Hello all!

I thought about some special answers that every diviner can receive, and now I'd like to know how you recognize these answers using I Ching text.

Three special cases that I found are:

1) total vagueness - there is no definite answer on a question, according to an event in the future: chances are "50/50", so you can say nothing about whether it happen or not;

2) "access denied" - you (or your client) have no permission to know the answer;

3) "bad question" - try to reformulate your question.

How do you know them? Maybe there are some lines in hexagrams that tell you so?

Hi Peter - good question! Here are a few that leap to mind -

Hexagram 29 can mean 'the solid answer you're looking for just doesn't exist yet.' Hexagram 8 can be a reminder to go back to your reasons for asking the question, to explore closer to its source. And Yi has a grand repertory of ways to tell me my question is misguided, or that I'm using divination as an alternative to reflection. 27.1 is a good one for that - ouch.

i do not agree you.

hi, peter,

i am a new member in this website.

I do not know your point of view. You should ask me whay... humm...

i do not know Hexagram, but i know some ways of "I Ching".

I-Ching is a general designation, and it includes many business. Divination is only one of it.

For divination, there are many ways to do it. I'd like to use "liuyao" method, because it could tell you if "yes" or "no"!

for example:

There is a good investment for you, and it looks very very good and you will earn so much money. Ok, let me take a "liuyao" Diagrams, such as following:

===========================================================
birth year：1970　　sex：male　　What's you what to know：investment　　
Diagrams Style：input digital(12,73) add time 　　==http://forum.iching-biz.com==
The Gregorian calendar：2006-June-4 18:03　　Sunday
The Chinese traditional calendar ：丙戌年五月初九酉时
干支：丙戌年 癸巳月 甲子日 癸酉时　(旬空：戌亥)
神煞：驿马—寅　桃花—酉　日禄—寅　贵人—丑，未
　　　坤宫：雷天大壮（六冲）　　　　　坤宫：泽天夬
六神 【本　　卦】　　　　　　　　　　【变　　卦】
玄武　▅▅　▅▅　兄弟庚戌土　　　　　▅▅　▅▅　兄弟丁未土　
白虎　▅▅　▅▅　子孙庚申金　　×→　▅▅▅▅▅　子孙丁酉金　世
螣蛇　▅▅▅▅▅　父母庚午火　世　　　▅▅▅▅▅　妻财丁亥水　
勾陈　▅▅▅▅▅　兄弟甲辰土　　　　　▅▅▅▅▅　兄弟甲辰土　
朱雀　▅▅▅▅▅　官鬼甲寅木　　　　　▅▅▅▅▅　官鬼甲寅木　应
青龙　▅▅▅▅▅　妻财甲子水　应　　　▅▅▅▅▅　妻财甲子水

sorry, i do not know how to translate those Chinese words to English. But thare are about relation of Six kind of People, Six kind of God, Five kind of nature element and Chinese trandition time.

If you have more knowledges of "liuyao" you could get know more information about the party and the business.

"liuyao" even give you what's time you will earning or lossing, what anything will be happened, and what's trouble will be up and what anything you should do for avoid it.

hum... do you heard about this before?

If you want, we could discuss it by email or go to our english version web forum.

URL is : http://forum.iching-biz.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=46

all the best!

namjar

namjar,

Thanks, I know this non-textual method ("liuyao", or "Wen wang ke", or "Wen wang ba gua"). You didn't answer my question: how do you recognize special cases mentioned by me in "liuyao"?

------------------
hilary, thanks for the reply. Tell me please, don't you use hexagrams 29 and 8 "as usual"? You wrote "can mean" - so I concluded that sometimes you treat them as other hexagrams. How do you know that in a particular case #29 means "the answer doesn't exist"?

I just asked the IC a question that one might discribe as vague or having 50/50 possibility of happening. I got 48.1.6 - 9 for an answer. 48.1 ("One does not drink the mud of the well") is probably one of the worsed negatives in the book while 48.6 ("One draws from the well without hindrance. It is dependable. Supreme good fortune.") is one of the best. Definitely defining the 50/50 part. Then the change to 9 suggests what to do when there's nothing you can do (comb your hair and hope for the best).

Next I asked a question which I felt pretty sure the IC would consider was none of my business. I received 36.4 - 55. Darkening of the Light changing to Abundance. Would that mean "Discovering secrets ... and Making Them Public"? Like, "it wouldn't be a secret if we told you"?

