities pretty much describe anybody who is in love. And the Yi will give them advice, and it does not 'disapprove' of them anymore than it disapproves of the rest of humanity! They are not any less perfect than the rest of us.

Personally, I am at a point in my life where I don't foresee that I will ever again be in a 'love situation' and I consider myself pretty cynical about love relationships. I see where you're coming from when you say that if you need to ask the answer is no. But I understand how people feel when they are in love and I remember how confusing, exciting and scary it can be. I think I read somewhere else in this forum that love relationships challenge the way you perceive the world. And I think it's true. Most other issues in life are pretty straightforward. In love matters there is always desire to believe that everything is possible, the nagging doubt that if somehow we do things the right way we can succeed.

I know a lot of people here like to disapprove of love questions but I'm pretty sure that if anyone of them was to fall in love again (because we all have been in love before) they would find themselves anxiously tossing the coins and wondering, "how do they feel????"

Pagan, I agree generally with what you've said, but I think my view of IC and relationship guidelines may not be as tightly wound as yours. Natural affection is encouraged by the IC, even when it's extremely sexual. Nature is entirely relational and sexual. It's only when the innermost nature of each are not well matched or aligned that Yi discourages passion or intimacy, just as would any wise councilor.

I use a modified Wilhelm. I still see Wilhelm as being the richest over all of what I?ve seen or read, but also with blind spots and a strong cultural bias, and probably no small amount of misinformation. I use LiSe?s as a balance; a work always in progress which gives it a living vibe. I use Bradford?s when I need or want to get closer to bare roots and essentials. Being of the less-is-more persuasion, I don?t look for answers through more and more translations or interpretations. First and last, I use my own experience with the changes as a reference guide. I?m not suggesting these are the ?right? IC references for everyone to use. They just work well for me.

Hi Lightangel and Candid,
I don't think the IChing condemns sexual lust, in fact, it would seem to me that the IChing takes a very practical and no nonsense approach to lust, very different that Protestant Christian Puritan Ethic guilt trips.

But there is some question as to whether the IChing actually supports the notion of being 'in love' at all. It is thought that humans evolved the 'in love' experience later in their evolution (see author Julian Jaynes for one) and it may be entirely possible that there was no such thing as the 'in love' experience at the time that the IChing came into being. There are many Chinese history scholars on this list who may be able to find supporting or opposing facts to that question, but I myself am much better versed in Anglo-Saxon history, where you don't see much 'in love' stuff until the Biblical King Solomon. He seems to have made up for lost time in that department, but even so, most people who go under the spell of being in love today find it an incredibly monogomous experience, where you are sick in love with ONE object of your affections, and unless you have a sensory experience of that person (sight, smell, taste, touch, hear) you will go mad. This has been studied in depth now, especially by Helen Fisher out of Rutgers University, USA. King Solomon's lust/love blabber in the Bible was not at all monogomous.

Nonetheless, the IC is conspicuously devoid of any comments or verses of the 'giddy in love' experience and that cannot be ignored.

If sexual orgasm is the most pleasing experience possible on the physical level of being, and Samadhi is the most pleasing of all experiences on a heart level of being, there is no question that being 'gonners in love' is the most euphroric experience on the level of mind and emotion. This covers love on a physical level, a mental level and a spiritual level. Why is it that the IC rarely mentions any of those three? You have to admit they are prime motivators!

I would venture to guess that the latter two; the 'in love' experience and the experience of 'Samadhi' are latter phenomena of the human experience.

Pagan, interesting points. Perhaps "in love" can be a metaphor for "I need": something the IC doesn't seem to even recognize or acknowledge.

What a eye opener it would be if Hilary went back to the archives for 2002 and 2003 and contacted everyone who wrote in with a love relationship question asking them to provide us with a synopsis of what came of the relationship they were inquiring about. I would be willing to bet that 90% would tell us that the relationship went bump bump bump and never quite got off the ground. From my experience, when it really is the real thing, there is no convincing the person otherwise, they just know in their hearts it is right. I think Hilary could make some money publishing that research without using names.

In Dr. Helen Fisher's brain imaging research of people who are in love, there is no way to discern the difference between the in love experience and obsessive compulsive disorder. But unlike OCD, the in love experience corresponds to a certain brain chemistry that can only last 6 months to 2 years in duration. Then, if long term commitment (which is related to the hormone oxytocin in both females and males) doesn't kick in, the relationship will go down hill and at best the two will stay 'friends'. The fact that we now know that being in love is a finite experience should wake us up to finding other reasons besides lust to get involved with another person. It is also thought that unrequited love is the most painful experience a human can endure. (they never tried natural childbirth). It also should be noted that the 'in love' condition in the brain has to be set up, and drugs, alcohol and even nicotene can make it difficult to experience being in love. Fisher found that the number one thing that causes people to fall in love was an element of surprise. This would explain why you find the most unlikely duos sometimes.

