The Book of Changes Is a Book of Divination, Not Philosophy

Sparhawk · Apr 1, 2007

Well, it appears that the Yi never spoke to this guy or he was just to deaf to hear. His loss, really...

He has now turned his passion toward ?The Book of Changes,? or the I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination manual and book of wisdom. He concluded after studying it for seven years that ?it is not a great philosophy book but a mere fortune-telling book.? That would cause a great backlash against classical scholars of the book, but he said, ?Scholars have attached significance to a mere fortune-telling book.?

The part Mun underlines is a set of predictions represented by a set of 64 abstract line arrangements called hexagrams that are but numbers. He said, ?Some recently discovered Bronze Age relics reveal that mere numbers were used. It is the hexagrams that show the simplified version of such numbers. But attaching philosophy and significance to it is a true distortion.?

Hexagrams are, according to him, mere signboards indicating a set of predictions just like dice in a game.

hollis · Apr 1, 2007

just yesterday!

was reading the Adler translation of Chu Hsi's I-hsueh ch'i-meng

and it appears that this debate is not new....

but not the expression 'mere fortune telling', which is pejorative, but just that the elders did not need it for philosophy or cultivation, just for divination,

is that correct?

Sparhawk · Apr 1, 2007

hollis said:
but not the expression 'mere fortune telling', which is pejorative, but just that the elders did not need it for philosophy or cultivation, just for divination,

The guy "studied" the Yi for "seven years" and feels qualified to discard "philosophy" from the classic? I think he's better off honing his Go skills... I also think there is a huge misconception that if someone is Asian they may have a better understanding of the Yi. Most are as clueless as we are... Most contemporary Chinese CAN'T even read classical Chinese... (just to mention something as basic as reading and writing)

Well, we haven't been able to answer all the questions related to the Bible, so, who's to know what was in the minds of the writers, or compilers, of the Zhouyi, really? Nevertheless, I would refer this person to the dictionary's definition of "philosophy." Regardless of original intention, minimalist views and revisionism, the fact remains that "philosophy" has been attached to the Yijing for millennia. If Plato, in his dialogue "Timaeus", was able to attach a whole set of philosophical precepts to the five solids named after him--solids that had been known to neolithic people for at least a thousand years before the birth of Plato--, how much philosophy can one derive from a system like the Yi?

I see no conflict with the Yi being a philosophical work, as well as a divination system. If they want to play the "chicken and the egg" metaphor with the Yi, well, let's tie "divination" to one of them and say it came first and live in peace forever thereafter. The Yi will be around, and will be used and studied, for as long as there are humans.

Luis

bruce_g · Apr 1, 2007

I’ve found out long ago that American Chinese in general have little, if any, philosophical interest in the Yijing. If they did use it, it was to help them with every day decisions. I found that odd, but it has made me wonder about Yi’s original purpose in ancient China.

I’m a bit confused by what appears to be Mun Yong-jik’s contradictions. On one hand he states “it is not a great philosophy book but a mere fortune-telling book.” Then later he says “I am not interested in knowing what will happen in the future. I refer to it just to find the best way when I face challenges and obstacles.” I wonder, how does he do that without a philosophical foundation?

ewald · Apr 1, 2007

I consider the Zhouyi to be more of a psychological work, rather than philosophical. It maps situations and the intent in them, and relates these to how we psychologically deal with that. If it were a philosophical work, it would present a world view. That however, is not made explicit in the Zhouyi.

I suppose that some of the wings can be considered philosophical, though.

bruce_g · Apr 1, 2007

ewald said:
I consider the Zhouyi to be more of a psychological work, rather than philosophical. It maps situations and the intent in them, and relates these to how we psychologically deal with that. If it were a philosophical work, it would present a world view. That however, is not made explicit in the Zhouyi.

I suppose that some of the wings can be considered philosophical, though.

Interesting distinction. Have to chew on that awhile. What throws me in your statement is "It maps situations and the intent in them..)." To me, intent implies philosophy. Sans intent, I could understand the work as psychology, but as soon as intent is implied, there must be a philosophical line of thought to know what that (supposed) intent is. I prefer the psychological approach over one with a designed intent.

bradford · Apr 2, 2007

ewald said:
I consider the Zhouyi to be more of a psychological work, rather than philosophical. It maps situations and the intent in them, and relates these to how we psychologically deal with that. If it were a philosophical work, it would present a world view. That however, is not made explicit in the Zhouyi.
I suppose that some of the wings can be considered philosophical, though.