Finally I asked a question that was poorly phrased and tossed 10.1.3 - changing to 44. Well, actually when I first tossed the coins they bumped into things making it an invalid toss..hmm..that right there should tell me something's not right... Okay, tossing again and getting 10.1," Simple conduct. Progress without blame," a plea to simplify the
question? And then 10. 3 "A one-eyed man", is the IC telling me there's some defect present? Finally changing to 44, the hexagram I equate with Confusion. Yeah, this answer has nothing to do with my question, I think i'm being guided to rephrase my request.

As to how one knows if the reading is actually giving an answer to your question or telling you the question itself is unanswerable, well maybe that would be a good question for the I Ching...

hilary, thanks for the reply. Tell me please, don't you use hexagrams 29 and 8 "as usual"? You wrote "can mean" - so I concluded that sometimes you treat them as other hexagrams. How do you know that in a particular case #29 means "the answer doesn't exist"?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course I read them 'as usual', and only occasionally understand them as a comment on my question. Mind you, I say 'of course', but there are people who'll tell you that hexagram x always means y, regardless of your question. Which, in my considered opinion, is twaddle.

So how do you know when 29 means 'no such clarity to be had, go with your heart' or 8 means 'what was the question again?' Um. Intuition? Sometimes it's obvious, and you're immediately sure. Or you're not sure, and you do some more thinking and maybe some more consulting to make sure you're getting the message. 'Where can this line of questioning take me?' or 'what might be the effects of divining about this?' are occasionally good questions to ask.

LOL! Hexagram 29 ALWAYS means "Contractive Bounding" - no twaddle. Its hard coded into all of us as an artefact of self-referencing. However, since it is so general, it contains a universe! ;-)

You know, Chris, I wasn't actually thinking of you.

Hilary, I am seriously disappointed in you for making such a comment. The dictionary definition of 'Twaddle' is:

twad•dle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (twdl)
intr.v. twad•dled, twad•dling, twad•dles
To talk foolishly; prate.

n.
Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.

And with your statement re 'twaddle' and 'thinking of me' you have directly associated my work with that term. That being the case all you have shown is your deep ignorance of the IC and its origins etc outside of primitive divination perspectives. As such you are way out of your depth as are those who agree with you.

If you wish to step out of the divination box and into something far deeper and richer you will benefit. OTOH if you wish to remain in your 'safe' little world that’s fine too - but don’t put down what you are obviously, seriously, ignorant of.

If you wish to live in, to recreate, or maintain, 10th century BC perspectives that’s fine - you are free to do so. But to then attack 3000+ years of research into the psyche, and so bringing the IC into the 21st century AD, is an error.

I would have thought by now you would realise there is more to the IC than your own Karcher-esque perspectives; perspectives I have no real issue with as in wishing to remove, IC+ can coexist with such material.

you obviously have not made that realisation and seem to want to reject alternative perspectives on the IC and so make your list specialist rather than covering all aspects of the IC - that is of course your choice but I think a very very limiting choice.

All of us, in the context of meaning generation, are determined by the nature of our brains and they operate across the yin/yang dichotomy. The BASIC qualities of meaning derived from the self-referencing of yin/yang are DETERMINED by the methodology alone. BUT that determination is general and so we deal with archetypal forms - such as that which is represented in the IC through the label of 'water'. There are distinct qualities associated with water that will not change regardless of context and they are represented by "Contractive Bounding" - a representation that is pre emotional colourings etc and so LOCAL perspectives. You are obviously so focused on the local that you lack insight into the universal - let me assure you, the universal is there and if you bothered to get into IDM/IC+ you would learn a lot - HOWEVER, a price would be paid where loss of innocense means you will have to grow up.

The choice is yours of course, and if you prefer your current perspective thats fine, but that does not mean you can dismiss empirically-supported material as 'twaddle' because such a dismissal makes you look foolish.