As far as the experience of satori or nirvana or samadhi there seems to be reference to it in the Hindu Vedas that are hard to date because they were an oral tradition for thousands of years (or so it is said by some) but if you look at the history of the Chinese, it isn't really until Buddha came along that you start seeing references to Nirvana. Prior to that you have philosophers like Confucius who didn't think one should try to evolve too far beyond the crowd he lives with, otherwise he becomes a freak of nature. I am not sure about Lao Tzu's pov but I know that the IChing is supposedly dated way before Buddha showed up in China.

Regardless of how you look at it; sexual orgasm, the 'in love' experience and nirvana are all kind of anti-social activities and sort of a method of forming factions which, if you like Wilhelm's pov, is not a good thing for the group or the individual.

Pagan, so I guess this means you won?t be writing any romance novels anytime soon? ?The Burning Compulsion?? Seriously, I?m enjoying reading your thoughts on this.

Hi Pagan...

I have what I consider to be a rather funny story to add to this thread that I hope you will enjoy.

Last night I worked really late getting things ready in advance for an Open House/Grand Opening that we're throwing at this very moment here at my place of business. I'm hiding away in my office while food and drink is being served, music is pulsing and a throng of people mill around and/or tour our facility.

When I woke this morning after not sleeping much at all because I was too tired to, I did NOT want to work this party tonight. I wanted to try to beg off. So I consulted the Yi. They answered with 47.2 to 45. LMAO... I had about five different versions at my fingertips and I I picked up Freeman's version... the last sentence of his interpretation of 47.2 basically says "As much as it pains you, go and play host to your guests." So... I am... but I'm hiding out long enough to write this to you. And then I'm back to workin' the party.

Love ya,

Val

I think there's can be a kind of synchronicity in looking at multiple sources for your answer. I think Val is getting at that above. Although I currently stick with Wilhelm and Legge (and sometimes Brad's version as a tie-breaker), I do notice that sometimes the most relevant "answer" is contained in a snippet of commentary - apart from the main text or line text. So I think that whatever force provides relevant answers in the first place occasionally makes use of the additional material to provide an answer.

So, having multiple translations around would allow this phenonenon to occur more. However, you'd have to watch out - I think that having *too* many competing versions/translations around is likely to breed confusion rather than clarity. For me it would at any rate...

(Should emphasize, what I described above only happens *sometimes*. Normally, I get the answer in the main text/line text.)

- Jeff

One of my first questions on this forum was about "love".

To me, "love" in it's basic form is between two people. On an intermediate level family and humanity and on a higher level, for that which is "beyond" us or whence we came. Unity, wholeness, is the epitome of "love".

It's baby steps, and even what seems superficial may not be. You know, we're all learning and at different levels and rates.

Even when I first asked about that particular "love", I had conciousness about its "superficiality" and felt awkard and maybe shame because of asking about it. But in retrospect, there is no shame in that you are seeking to understand and over come duality.

I could have gone two different ways from that experience. Closer to unity (what we as humans typically "label" as 'love') or farther away from it.

Solomon maybe the first biblical book to poetically verbalize love, it is not the first story about love in the "Bible". It isn't so much a matter of religious documentation or history but more of personal experience, which is basically what we have to rely on.


While I won't and don't disagree on much of the research commented on, orgasim, the "in love" experience, and nirvana seem to fall short of expectations and expectations seem to be the causes "anti-social" behavior and those expectation are what are detrimental to the individual and the group.

Better to reflect on our motives and damn them rather than damn what is a natural course of the human psyche. Acknowledge that natural part and maintain equilibrium even if it's not a perfect balance.

So, basically, whether it's love or versions of any kind are about what we respond to, or resonance. What labels for what thoughts are used and how we relate and respond to those labels that we use to communicate---- Some times one version does it and sometimes another, depending on our frame of mind and the "position" of receiving.

And maybe we need to consider maya.

Pagan,

"But there is some question as to whether the IChing actually supports the notion of being 'in love' at all. It is thought that humans evolved the 'in love' experience later in their evolution"

While I think it's probably true that the in love experienced was evolved later in evolution (I even think that arranged marriages would probably be ideal: no unrealistic expectations and lots of good attitude towards making it work), I really don't see how you can say that the I Ching "supports" a notion or not. To me, the I Ching gives you answers that are an abstraction from a concrete reality which is the basis of your question. It was never meant to answer questions about the stock market or about "career improvement", yet some people ask them and get their answers. In fact, I would be willing to say that most of our current day situations are very far removed from the reality that existed back when the I Ching was written. And that is part of the beauty of it. That it still can apply to any situation.