I couldn't agree more, on both counts. We don't see a philosophy until the Da Zhuan,
but the psychology of the Zhouyi is rich, at least to anybody who can see more than
superstition and fortune telling.

Luis-
I also caught the line "He concluded after studying it for seven years"
I'm now entering my fifth decade of Yixue, with no conclusions in sight.

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

If there is no established umbrella philosophy, such as Confucianism, there is still ones idea of how things work, through observation. Even if it's as basic as Newton's "what goes up must come down", the observation exists first, then the myth or story (the sky is falling!), then the moral to the story (philosophy); and then the psychology can be applied. I can't yet see how psychology can exist without a philosophical model.

bradford · Apr 2, 2007

bruce_g said:
I can't yet see how psychology can exist without a philosophical model.

Sorry you can't see it yet. We'll wait while you look some more.

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

bradford said:
Sorry you can't see it yet. We'll wait while you look some more.

Oh, big help you are.

Ok, let's try going directly from observation to psychology. The river flows downstream. erm, ok... now what?

Now let's try observation to philosophy to psychology. The river flows downstream. I am like the river. I go with the flow.

Nope, still don't see how you can eliminate the philosophic reference from which psychology can apply.

ewald · Apr 2, 2007

bruce_g said:
I can't yet see how psychology can exist without a philosophical model.

So, what you're saying is that philosophy is implicit, while I said that philosophy is not explicit. Not being explicit, it's not a philosophical work.

bruce_g said:
Sans intent, I could understand the work as psychology, but as soon as intent is implied, there must be a philosophical line of thought to know what that (supposed) intent is.

Why would intent not be a psychological aspect? Without understanding of intent there's no psychological understanding possible, as far as I'm concerned.

hmesker · Apr 2, 2007

The article says: "The part Mun underlines is a set of predictions represented by a set of 64 abstract line arrangements called hexagrams that are but numbers. He said, “Some recently discovered Bronze Age relics reveal that mere numbers were used. It is the hexagrams that show the simplified version of such numbers. But attaching philosophy and significance to it is a true distortion.”

If we look at this part, the hexagrams, I think Mun is right. Originally it does not seem to have any philosophy in it, a philosophy was attached to it in later times. But the Yijing is more than that. The Zhouyi combined with the Ten Wings makes up the Yijing, and that combination definitely contains a closed, complete philosophy.

As far as I'm concerned the Zhouyi does not contain a philosophy. But the Yijing does.

Harmen.

Sparhawk · Apr 2, 2007

hmesker said:
If we look at this part, the hexagrams, I think Mun is right. Originally it does not seem to have any philosophy in it, a philosophy was attached to it in later times. But the Yijing is more than that. The Zhouyi combined with the Ten Wings makes up the Yijing, and that combination definitely contains a closed, complete philosophy.

Yes, I agree and is what I tried to say. If commentary seniority is any indication of "philosophy", then "philosophy" has been a part of the Yi for over two thousand years. I don't care the least if the original intention of the designers of the system, some ___________ (fill-in-the-blank) thousands of years ago, was a way to figure out the timing for wars or harvests. There is enough history and commentary attached to the Yi to warrant saying that the "Yijing" is a philosophical work.

I also like the subtle distinction made by Ewald, and seconded by Bradford, between "philosophy" and "psychology". However, I believe they both walk holding hands. They complement each other. Funny also how this distinction can bring "some" of our opinions closer to what Chris Lofting has been preaching for years.

L

PS: Brad, I hear you. I'm almost positive that regardless of age at the time of my death, I'll go down with a lot of clues and ideas but no conclusions on the Yi... Sometimes I believe the Yi is one of those shape-shifting animals one encounters among the nahuales...

hollis · Apr 2, 2007

sparhawk said:
I believe they both walk holding hands. They complement each other. Funny also how this distinction can bring "some" of our opinions closer to what Chris Lofting has been preaching for years.

bit new to Chris' work, but slowly nodding'yes' to this.

sparhawk said:
PS: Brad, I hear you. I'm almost positive that regardless of age at the time of my death, I'll go down with a lot of clues and ideas but no conclusions on the Yi... Sometimes I believe the Yi is one of those shape-shifting animals one encounters among the nahuales...

rich metaphor Luis. Someone send a canary out to Dobro, he's in the thick of it..... JUST kidding!!!!!