Chris.

oh twiddle twaddle. 29 once warned me not to take a trip because conditions would be dangerous.
but at other times, 29 with no changing lines actually rings in my ears like a cathedral bell, in a way that makes me shudder and think: ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee! translation: the jig is up, you need to hold you nose and jump because I cant give you any assurances.
maybe these both could be seen as "contractive boundings" but for me, the yi speaks to my gut and my gut hears the answers loud and clear, sometimes in a literal way, and sometimes in a val-like completely off the beaten trail way. like 29 could also say, hey a trip to the water park is in order now, you desperately need a vacation...DONG< DONG

"listener",

in part you wrote:
> ***************
> oh twiddle twaddle. 29 once warned me not to take a trip because
> conditions would be dangerous.
> but at other times, 29 with no changing lines actually rings in my ears
> like a cathedral bell, in a way that makes me shudder and think: ask not
> for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee! translation: the jig is up,
> you need to hold you nose and jump because I cant give you any assurances.

These all cover what "contractive bounding" is isomorphic to - emotions, and in particular that of rejection/rejecting and focus on protection. Now go into the BINARY ordering of the IC (which is what you need to do to 'get serious' with the IC) and all of the hexagrams of water cover these issues of protection, both in positive form and negative form for each hexagram:

07, 04, 29, 56, 40, 64, 47, 06

ALL of your LOCAL interpretations came from your SINGULAR and so UNIQUE nature but the IC spans all singulars in that it comes out of the particular-general and it is there that 'contractive bounding' sets down the basic quality for the hexagram that seeds all interpretations.

You singular focus forces a perspective that excludes consideration of what is behind all of this. You basically don’t care since if it does not impinge on you then to you it is 'meaningless' or all 'twaddle' - when the fact is it definitely is not 'twaddle' it just does not fit in with your personal perspective of things. That is, to me, 'unfortunate' since it grounds you in the realm of the singular and so excludes you from access to so much beyond 'primitive' divination.

> maybe these both could be seen as "contractive boundings" but for me, the
> yi speaks to my gut and my gut hears the answers loud and clear, sometimes
> in a literal way, and sometimes in a val-like completely off the beaten
> trail way. like 29 could also say, hey a trip to the water park is in
> order now, you desperately need a vacation...

See - more protection.

The 'roots' of water, more so where it gets its sustenance, its nourishment, is derived by XORing with 48:

010010
011010
------
001000 - modesty, no highs, no lows, keeping things 'level' - and so the focus on protection. (15 is in a context of mountain and so that position brings out quality control - which is another form of protection. Where is the root protection? In the bottom line that is shared with 31 other hexagrams.

The central line in water is an act of differentiating and so 'us' from 'them' - a border that protects by holding IN (in fire the boundary moves outwards)

There is an extremely rich world out here in 'twaddle' land and it is a shame that people so focused on the IC, as on this list, should be so limiting of it.

Chris.

Chris, I wonder if you misread my reply? I said I wasn't thinking of you.

I was talking entirely of divination, and thinking of claims like 'no matter what question you asked, hexagram 48 is always about the I Ching itself'. I've seen a couple of 'diviners' make such claims, and wanted to disassociate myself from them. In other words, this is an entirely intra-divination discussion. (See name of thread and forum )

LOL! Wonderful example of paranoia dont you think?! Jeeze I'm good! ;-)

If THATS what you meant re 'twaddle' then I agree -- and yet I can see the ability to say such a thing in that if the IC in its archetypal form is representable as 000000 and so all 'potentials' then it does get its source of nourishment from 48:

000000
011010
---------
011010

and so a sense of 'foundation setting' that elicits development around the 'well'... but that is not all of the IC in that with 000000 as potentials then the other 63 hexagrams cover the full spectrum of that potential.

Chris.

hilary said:

Chris, I wonder if you misread my reply? I said I wasn't thinking of you.

Click to expand...

I think Chris fell into his own Contractive Bounding.

Harmen.

BTW - is it possible to fix the email sent out to include the ID of the sender? I got a copy of Listener's email but no ID and thought at first it came from you.

LOL! - yes, it is all about containment and control!

Hexagram 29 = contractive bounding?

No, not really.
Hexagram 29 is an archetype and "contractive bounding" is a concept.
They exist on different levels, they cannot be the same.
And you cannot reduce an archetype to a concept, you can also not reduce it to two concepts, or to three or ten thousand.

In other words, it's impossible to catch an archetype-fish with the nets of your mind. It will always escape.

Me thinks the difference between Lightofreason and some others (including myself) is that Lightofreason believes that he has caught those fishes, while for others it's obvious that they escaped long ago.

