A relationship possiblity that I was very excited about, that I was SURE was going somewhere good, unexpectedly fell apart on me. He quite suddenly realized he "didn't have room for a relationship", though he said that at first he thought he did. Says he "can't be something for someone right now".

I'm puzzled as to what he thinks he's supposed to be?!? Can't find anyone who can tell me what that means. But I asked the Yi "what did I contribute here that hit his panic button and made him take off. And I get 23.5.6>8. Splitting Apart changing to Holding Together?

If I'd asked a completely different question, that would be awfully encouraging, but how can this be interpreted in a "what was my role in this?" context?

Perhaps in these lines he's not among the people who have advantage. It depends a bit on the translation you use, but in Wilhelm's line 6 has:

The house of the inferior man is split apart.


Ewald

Whenver I get 23 it seems that my focus has been on making demands, on trying to get something, on having expectations. Usually I have to step back and let those things go, and just try to support the other.

Just guessing, but perhaps because you had high expectations, he might have felt daunted by that, and felt it was too much right now?

23.5 and 23.6 are pretty auspicious lines in the context of having something stripped away in your life. (Sounds like he's the thing being stripped away from you now, or perhaps it's referring to the relationship.) So, if the Yi is answering your question directly, it looks as if it's saying something like: "You did nothing wrong; he's being stripped away out of your life because of nothing that *you* did." Also, if you look at 23.6, two approaches are contrasted - the evolved/evolving approach (which has a good result), and the petty or self-serving approach (which has a painful result). Both these approaches might apply to you and how you handled things (in which case, it would mean something like "on the one hand, you handled it well; on the other hand, there was self-interest in your actions, which led to an unpleasant experience."). Alternately, it might mean that you handled things just fine, but his self-interest screwed things up for him.

Finally, Hex 8 is a pretty interesting relating hex, considering the situation. Cuz Hex 8 talks about people uniting around a central idea or project (in this case, a relationship), and it talks about the importance of moving into union *now*, because if you come to it too late, it won't work. Which is the situation he's in.

Reminds of something a Swedish woman said to me once, something about 'women being like potatoes, cuz if you leave them too long, they get cold', or something to that effect.

I imagine she had lovely potatoes...

*chortle*

I hope you and the Swedish woman don't mind me propagating that potatoes idea. That's priceless!

A shoal of potatoes. Favor comes through the court ladies?

There's a large potato still uneaten
The wise receives a bushel full
The foolish gets an empty sack

8 - keep it together and your potatoes will never be cold.

Ok, it's stretch!

On further reflection, some thoughts someone else might find useful someday:

Yes, I had expectations. But they were based on things he had explicitly offered. What I gather from the last talk I had with him about this though, was that he was making these offers for the wrong reasons. He was trying to "be something for somebody". To my mind, it's preferable to be something for yourself before you go offering yourself up to anyone else. To do otherwise is to be NOTHING, really.

It doesn't sound to me like he saw value in this relationship for him. He saw other value, maybe could see how it would make me happy, maybe could see sort of a general value in pursuing it, but couldn't see it as something that would benefit him in particular.

Which would explain the weird vibe I was getting that he moved from enjoying my company to regarding me as another item on the chores list within a matter of days. And it explains why he could not tell me what he wanted, only what he didn't. His own solid self-interest was the last thing on his mind. So his mitives weren't sincere in the way they need to be.

Poor confused darling.

People really ought to be more consciously, honestly, selfish. They're much easier to deal with that way.

Wow, anyone want some spuds? These are getting a mite chilly!

Totally agree!

Or, at least, they need to have an idea what their "self" is before they can be "ish" with it in a way that truly benefits them.

Sounds like his sense of self was so fragile he feared it getting lost in a relationship.

"To my mind, it's preferable to be something for yourself before you go offering yourself up to anyone else. To do otherwise is to be NOTHING, really."

Bingo. You want somebody who wants into the relationship for very good reasons of their own. Oh sure - of course you want them to like *you* and respect *you* and appreciate *your* company. But you want them to do that because it makes them feel good and alive. Not out of some sense of charity or duty or vague 'nice-guyness'.

Hi Gavagirl...

I know exactly what you're talking about! And it confirms for me what I understand the Yi to be saying to me when I get 23 to 8. Experience has taught me that 23 to 8 means that I am to initiate the splitting apart... the separating. 23 to 8 is telling me to let go. 23 to 2 means for me to be receptive to it.

And I love you Gavagirl! I love you for letting go of a man who was with you for the wrong reasons. I know of a woman who holds onto a man she KNOWS doesn't love her the way she wants to be loved by crying and screaming and saying she can't live without him. If I were in love with a man I knew was in love with someone else or couldn't love me for whatever reason, I would let him go and for that matter help him go... ease the way for him. Besides the fact it would be a terribly painful place for me... not being loved the way I want to be loved... if I love a person, I want them to enjoy supreme happiness, and I will do whatever I can to insure their happiness even if it means letting them go. I just don't understand.

I also don't understand the man's position in that kind of relationship either. Why would a man prefer 'obligation' to 'love'? It, too, seems like a terribly painful place to be. I would love it if someone would explain it all for me.

Thanks.

Love,

Val

I don't know Val.

I do, however, have the inescapable feeling (both down in my bones AND from other readings), that this one is going to be back around. Probably very soon. I've no idea what he will be bringing with him, or what the specific circumstances will be. What I DO know is that if this does happen, the one non-negotiable demand I will make of him is that he show me some sincerity.

Matter of fact, I think I might make that the rule for everyone I try to date from now on. Can't believe I hadn't narrowed it down to that one before.