I always enjoy finding someone writing about hexagrams without knowing it. Here is*Zoë of ‘Essential Prose’ writing about Hexagram 38, Opposing.

The way she is, in fact, talking about Hexagram 38 really leaps from the page:

Exactly: this is all very familiar, even to the point that I sometimes mention that ‘from another planet’ idea when discussing Hexagram 38 with clients. It’s not that you’re necessarily ‘dismissing’ anything or anyone, though; just that you observe how very alien their way of seeing is to your own.

This is the gift of Opposing, and I believe this is why its Oracle offers you good fortune – good luck, pure and simple – from ‘small affairs’. It doesn’t just say ‘no mistake’: this is not just about avoiding confrontation and staying out of trouble.

Finally,*Zoë describes her encounter with “a woman wearing a jumble of bright colors and mysterious bags”. Opposing is the weird multi-coloured bag-lady’s hexagram: meeting her, or being her, or finding she will insist on sharing the space between your ears with your normal, driving-straight-ahead-at-the-crossroads self.

And it’s the hexagram of strange visions and encounters – the journey through the line texts is one of ‘seeing’ and ‘meeting’ (I think*Zoë was at line 2) – and simply of encountering irreducible difference. “Generally, different makes people uncomfortable,” which is one reason why Yi recommends ‘small affairs’, to keep that discomfort at bay long enough that we can genuinely meet what is different. A difference of vision in the big things can*make people feel they are fighting for their very existence.

I think (though this is still new territory for me) that this helps in understanding the Shadow Hexagram, 27, Nourishment. If you enter into a time of Opposing in search of Nourishment, looking for an environment that will hold and sustain you, looking to become part of a single ecosystem where you’re fully provided for…*you will run into that utter difference like a brick wall.

So how can you respond?

I think the idea is to keep the relationship between those different visions alive, holding them together lightly in ‘small affairs’ so the survival instincts aren’t triggered and the encounter can be a blessing. This may mean allowing yourself and other people to be different; it may mean allowing yourself to contain difference. This way, you keep the possibility of seeing from the outside.

What you can’t do is create a blend and compromise – as the component trigrams, fire and lake, testify.

‘Fire above, lake below. Opposing.
A noble one both harmonises and separates.’

Different translators bring out variety of meanings here: how the noble one ‘differentiates among things while remaining sensitive to their similarities’ (RJ Lynn), ‘amid all fellowship, …retains his individuality’ (Wilhelm), or ‘where there is a general agreement, yet admits diversity’ (Legge). What they share is a sense that difference and strangeness is to be valued equally with harmony.

Maybe this casts light on the ‘Ideal’ hexagram – the one created if you locate the original hexagram’s component trigrams in the Later Heaven bagua, and replace them with the trigrams in corresponding positions in the Early Heaven bagua. Opposing’s ‘ideal’ is 6, Arguing or Conflict, so the thematic link is hard to miss. It’s good to state and know your difference, to clarify it. Then if you can manage to see the*differences clearly and not look to be fed, ultimately Opposing can open out and nourish you in unexpected ways. Or as Stephen Karcher has it, ‘Present your position carefully and retreat from open conflict, and the channels of spiritual nourishment will be spontaneously cleared in the process.’ Perhaps line 5 shows how.

The hidden core and task of Opposing, its nuclear hexagram, is 63, Already Across. The challenge is to take what is accomplished and defined – including difference – as a starting point, and always to keep on taking it as a starting point, keeping the pattern clear.

I think the idea is to keep the relationship between those different visions alive, holding them together lightly in ‘small affairs’ so the survival instincts aren’t triggered and the encounter can be a blessing. This may mean allowing yourself and other people to be different; it may mean allowing yourself to contain difference. This way, you keep the possibility of seeing from the outside.

What you can’t do is create a blend and compromise – as the component trigrams, fire and lake, testify.

‘Fire above, lake below. Opposing.
A noble one both harmonises and separates.’

Different translators bring out variety of meanings here: how the noble one ‘differentiates among things while remaining sensitive to their similarities’ (RJ Lynn), ‘amid all fellowship, …retains his individuality’ (Wilhelm), or ‘where there is a general agreement, yet admits diversity’ (Legge). What they share is a sense that difference and strangeness is to be valued equally with harmony.