Chris,

You obviously have so much to share but unfortunately many of us can't make yin or yang of what you're talking about. I don't even understand what you mean by "contractive boundings." Could you help me out and use that in a sentance?

Thanks,
Rosada

Martin,

The IC is a specialisation of a generalisation - the qualities derived from self-referencing. These are universals where LOCAL context gives them 'colour' as in the properties and methods of hex 29 are isomorphic to the generic form labelled as 'contractive bounding'.

What to you are IC archetypes are metaphors for more primitive archetypes.

Chris.

Rosada, are you telling me that you have never gone through the IC+/IDM material!? shame! ;-) for the generic qualities derived from our neurology see:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm004.html

OR the intro to IDM

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html

OR the IC specific material at:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html

OR the 'help' format at

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

or a lighter read "The Logic of the Esoteric"

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html

The IC is 'hard coded' in us in that it represents basic qualities derived from our neurology and used as categories to seed concepts and on into emotions, symbolisms, metaphors, analogies, allegories.

Chris.

I would say, Chris, that your IC is an approximation of the IC on the level of mind (concepts).
Another approximation is that of Nigel Richmond. Are you familiar with his work?
There are similarities with your approach, but he has - among other things - a different understanding of yin and yang. Yang = stillness, yin = activity. That leads to different insights into the basic meanings of trigrams and hexagrams.

Martin, I have read both of Nigel's texts - the Lines text I got when it came out a long time ago - the other downloaded from SMs site. I suggest you go through it again carefully and consider the dynamics of integrating/differentiating which is where a degree of confusion emerges in Nigel's text. He intuitively picked up the diversity element in yang and so the 'creative' that he then interpreted as 'potentials' but the act of differentiating is an act of energy expenditure and so actualisation. The ability to LIST the potentials is already an act of differentiating out of which one makes a choice (and so the perception of 'potentials').

He did not formally recognise the asymmetric form of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy and so yang FROM yin as well as yin IN yang.

We can identify three perspectives:

(1) Symmetric (using Cartesian perspectives of Z=Y=X)
(2) Anti-Symmetric (Z < Y < X)
(3) Asymmetric (Z <= Y <= X)

where (3) = (1) + (2) (and the IC is often interpreted from (1) when it covers all of them with (3) being the 'basic' , natural, form)

Our brains will oscillate across the differentiate/integrate dichotomy where yang is ALWAYS differentiating. The integrating element is WITHIN what has been differentiated and so there is INTERNAL potentials and THAT is what Nigel picked-up on and worked with.

The act of differentiating will create borders and so let loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics and so properties of 'emergence' etc. Nigel's interpretation of yang was in THAT context but it is a PROPERTY of differentiating and not the 'thing' per se.

As such we BOTH work on differentiating/integrating but he 'skewed' the interpretation based on the 'creative' and so diversity of expression in yang - its mediating dynamic where for any given situation the WHOLE of the IC opens up and EACH actualised quality becomes a potential in the context of CHOICE.

IC+ focuses on the generation of the categories and so the ACTUALISATION of the POTENTIAL forms in yin. Yin is darkness, it is also associated with the female, the womb, where the seed is planted and so contains all forms as potentials and so the 000000 representation.

The dance that comes with oscillations across yang/yin (diff/int) will elicit self-referencing and so levels of development that oscillate across the same dichotomy but 'down' the page. Thus what is yin at one level is yang at another with QUALITATIVE differences that come out of the core, baseline, notions of differentiate/integrate.

SO - IDM/IC+ has no problem in dealing with Nigel's perspective where it falls in to the IDM coverage of perspectives.

Hi Peter, and the rest...

I thought this was about the Yi, and answers from the book where it warns you of bad questions or something like that, If I understood Peter correctly... There´s always hex. 4... isn´t it :-D?. To me 29 sometimes looks like danger in following your heart, and when you get that answer you probably are warned in the sense of ´do you realy want to go on this way?´...

Chris, wonderfull to have you around... now take a hike :-D!

Frank

Hi Chris,

You wrote (about Nigel Richmond):
"He intuitively picked up the diversity element in yang ..."

I don't think he did that, neither intuively nor in any other way.
For him, yang, the whole line, represents - literally - the 'undivided' (the term that he uses in the manuscript that I also downloaded from SM's site) and yin, the broken line, represents the divided.