Regarding the chemistry of love, I do find it really interesting. However, a case can also be made (and has been made) regarding motherly love. You can take that kind of love that is supposed to be the purest there can be (at least the most inconditional and resilient kind) and break it down to brain chemistry. Does that make it less valid? Does it even make it less spiritual? I believe that all spiritual experience can and will be traced to body reactions and there is nothing wrong with that. Our bodies are a reflection of our souls in some way. If you are in "Nirvana", your brain will show it, your heart will show it. That doesn't prove it's a merely physical experience.

And yes, Candid, "love" is usually about need. I am of the theory that, when it comes to love, everybody is "looking for something", as the old song says. It's human nature. But this desire, this neediness leaads to a connection and this is the inevitables path to what might be a settled, profound relationship that comes after you have been together for a while and that is where true love (in as much as we are capable of loving) takes place. The unconditional, deep, soul-mates kind of love that some of us experience in this life and some of us don't.

Lightangel,

"And yes, Candid, "love" is usually about need."

Nooooo. Pagan was speaking of the term "in love", and that was my reference. Love is the opposite of need. It's organic, rich and real.

Sorry Candid, that's what I meant, the 'in love'...

About love and motherhood. Hey Lightangel that's a great point, I like your words on this.

It is 'kitten time' here on the farm, again, (I remember writing a post last year about this time about getting these abandoned kittens on my doorstep) And yet another cat has had kittens that I ended up AGAIN being in stewardship with. I had the opportunity to marvel, again, at love in the cat world. I marvelled at the qualities of it. My gosh, this beautiful furry animal had these tiny little blind peanuts and she was all aglow afterwards, crazy with love. Yes it was chemical, but she is still a being with 'metta'.

This has been a pretty and far ranging thread; I feel I'm probably spoiling it. Ah, well. Each vase needs one crack to perfect it...

I liked Pagan's remarks about love and the social contract very much. That would be one fruitful way to compare I Chings.

The different layers or strata of the Yijing really do strike me as having different personalities, if not personae, and as very much products of their eras.

Wilhelm's informants were from one kind of China, Wang Bi's was another China, and the China of the Zhouyi yet another.

So many Chinas.

Then of course are the translators; Wilhelm had a context and his mores and beliefs, as did Legge, and Alfred Huang and Master Jou.

(Funny to think maybe down the road someone will ponder the ways that TCB is a product of my time and place, and try to recover central Texas of the turn of this century to further their reading of TCB... Strange thought.)

I often feel the Y, especially newer layers, is sort of turgid or too ponderous to talk about romantic love. That the basic impulse of the Y has to do with worldly power rather than love. (Do you feel something of this sort?)

And my reading against the Zhou Conquest, as I still tend to do, sees love as alliance or nation building. Or perhaps even as conquest in war; scaling the castle and all that... I suppose some would find that banal or macho, but that figure has a vast history, and I can live with it...

FC

Hi Freeman

It's so good to hear you talk about layers and strata-
"The different layers or strata of the Yijing really do strike me as
having different personalities, if not personae, and as very much
products of their eras."

One observation I think should be included here, however, and I tried to argue this in my intro and history, is that many of these layers can come from the same era.
For one, there are always subsets and subcultures within a culture. The Wu Xian (congress of shamans) who authored the Yi were a very different subculture from the Zhou Court itself.
As long as they pleased the Court and the King, which would have been their prime directive, I imagine them feeling quite free to insert their own layers of subtext.

Hi Lightangel and Tashi,
I don't believe that science is the end all in knoweldge or truth, but it lends some very interesting insight into love. You both spoke of the bond between mother and child. From a brain/body chemistry point of view, whenever a parent sees his own child, he/she releases oxytocin into the blood stream. Oxytocin seems to be the human bonding hormone. When a mother gives birth, her body floods with the hormone. Right after orgasm a man's bloodstream is saturated with oxytocin, which prevents him from getting another erection immediately. Oxytocin fights testosterone. This is why a new mother is rarely intestested in sex. This is what keeps brother and sister and other family members from being sexually attracted to one another. This is why a long term relationship is hard to keep sexually on fire.