Thanks Hilary, this makes a lot of sense. Funnily enough I was just reading this blog, a response to the new conservative/lib dem coalition government which has a similar 38 feel about it: http://sn122w.snt122.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0
The author uses the word compromise, but what I actually think he is referring to is recognising differences and similarities and finding,instead of conflict, in the small things a way to move forwards.
E

Unfortunately the blog post isn't visible without signing in to Windows Live - so I am Seeing that web page Differently from you . I wonder whether the coalition is 38-ish or 13-ish? Creating harmony with some good, clear demarcations between the tribes?

here you go:
Stirring the Soul
The Art of Compromise
May 17th 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Art of Compromise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Let me begin by saying that in my 30-ish years of adult life, I have always been on the left politically (apart from a few years of flirtation with anarchism), and have always regarded the right with suspicion and dis-trust. Often, this felt more of a gut reaction than a rational response, but, nevertheless, I have consistently never wanted a Conservative government in this country.
The recent election we had was no different, except that this time I knew that the Labour government was tired, and unpopular, and was resigned to a government I didn't want being in office for the first time in thirteen years. As I watched the election results come in, I hoped, despite the polls, that there would, after all, be a strong vote for the Labour and Liberal party, and that we would see a broad-left coalition government.

It was not to be. The result is of course well-known by now, but when I woke up to a hung Parliament, and the possibility of a Conservative minority government, or some kind of Conservative-Liberal alliance, I was dismayed.

But more than that, I was also impressed at the approach of the Conservative leader, who talked of making a 'big, open, and comprehensive offer' to the Liberals. And, then I was surprised at myself for being impressed - it felt like a betrayal of my own very deeply held beliefs to even be thinking like that.

Over the next few dramatic days, I still hoped for an increasingly unlikely alliance of the left and green parties, but I noticed that I was, albeit reluctantly coming around to not just accepting the idea of a Conservative- Liberal alliance, but welcoming it, even though it sticks in the throat to admit it. (The present tense is intentional - thirty years of prejudice won't disappear overnight!)

The next day, there was a press conference with the two coalition leaders. It was a friendly, light, even jokey affair, and I was struck by the mood of this event, even if it was largely aimed at the media.

What impressed me even more, however, was how the two men spoke about how they had come to their decision to create a coalition: "We looked at the idea of creating an arrangement that would work, and then decided that it wasn't very exciting at all. Couldn't we be really bold, and go for something that might be more difficult, where we both have to give up some of our precious beliefs, in order to create something new and exciting'.

It's easy to be cynical, and already the British press are picking holes in the agreement and looking for conflict, but I am genuinely excited by British politics for the first time in a generation, and encouraged by the bravery of two political leaders who are willing to make big compromises for the sake of something bigger than themselves. And, of course, it might not work - but that's part of the boldness of risk.

Of course, there are elements in both parties who feel 'betrayed', who feel that their leaders have 'sold out', and that the Conservatives should have gone it alone, rather than compromise, and many of my friends on the left have challenged me for my openness to this coalition. However, while it is of course important to pay attention to our values, and to what matters to us, the lack of compromise can cost us dearly sometimes. I think it's a learning journey for all of us - certainly it is for me!

For example, a few years ago, I was working with a female executive coachee, about 35 years old who wanted to work on 'finding a relationship'. During our first conversations, she talked about how important her independence was to her, and how 'you should never compromise'. As we explored further, it turned out that she'd "never been in a relationship", mostly because of that unwillingness to compromise. That independence included not being soft or feminine, and so it was in those areas that I began to ask her to stretch.

To cut a long story short, we worked on recovering her femininity, including the suggestion to go shopping with some of her female friends, and to buy some more feminine clothes, and to practice softness and asking for help from others, all of which challenged her independence and difficulties with compromise. However, after a few months of working together, she started to discover a softness in her that wasn't there before (she told me that she had learned to be tough at very early age due to some family difficulties), and she was beginning to enjoy 'my feminine side'. And, then six months later, she wrote to say that she had fallen in love for the first time.

Because we are often taught that compromise is weak, or that we should "stick to our guns", we can often miss out on what we really care about, or what we long for. In my work, I often suggest to my coachees and students that we need to become that which we are "not", to give up some of our identity, in order to get what we really want in life.

Reflections

Where in your life are you unwilling to compromise? What does it cost you?

What aspects of your identity might you need to let go of, in order to get that which you most care about?

How might you begin practising "that which you are not" in order to get what you long for?

"You see, the whole thing in marriage is the relationship and yielding - knowing the functions, knowing that each is playing a role in an organism... marriage is an ordeal; it means yielding, time and again. That's why it's a sacrament: you give up your personal simplicity to participate in a relationship. And when you're giving, you're not giving to the other person: you're giving to the relationship. And if you realize that you are in the relationship just as the other person is, then it becomes life building, a life fostering and enriching experience, not an impoverishment because you're giving to somebody else. This is the challenge of a marriage." - Joseph Campbell

"The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live." - Leo Buscaglia

and yes, it's a good point about 13, will see what happens over the next few months!

I find Stereopsis or retinal disparity to be valuable in understanding 38.
Our perception of depth requires that our own eyes see things from different points of view. The disagreement is useful information in constructing a deeper picture. Same with divergence of point of view between people. Diversity of opinion is a measure of the health of a society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal_disparity

Like the way teen and youngest daughters would share the same bedroom.