There are certain differences in the way Nigel talks about yin and yang lines in that manuscript and in his book (The Language of the Lines) but if I understand him correctly he never saw yang as differentiating (verb) or the differentiated (noun).
Yang represents the UNdifferentiated for him and yin the differentiated. Yang is the one, yin is the many.

Compared to how you see yang/yin (as differentiating/integrating) Nigel's view is in a way the opposite. He also sees yin and yang more as states (nouns) than as processes (verbs).

The verbs differentiate and integrate are represented but they appear in his scheme on the level of two line words.
Yin above yang can be read as differentiating, the one becoming many (also stillness becoming active) and yang above yin as integrating, the many becoming one (and activity becoming still).



In the manuscript Nigel calls yang the "elemental male" and yin the "elemental female".

And he writes:
"I use the term elemental for male and female to distinguish this from male and female persons, for we are all different mixtures of the elemental male and female; this is the point where confusion arose a long time ago in the symbol-logic of the oracle.
.... what happened [then] was that all cultural male characteristics became attached to yang and female to yin. Yang came to mean strong, aggressive and active, while the yin symbolized weak, dark, and passive. None of these characteristics fit the symbols --- and - - to which they have been attached, in fact they are reversed in many ways."


"Yin is darkness .. "
Not in Nigel's view, apparently ...


"SO - IDM/IC+ has no problem in dealing with Nigel's perspective where it falls in to the IDM coverage of perspectives."

It should have problems with it!
Nigel's perspective is essentially different, it's not a "sub" of IDM, it's not part of the territory of IDM.
Are you not a bit too expansive in your bounding, Chris?

tsk tsk Martin - you are not thinking clearly here - and after all that exposure to IDM! - lets go through this carefully:

IDM:

(1) wholeness through differentiating (heaven) - blend
(2) wholeness through integrating (earth) - blend
(3) partness through differentiating (fire) - bound
(4) partness through integrating (water) - bound
(5) static relatedness through differentiating (lake) - bond
(6) static relatedness through integrating (mountain) - bond
(7) dynamic relatedness through differentiating (thunder) - bind
(8) dynamic relatedness through integrating (wind) - bind

Note carefully 1 and 2. The notion of 'the one' is in the form of the undivided in the form of unique consciousness or the electron - either will do. (or consider a prime number as compared to a composite) It is also in the form of the divided where the link between the divided creates the whole (the explicit many is an implicit one)

There are X billion examples of unique consciousness and as such they are MANY that, as particulars, make-up the ONE that is the species.

The ONE that is the species is made up of the MANY as in members of that species. IOW the notion of a 'whole' is covered in BOTH yin and yang such that if you want to interpret things from RIchard's perspective you can and it all falls WITHIN the bounds of IDM/IC+. Simple.

This the MANY you associate with yin is in the relationships that form the 'one' and so is 'the one' but the labelling is IMPLICIT. THis gets into the issues of precision where there is the 'one' all the way down from species to collective to individual. There is also the many from the singulars to the particulars to the general.

Thus Richard's 'undivided' is represented in the notion of the singular, primacy, the electron, unique consciousness etc etc. The divided is represented by the PAIRS of differentiating/integrating that FORM a 'one' (and so hexagrams as PAIRS form a 'one' as do hexagrams alone) and that includes one's particular nature within one's general nature as a species-member.

With IDM the PAIR of differentiating/integrating reflects the 'cut' of the 'universe of discourse' where the gerund becomes a noun or a verb depending on the context. That is all covered in IDM so you dont make sense by saying it does not - the gerund form of description has been promoted by me over MANY years (and called the IC the "book of gerunds") This gets into issues of male/female and confusion about the qualities those terms represent. In IDM this is covered where yin is negative as well as positive, yang is negative as well as positive - IOW the differentiating/integrating level of interpretation covers the entanglement of 'male/female' and so allow for Nigel's interpretation. There is NOTHING in his interpretation that is OUTSIDE of IDM - if you think there is then you dont understand the depths of IDM.

In IDM we cover states prior to the male/female dichotomy with a generic 'life form' dealing with context and so a focus on context replacement or context coexistence. The recursion of that dichotomy will create all possible expressions of the mixing of those elements - as does the recursion of the male/female dichotomy. DIFFERENT labels, DIFFERENT scales, SAME qualities.

