Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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).
It seems you're accusing me now of being irrelevant, by just referring to the Zhouyi. However, I was clear to differentiate, Bruce.The article in question has to do with the Yijing, not just the Zhouyi.
But the point was that you implicitly denied me making the distinction.I made that distinction, implicitly (*), in Message #3...
But the point was that you didn't acknowledge me making the distinction.
So in fact, the article was probably mostly referring to the Zhouyi, instead of the entire Yijing.
Actually I didn't. Your reply was there only after I had posted my edit. ("Implicitly denying" better describes what happened than "not acknowledging.")PS: ahem, let's not change or edit our posts AFTER somebody has replied to them...
Well, Luis, I think you're perfectly aware that I'm likely to be correct.Reading authoring intention in a newspaper article, about a third party, is stretching it.
Actually I didn't. Your reply was there only after I had posted my edit. ("Implicitly denying" better describes what happened than "not acknowledging.")
Last edited by ewald : Today at 11:08 AM.
Well, Luis, I think you're perfectly aware that I'm likely to be correct.
But something being a joke doesn't rule out it being an attack of sorts. You know, the kind of joke that is at the expense of someone, of me, in this case. What seems to be the ending of an argument with joking is in fact a way of humiliating the other while trying to get away with it, and having the last word.I think you are missing a "smilie" because I believe you are implicitly making a joke...
I would like to make a case for the Zhouyi as a philosophical text. I disagree with Ewald's position that a philosophy is present only if made explicit. If the text was set up to encourage a search for implicit meanings (which I think it was), it is no surprise that the authors would insert their world view.
Denis M.
But something being a joke doesn't rule out it being an attack of sorts. You know, the kind of joke that is at the expense of someone, of me, in this case. What seems to be the ending of an argument with joking is in fact a way of humiliating the other while trying to get away with it, and having the last word.
Maybe the Yi is a work of art which is informed by a philosophy. It's hard to say what philosophy is behind it, it's so Rohrsachlike.
He said two things that struck me: "It's some kind of mind virus." and "It's all about cross-referencing."
Still not ready to say that the Yi represents a philosophy, but I too am stuck on the question of explicitness. If someone were to allow that Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra is as much a work of philosophy as Beyond Good and Evil, then I might go that far at least.
It's definitely got an attitude, but nothing I see is consistent all the way through the book in terms of expressing a structured world view (until we get to the Wings).
The consistent themes that I see expressed throughout are way's of approaching life and life's situations. While much of this might come under the heading of Ethics, the philosophy of behavior, which is indeed a major branch of philosophy, I don't see it postulating a physics that's any more complicated than "bad consequences tend to follow upon boneheaded decisions."
My embrace of Yi comes from nature, not philosophy. What I make of it is "my trip". Has nothing to do with good or bad, right or wrong. It has to do with being true to my nature. Learning exactly just what that nature is is half of the quest. The other half is, learning to be it. THAT is a philosophy.
Hmm, didnt Kongzi say something about if he could add 30 more years to his life he would have spent them studying the Yi?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).