Sparhawk · Apr 2, 2007

hollis said:
rich metaphor Luis.

LOL!! I just read your post in another thread. I had no clue you were also using the shape-shifting metaphor... :rolling:

Hey, we may be on to something here...

L

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

Thanks, Harmen. That clears things up a bit for me, though not entirely. I'm not using "philosophical" as an all encompassing, closed ended and defining word, but as part of any psychological thought process. Perhaps "science" could be used in place of "observation", which is the beginning of any process of human understanding, as far as I'm concerned.

This article seems to compliment the one Luis posted:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/taixuan.html

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

ewald said:
So, what you're saying is that philosophy is implicit, while I said that philosophy is not explicit. Not being explicit, it's not a philosophical work.

Well, I guess that settles it then, since you already said so.

I didn't say Yi is a "philosophical work", in the sense of orthodoxy, but that philosophy forms a framework and premise for psychology to operate within.

ewald said:
Why would intent not be a psychological aspect? Without understanding of intent there's no psychological understanding possible, as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't say intent is not an aspect of psychology. Intent is judged according to a given philosophy, by which psychology can be determined. Without philosophy, there is no point of reference to apply psychologically.

ewald · Apr 2, 2007

Well, I can agree that there's a philosophy behind the Zhouyi. A psychological philosophy,

.

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

ewald said:
Well, I can agree that there's a philosophy behind the Zhouyi. A psychological philosophy, .

Is that your philosophy? :rolling:

Sparhawk · Apr 2, 2007

Not to lose sight of what's being discussed here, I think there's nothing better than to have a clear definition of the term:

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

Main Entry: moral philosophy
Function: noun
: ETHICS; also : the study of human conduct and values.

And I firmly believe we are stuck somewhere in here :rolling:

:

Main Entry: ordinary-language philosophy
Function: noun
: a trend in philosophical analysis that seeks to resolve philosophical perplexity by revealing sources of puzzlement in the misunderstanding of ordinary language

L

PS: I'm closer to Bruce's point of view here... IMO, philosophy is a firmly established part of what we know as Yijing.

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

Luis, thanks for posting the broader definitions.

The longer I'm in the Yi, the less philosophically orthodox I perceive it. But that just amounts to constructing my own philosophy about it and from it. It's the old three blindfolded people defining the elephant trick, me thinks.

bruce_g · Apr 2, 2007

I mean, if you take it back to it's source, before duality of yin/yang or up and down, or black and white, it all goes back to the same unexplainable void, from which all else arises and withdraws.

But that's just my philosophy.

bradford · Apr 3, 2007

That's only one of em.

psychology |sīˈkäləjē|
noun the scientific study of the human mind and its functions,
esp. those affecting behavior in a given context.
[in sing. ] the mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity

ewald · Apr 3, 2007

I somehow find the dictionary entry Sparhawk posted from Webster's not particularly clear, and perhaps even ambiguous. What Sparhawk finds applicable is exceptionally broad, stretching the meanings of the word a lot.
Dictionary.com's Unabridged works better for me:

the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

1, 2 and 4 are about philosophy as a branch of science, the Yi obviously isn't.
Being philosophical, as in 6, is also something different.
While it may seem that the Yi is like 5, it isn't. 5 is about the use as in "His philosophy was not to interfere," "He has an unusual philosophy of life," "Self-indulgence was his only philosophy," "My father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it." This is a different use of the word.

The question is really whether the Yi is a philosophy as in 3.
The Zhouyi isn't, some of the wings are.

bruce_g · Apr 3, 2007

With 1, 2 and 4 you get egg roll.

I find your reasoning most unreasonable. How can anyone who has spent considerable time in the Yijing even suggest that it is not a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct? Is not a natural (nature based) philosophy? Is not a critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them? To me, that is precisely what the Yijing is.

ewald · Apr 3, 2007

Well, Bruce, that's because as a translator of the Yi and other works, I'm very precise about what words really mean. I guard against stretching the meanings of words to fit with what I like to see.

bruce_g · Apr 3, 2007

What "precise" word or words would you use to describe the Yijing?

ewald · Apr 3, 2007

You seem to be asking me to repeat something I already said, Bruce.

ewald said:
It maps situations and the intent in them, and relates these to how we psychologically deal with that.