I repeat, I find no issue with Nigel's interpretation. It is 'different' in that it utilises a skew on the 'traditional' or 'cultural' perspectives but is perfectly acceptable WITHIN the bounds of IDM since those bounds cover the species and so all interpretations (the 64 hexagrams of the IC represent 64 'different' interpretations so there is your challenge - which one represents Nigel's perspective ;-))

As for yin above etc this is digram perspectives. At this level we split into two perspectives excluding each other - thus we have blend-bound or bond-bind. To get them to be in the same overall space you need to go to trigrams. Move back to a single line and there are four perspectives:

contractive-expansive blend
contractive-expansive bond
contractive-expansive bound
contractive-expansive bind

There is no mixing here - all representations are variations in qualities of the particular 'type'. Thus we can interpret 64 hexagrams as expressions of contractive-expansive bounding and all terms will reflect that focus. The other terms 'do not exist'. Move to digrams and we move to pairs. Move to trigrams and we move to quartets.

THe comes the modes of the dichotomy interpretations where they are:
symmetric
anti-symmetric
asymmetric

EACH can form a set of 64-hexagram interpretations. (and so heaven-earth oppose, heaven-earth hierarchy, heaven-from-earth dynamics)

Chris.

In his manuscript Nigel writes about the heaven trigram:
"reality is undivided, nothing is distinguished and so nothing is manifest"
Blending yes, and wholeness, but not through differentiation as you have it. Rather through the lack of it.

However, he later writes on the same page "Ch'ien, which stands still and observes, is also elemental male. It is by standing apart that comparison is made and reality comes about."
Standing apart .. this suggests differentiation, not internally, within Ch'ien, but differentiation from the field of activity.
Does this mean that Nigel saw Ch'ien also as differentiating? It doesn't seem so, this standing apart is static, it's not an activity, it is not to differentiate (verb) or differentiating (gerund).

As to individuals (the singular, unique consciousness), if I understand Nigel correctly, he doesn't see Ch'ien in that way. The undivided, for him, is not the atom of Democritus or the nomad of Leibniz.
When he talks about Ch'ien he seems to refer to a kind of absolute Platonic reality or to the "witness" of Advaita Vedanta. He is not talking about you or me or this electron or that electron.
"The mountain peak stands serene sloping down to valleys where life is teeming" (hexagram 20 in his book)
Nigel is high on that mountain top.


"I find no issue with Nigel's interpretation. It is 'different' in that it utilises a skew on the 'traditional' or 'cultural' perspectives but is perfectly acceptable WITHIN the bounds of IDM since those bounds cover the species and so all interpretations."

How Borgian! "You will be assimilated!"
Resistance is futile?

Martin,

IMHO You need to review his language more carefully. He defines his terms in his glossary of terms under the heading "Understanding the Names". He clearly states:

"We distinguish things to make them real. We divide them one from another to distinguish them. This act - -, called yin." Page 2

Where is his focus? It is on the relationships position, the CUT made not the act itself. The divided line is interpreted as representing the divided reality where the 'divide' is the space inbetween. As such there is a visual bias in the interpretation. (in page 5 he comments "we are a process, not an object" and so sets-down a biased perspective of the object/relationships, analytic/dialectic, static/dynamic dichotomies - even if he seems himself as a 'witness' and so working from the middle of these dichotomies)

"Before we distinguish something it and its surroundings are one, they are whole. This state is --, called yang" page 2

Here he associates the undifferentiated with the 'one'. This associates with the integrated WHOLE that, being WHOLE is in fact differentiated (a boundary) but he wants to avoid this where his focus is on relationships rather than objects. From the energy position we have the dichotomy of "far from equilibrium/equilibrium" where equilibrium has no highs, no lows - all is potentials. Given the interpretation of no 'cut', no VISUAL distinction of the space inbetween - - and the association to 'yang' is understandable.

His quote of Lao tsu is:

"Once the whole is divided the parts need names. There are already enough names. One must know when to stop" page 2

From the neurological position, the act of differentiation elicits parts and the parts are labelled to enable finer precision in communications. BUT this 'instinct' to re-label means we have a lot of labels for the one form and so the comment about knowing when to stop (a comment focused on quality control) There is also the tendency to use analytical negation rather than dialectical - where the analytical form is to 'start again' and so we often 'reinvent the wheel'!