Tashi mentioned the kittens and cat-mother love. It is the same hormone, oxytocin that makes animals breed and bond as it is in humans. This is a vast study and very new. For example, Vasupressin is what makes men monogamous, both in animals and in humans. Humans are not naturally monogomous for more than 3 years time, and Fisher, the researcher I mentioned above, theorizes that it takes about 3 years to bring a newborn human child to enough independence so that its survival is more established. Then it is natural for the human male to 'wander'.

Fisher outlines romantic love as three very distinct chemical states: testosterone which is sexual; seratonins/dopamine/phenylaline which is 'in love'; and oxytocin which is long term bonding. In additon to theese, vasupressin makes animals, such as prairie moles and many species of birds mate for life. It makes human men murderously jealous husbands(must be higher levels in middle east).

The brain chemistry of buddhist monks, nuns who have made vows never to speak and other spiritual guru-types is going on right now but I haven't seen any results published.

I don't think that brain/body chemistry is the end all in relationships, and I do believe that we can over-ride brain chemistry/body hormones. But I don't think most people do that, they are more led along by lust, romance, and partnering in a somewhat chance-ridden fashion. You are correct that arranged marriages fare better and longer because the parents know what can be sustained long term much better than the lust crazed lovers do. Is it any wonder then that the IChing favors relationships that are protected by taboo, social mores, cutoms and contracts?

But if you are looking to fall in love, the first thing you must do is detox your body. The most profound 'in love' experience comes when we are still young and our bodies are more pure than they are later in life. If you want to fall in love, you must condition your brain chemistry to create the ideal environment for it to happen.

Secondly, you should do something entirely different than you have ever done before, because it is found that most people end up falling in love in an completely new environment or with someone who is totally new in some respect. If you are not athletic, join an athletic club. If you aren't typically intellectual, go to a lecture. etc.

Caution: be careful because if you fall in love with someone who doesn't feel the same way about you, or can't be with you because he/she is married, or some other thing prevents uniting with the object of your passion, it will be an agony that is unfixable by drugs or any subsititute for the one whom you have become fixated on. Think of Romeo and Juliet--Love is DANGEROUS!!!

Lightangel brought up another point that I think is very important. She stated that regardless of whether the IChing came into being before the advent of the 'in love' experience in humans, it can nevertheless guide us with that as it can guide us with careers etc. (I hope I am paraphrasing correctly here)

I totally agree with this in that I believe that the IC is a complete metaphysical system and that means it represents all the possibilities of the created universe and existence itself. No matter what new fandangled thing is created thousands of years from now, the IC will still be a system of archetypes that encompasses all that can ever be made manifest. It will therefore be able to assimilate to any new technology, any new civilization and etc. But to do this, we have to let go of the ancient local meanings and embrace a more universal method for understanding what each line means. If we are to rely on the ancient local expressions of each changing line and hexagram, we are going to be as confounded as today's Bible thumping creationists trying to disprove evolution.

That said, I am more in agreement with the Infamous Chris on this list about the universality of the IC. I believe that the entire iching can be understood as the varying complexity of yin and yang polarities as they build upon one another (the principle of recursion). In other words, if brilliant and wise men were given just the meanings of yin and yang, and then had to fathom without any other input, what might happen if you have the digrams, the trigrams and the hexagrams, they could reason it all out without the help from turtle shells, lao tzu, the zhyoui or any of the levels and layers of commentaries.

I will even go so far as to say that if that were not the case, then the IC would not be a valid metaphyscial system, not a usable oracle.

Hi Pagan, I actaully agree with much of what you say about the IC and romance. Plus, my family is in the animal slavery business, and they give oxytocin shots to cows after the calf is taken away, so she produces milk.

What is wrong about lust...
I think we impose our moralistic views on mother nature. She made lust, because lust serves her ends. Without it, humanity will not make so many babies, and nature wants babies.
But I can understand that lust turned into something disagreeable. Same like hunger. In our society we have worry, which grew from hunger. When you are hungry, you search for something to eat. Very straightforward. But if you cannot fulfill your hunger in such a straight way, it turns into worry. If you feel fear, you run away. If you can?t run, you develop nervousness or a depression. But both hunger and fear themselves are good strategies. Without them, you?d starve or be eaten.
I see many times, that Yi gives me advice to get rid ? or how to get rid - of worries or a depression. So probably it does the same with lust. I don?t know. Never got a negative answer about it... on the contrary.

The agony of falling in love has probably also a lot to do with social restrictions. Animals have no problems. They can love, even fall in love, I have seen it myself. But for them it is natural and no problem at all.
We had a big shepherd, a wonderful dog, but a bit an stiff gentleman. He needed stimulation. He met this crazy bitch, who could not sit still for one second, and they fell immediately in love. Chasing each other around and having a wonderful time. She was not in heat, so they did not do anything sexually, but their joy about each other was huge.