While the autors of the Zhouyi were likely to have a philosophy from which they composed the text, or one might even derive a philosophy from studying the Zhouyi, that doesn't make the Zhouyi in itself a philosophical work.

That the authors of the Zhouyi did a "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" to base the text on, doesn't in itself make the Zhouyi a philosophical work.

"...critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge" relates to a field called philosophy of science. Popper is the most well-known author here.

Sparhawk · Apr 3, 2007

ewald said:
I somehow find the dictionary entry Sparhawk posted from Webster's not particularly clear, and perhaps even ambiguous. What Sparhawk finds applicable is exceptionally broad, stretching the meanings of the word a lot.
Dictionary.com's Unabridged works better for me:

So, let me see if I understand this right: you pick and choose dictionaries to fit your concept of the words? And in doing this you prefer a dictionary that's been around, on the Net, since 1996 as opposed to an online version of a dictionary that's been on shelves since 1841? I grant you, the bastards use "z" instead of "s" and paraphrasing John Cleese of "Monty Python": "The letter 'U' should be reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise." You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra'; you may elect to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you find you simply can't cope with correct pronunciation." The dictionaries, per se, are not dubious, but the practice of selecting those that resonate with our views, just to make a point, it is. When I selected the definition of M-W is because it is a Firefox tool. I use it all the time, by default, for everything; not because I like its definitions better than those of other dictionaries...

And what I find applicable is the precise definition of the word, in all its meanings; that's why the definitions are in the dictionary. I'm am a translator myself, and have been for almost 20 years, so, even though I understand and empathize with what you are saying about precise meanings for words, the argument doesn't fly too high.

Going back to the Yijing, methinks we are blowing hot air only for the sake of argument and defending our entrenched opinions. I made a distinction in the third message of this thread:

Sparhawk said:
Well, we haven't been able to answer all the questions related to the Bible, so, who's to know what was in the minds of the writers, or compilers, of the Zhouyi, really? Nevertheless, I would refer this person to the dictionary's definition of "philosophy." Regardless of original intention, minimalist views and revisionism, the fact remains that "philosophy" has been attached to the Yijing for millennia. If Plato, in his dialogue "Timaeus", was able to attach a whole set of philosophical precepts to the five solids named after him--solids that had been known to neolithic people for at least a thousand years before the birth of Plato--, how much philosophy can one derive from a system like the Yi?

And then this to answer Harmen's view, with whom I fully agree about making a difference between the "Zhouyi" and the "Yijing":

Sparhawk said:
HMesker said:

If we look at this part, the hexagrams, I think Mun is right. Originally it does not seem to have any philosophy in it, a philosophy was attached to it in later times. But the Yijing is more than that. The Zhouyi combined with the Ten Wings makes up the Yijing, and that combination definitely contains a closed, complete philosophy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree and is what I tried to say. If commentary seniority is any indication of "philosophy", then "philosophy" has been a part of the Yi for over two thousand years. I don't care the least if the original intention of the designers of the system, some ___________ (fill-in-the-blank) thousands of years ago, was a way to figure out the timing for wars or harvests. There is enough history and commentary attached to the Yi to warrant saying that the "Yijing" is a philosophical work.

I also liked --and said so in another message-- your view of the Yi being a "psychological" work. However, I don't think there is a dichotomy to be found here. The arguments of both, "philosophy" and "psychology", as applied to any thought system, come from the same source. Forcing an exclusionary distinction is splitting hairs, really.

Luis

ewald · Apr 3, 2007

Luis, indeed, the M-W definitions of "philosophy" seemed a bit old fashioned to me. I have both M-W and Dictionary.com as a Firefox tool, and have been comparing them for a couple of years. I prefer the clarity of Dictionary.com's Unabridged. Yes, I have preferences among dictionaries. The older ones aren't necessarily the better ones, or the ones up to date with modern usage.

It doesn't seem you noted that I have been careful to differentiate between Zhouyi and the Wings (before Harmen made a distinction between Zhouyi and Yijing, btw).

The Book of Changes Is a Book of Divination, Not Philosophy

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Supporter

One of those men your mother warned you about...

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

(deceased)

bruce_g

Guest

(deceased)

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

hmesker

Guest

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Supporter

One of those men your mother warned you about...

bruce_g

Guest

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

One of those men your mother warned you about...

bruce_g

Guest

bruce_g

Guest

(deceased)

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

One of those men your mother warned you about...

visitor