In the traditional numbering of the Tao Te Ching we have in section 1 (using Wang Bi interpretation as translated by Lynn):

"The Dao that can be described in language is not the constant Dao the name that can be given it is not its constant name.
Nameless, it is the origin of the myriad things; named, it is the mother of the myriad things"

Richard writes:

"Out of the whole comes distinguished parts, called the ten thousand things. So the whole is called "the creative"" page 2

Here he orders the cuts within the whole and recognises the 'creative' aspect of the behaviour. But in the traditional material the creative is "Yang". Here his WHOLE is also "Yang" and so he distinguishes parts WITHIN the whole. This, symbolically, forms the digram that is in the foundation for the trigrams of thunder and fire.

He goes on:

"The ten thousand things receive our distinguishing divisions, so they are called "the receptive"" page 2

He makes an association here of the ten thousand (aka myriad) being semi-differentiated in that they have to then receive their labels. As such, the act of labelling is, from EACH of the ten thousand, a RECEPTIVE experience whereas from the LABELER it is a CREATIVE experience.

There is a centeredness in both of these definitions where his focus on parts FROM the whole (and so expanding outwards) is repeated in the GIVING labels to those parts (someone 'us', 'our', is doing the act and the 'things' get their labels, RECEIVE their labels.)

"We exist only by distinguishing, identifying, so we are called "identity". Identity is the chooser." Page 2

This focuses on the centre perspective of choosing labels etc and so the core sense of identity associated with the 'true', undifferentiable 'whole'.

"Identity creates its own shadow by choosing not to have while choosing to have. His divisions are of himself, not of reality itself" page 2

The making of yin/yang is a 'false' division and not present in reality. From a Taoist perspective this is right in that we have:

Wu Chi
T'ai Chi
Yin/Yang

A pattern in the 'void' (Wu Chi) is 'cut out', symbolised by our minds as 'T'ai Chi' (a particular whole) and, if held long enough in our brains will 'collapse' into its parts - yin/yang. See the research data covering perceptions of foreground/background where there is a lot 'unconscious' - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

"This experience is called "the illusion"" page 2

Yes - and it equates with the experience of paradox (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)

"reality itself is always whole" page 2

Sure - the equilibrium position where all is entangled (and is brought out in the XOR material of IDM/IC+ that demonstrates the 'illusion' of the discrete we experience in consciousness; there is a lot more going on)

"The art of being amongst polarity and going from one to the other and having both without choice is called "the middle way"" page 2

This is reflective of the elements of the asymmetric dichotomy where both are expressing at the same time. Apply self-referencing and we get a dimension where all points are active and so operating in parallel.

As such, from an IC perspective, the dimension of 64 hexagrams has all of them operating at the same time. The oscillations across the dichotomy of yin/yang ("going from one to the other") elicits the IC patterns out of the middle of that dichotomy (and so the dimension of 64)

"to move like this is called being "centred"" page 2

The focus is on mediation. There is no commitment to one particular perspective 24/7 since that will, over time, put one into an extreme position. The LOCAL dynamics of mediation will mean selection of a hexagram state that fits the context rather than try to assert one's own.

"that which we distinguish is called "the outer"" page 3

This indicates a perceptual focus on looking outwards from some 'centre' and goes with the expanding focus of all of those labels 'out there'.

"that which is not distinguished is called "the inner"" page 3

The 'centre' in the form of the unique consciousness that is not distinguishable, uncuttable.

END OF PART 1

PART 2:

"where likeness is shared it is one, whole. Objects and expressions that demonstrate this sharing are called "symbols", their shared quality is their symbolism" page 3

In the IC this focus on likeness is covered in likemindedness and the trigram of Fire. The boundary focus of this trigram reflects issues of mapping reality and so the 'undifferentiated out-there' turned into the differentiated. Note that this trigram has YIN inside and of YANG and so the MANY inside the ONE - and the act pf label making will introduce the 'many' labels for the 'one' thing in different contexts.