I think what we recognize in the Yi as disagreeing with lust, is Wilhelm?s ?time?. When you read a novel, written a century ago, the views about lots of things are very different from now. A 100 years from now, we too will be seen as hopelessly outdated. Freemanc said ?fruitful way to compare I Chings?. Might show what they have in common, making it possible to look beyond the dated meanings, and find the universal ones.
He is right, I think, about one concept being used for many different ?locals?. Love and conquest, allies, building a nation, all coming together on a deeper level, and from there everyone can find his own personal answer.

I have no problem with the old images. I find it not extremely difficult to convert them into modern uses. If I look at the Chinese that is. At the concrete images. Hex.9 e.g. as being about taking care of small livestock, or storing up supplies. Hex.11 as the holy mountain where the gods reside. Hex.13 as ?all people are similar?. Hex.16 as ?weaving images?.
With the interpretations of many Yi?s I have a lot of trouble, because they leave out half or more of the meanings.

LiSe

Hi LiSe
I agree that looking at the old images are full of rich meaning. If you ask me the infinite nature of each archetype makes it neccessary to study it from every angle; the images, the judgements, the commentaries. Also from the Buddhist pov as well as the various historical viewpoints, which requires knowing what was going on in the event that the IC references, such as hex 36 line 5 for example. I think this is true because our 'right brain' way of assimilating information is very different than the way our left brain does, so we need to give our consciousness a good sprinkling of both.

Hello World; Hope you?re all well.

Great topic! I believe each translation functions as a somewhat idiosyncratic ?ink blot? created by each scholar looking at the same or similar ideograms that make up the name and text of the 64 figures. A dance ensues that reflects the highly individualized psyche of the author confronted with the images. His translation is an attempt to put into words his own impromptu choreography. And dance notation is a far cry from music notation. The latter representing a rather precise recipe; the former only a very good guesstimate.

Enter the inquirer with his/her own individualized psyche (a work in progress). As the ?ink blot? is embraced a flood of associations follows?associations that may be as old as the dawning of his/her own consciousness or even as old as the dawning of self-reflection in the primate.

So I believe we are blessed to have so many translations despite the work they impose on us, especially for those of us who suffer OCD. During our search, chances are getting better and better (with better and better translations) that we will fall upon the translation that really fits?despite any associated pain (if we strive for total honesty with ourselves). And just because Karcher hit the nail on the head tonight doesn?t mean he will tomorrow. The way of the way is too complex for just one cartographer.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Dr Bob

Dr Bob,

I like the cut of your jib, sir!

And Val, I must have blinked and missed your wonderful note about 47. I hope your party did not have too many guests that were odious or dangerous. Though I 'spicion you are entirely competent to deal gracefully with such.

Peace to all!
FC

Hi Dr. Bob,
But do you think it really matters which IC you are using? Because what bothers me is that, if it does matter, then I have to read every commentary in every IC book published and then spend hours, maybe days, reconciling differences, and that would really put a damper on getting the dishes done.

who needs dishes.

Not a trivial question!

The Rorschach analogy that pleased me so much earlier started to bother me a little. In fact, it might apply to different diviners using the same text, but not to translators.

Translators are radically different from diviners. (Howzat for a thesis?)

What the translator does is far more constrained than the infinite free play of interpretation to which the diviner is enfranchised.

They have to have a theory or a writing procedure that they are thoroughly committed to. This is something more than just a turn of mind.

(Examples: Wilhelm's immersion and his friendships with informants, Bradford's bookmanship and collaborations, My fussy grammatical parsings and lit-crit "crossword puzzle" approach, and Master Jou's shooting from the hip from his life as a tai-chi master, and Kunst's profound reading of literature contemporary to the Zhouyi are all distinct procedures for working.)

No, for the diviner, it is necessary to have a feel for the translator's critical method, or writing procedure, and then to have some sympathy for it -- to believe their translation is for some specific reason *real.*

If you decide to read more than one book, contradictions between translations are not a problem.

They aren't like a contradiction in a logic proof. They are just reading challenges that the oracle is, for its own mysterious reasons, flipping to you.

If you don't want such a reading challenge, don't crack open your trusty second, third or fifth translation.

However, I think that the pace at which you make a reading should be quite changeable. You should be able to make a reading as quick as lightening, *and* be able to dawdle over a decision for a few days.

Especially if you don't feel like doing the dishes.

Fondly,

FC