Emotionally the underlying focus of fire is on issues of acceptance (and the 'natural' shadow is issues of rejection - water)

He writes:

"The yang symbol --, represents something undivided and so without change, and something that is unchanging is still and tranquil; here the flow of change that alone creates manifestation is withheld." Page 6

Neurologically, the act of differentiating is an act of maximising bandwidth to give a clear, precise, sense of 'thing-ness' NOW. As a result of the physiological dynamics involved, this process will slow down subject time experience to a point (!) where time appears to 'stop' - at this level we come across the experience of the 'eternal', of the static, the ideal, the unchanging, the analytical rather than dialectical.

Behaviourally, this realm of yang will try and takeover a context by replacing it with one's own that is deemed 'immortal' or 'eternal' or a 'thousand year reich' etc etc.

This area gets into fundamentalism, both secular and religious where there is the 'fire' element of encapsulation and all within the boundary is 'same' (links to previous comments on likeness etc) - this also includes Taoism and Zen as well as Western Mysticism.

He associates change with 'yin' and that is right from a context perspective in that the yin side of things is the side of thermodynamic time (as compared to the mechanistic form in yang). Here there is no 'now' there is past/future. There is perpetual movement such that identity is derived from the context rather than assertion of one's own context. This gets into 'shapeshifting' where we adapt to 'fads' etc - there is pattern matching as we try to 'fit in' with the context.

Behaviourally, from a cultural perspective, the female is more active in the change contexts, the male more into the changeless (or more so 'my' context over others)

Richard makes the point that cultural biases associated 'male' and 'female' with 'yang' and 'yin' but in doing so 'distort' the perspectives and we need to be aware of that. (and the diversity of 'male' and 'female' behaviours in other life forms backs up his comments)

Note that the dynamic of differentiating/integrating is reflected isomorphically in the dichotomy of control/flux. This specialist dichotomy covers social collectives where the high energy 'control' side elicits a sensation of 'clarity' of 'the eternal' but is extreme in energy expenditure in maintaining that position. This position is of a need to avoid internal change, it is all 'out there' not 'in here'; there is no shape shifting since the focus is to assert one's own context and so establish 'tranquility'. The issue of course is that we can get bored and this realm of differentiating is in fact highly active!

Thus YIN context is considered 'dynamic' and 'change' oriented but it us a change of 'flux' and so local perculations. YANG context is considered 'static' and 'non-change' oriented. But the point of consideration can elicit an illusion in that the yang position is the centre and all else is 'changing' other than one's position and we see that behaviourally. We also see change in this context as being dramatic when it occurs.

In page 5 he writes:

"we are the whole cycle of ourselves and this is our whole reality; the object that we are at any one moment is just a tiny speck of what we are"

This clearly puts his position as focused on the relational, the cyclic, the repetitious but centred on "what we are".

I shall stop here as there is enough above to show the IDM analytical method at work and easily covering the perspective.

Chris.

Resistance IS futile as all it will give you is the sensation of paradox;-)

I want to give an example how this problem is solved in "Wen Wang Ba Gua" method (or "Liu Yao", or "Wen Wang Ke"). According to the Chinese calendar, in every 10 days there are 2 empty Terrestrial branches. EG now it goes 1st "week" (old Chinese week of 10 days), so empty branches are 11th and 12th (Xu and Hai, Dog and Boar respectively). And every hexagram has its "Body", which is represented with one of these 12 branches. So if I cast a hexagram and see that its Body is empty, then I know that there is no definite answer to my question.

Too many moving lines indicate that a question is bad.

About "secret information" - I'm not sure, partly because ancient masters didn't write about such matters. Usually I myself try to imagine why this or that piece of information can be secret (from me or from a querent in general). And surely, I ask myself where this questioning leads me.

------------------------

frank,

I remember that Hex. 4 is about repeating your question to I Ching.

-----------------

Chris,

you know how I "like" your texts. Didn't I ask you not to flood in my topics? Or you already forgot about it? Then I repeat it for you personally: don't flood me with your stupid texts. Okay? While you're a blunt gut, I'll use capital letters: DON'T FLOOD ME WITH YOUR STUPID TEXTS! Yes, I suppose you're offended and blah-blah-blah; I don't care really. Thanks a lot.

Peter - tough. Mine was a response to Martin and acceptable as such. The obvious fact that it is all over your head is not my problem - it is yours. If Martin wants to go into more details etc then I suggest you ask her to start another thread so as to leave "YOUR" thread clean and tidy so that you can deal with it within your capabilities.
We dont want you straining our brain do we! ;-)