Hi everybody

Just in case someone could find this interesting

BACKGROUND: Saddam is facing a criminal trial in Iraq's Court. His lawyers had said there is no conditions for a fair trial. Penalty for the charges: death.

QUESTION: Will Saddam be convicted to death by the Iraq's Court?

ANSWER: 55 without changing lines

INTERPRETATION The court won't convict him to death, but lifetime-prision. Sentence would be pronounced in January.

(There is a tiny chance for another interpretation: The court won't convict him to death, but retains him in prision without any sentence)

Hi, Jesed -

Interesting - while I certainly see the relevance of the answer, particularly the Great Image/Symbolism, I don't see how you get "no death penalty" specifically. Care to explain your rationale to satisfy my curiousity? Thanks!

- Jeff

I'm not sure what are you understanding by "rationale". If you are understanding like "cognitive" versus "intuitive", I can?t

Now:

According with traditional teachings

55 shows a lider, whom had arise the top of his power and influence. Because of that, decay is the only thing to be expected for him. One metaphora: the influence of the ruler (the sun) is going down (is eclipsed).
Of course, there is the issue about criminal trials and execution of penalties (This can be understanding as death-penalty; he would be executed). But...
Because there is a unchanging hexagram, the situation is beyond the influence of the subject's choices. He must obey the "ruling line" of the hexagram. In this case is line 5: the ruler is modesty, and have good advicers (his attorneys). Because of that, good fortune will arraive.
Master Joseph Yu said about 55 related to lawsuits: you will win the trial.
_________
Now, actually I didn't interpreted the answer with scolarship method (text analysis), but with mathematical method. The answer is quite the same, but more precise:

Date: Dog; Month: Rooster; Void Elements: Tiger and Rabbit; Subject Line: Saddam; Object Line: Iraq's Court; Key Element: aspect P (punishment)

Because is an unchanging hexagram, the action related to the question won't happen. So, Saddam won't be convicted to death.
Subject Line (Saddam) is strong in this season; Object Line is also strong in this season, but weakened by the date (short time). This means Iraq's Court don't have enough straight to convict Saddam to death nowadays.
Object Line is grave of Subject Line. Grave means prision. So, Saddam is "inprisioned" by Iraq's Court. The grave won't be open. So Saddam won't be release in freedom.
Object Line is Ox, it means in case the Iraq's Court convicted Saddam to prision (lifetime-prision, because he won't ever be release in freedom) the sentence would be pronounced in Ox month (January)
______________________

Best wishes

Jesed,

According with traditional teachings,

Intuition:

1. instinctive knowledge: the state of being aware of or knowing something without having to discover or perceive it, or the ability to do this
2. instinctive belief: something known or believed instinctively, without actual evidence for it

Cognition:

1. ability to acquire knowledge: the mental faculty or process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception
2. knowledge acquired: knowledge acquired through reasoning, intuition, or perception

Hi Bruce

I don't know what tradition said instinctive knolledge is "knowning something without having to discover or percive it". I guess is the European Ilustration's Tradition (Voltair, Pascal, Kant and so on). Is that your tradition? Is just fine, only a litlle bit diferent related to my tradition. I am not saying my tradition is better or worst than yours. I just want to be clear, in order to avoid misunderstandings (have you realize not everybody coming in this forum belong to the European tradition? Maybe mayority, but not everybody). Another think (My English is too bad): instinctive is the same than intuition?

Second. In my tradition, I do agree with you about Knowledge can be acquiered through reasoning, intuition, or perception

My commentarie to Jeff is because in other post, someone asked me about "cognitive" or "intuitive" aproaches, understanding in a diferent way than you (and myself) are understanding them: in his tradition, Cognition is only about "rational analysis".

So, because I don't like to assum what the other is meaning (And I Would like the others don't assum what I am meaning) I asked Jeff what he is meaning before answer his question.

If I assum Jeff means "rationale"= only "thinking method without any intuition process", I can`t explain my answer.

So, "I can't" (explain my answer rationale) is only IF JEFF is meaning that. If JEFF is meaning "rationale" incluiding both thinking and intuitive aproaches, I can explain it.

Best wishes

Hi Jesed,

I was being facetious about ?tradition?. Perhaps that?s because there?s a few here who have devoted themselves to learning and understanding Chinese tradition, as it pertains to the Yi, and I find heading every post with ?According with traditional teachings? to be a bit assuming. All Jeff was asking was how you reasoned your answer.

What I posted was nothing as learned, however. I simply copied it from the MSN dictionary definitions of ?intuition? and ?cognition?, pointing out that there is a difference between them.

Hi Bruce.

Thanks for show me what is happening in some post.

Not every post of mine is heading "according with traditional teachings".

I only write "according with traditional teachings", to point the method I am using to understand the reading (called scolarship method, text analysis, and so on; the other method I use is called mathematical, King Wen's, Xian Shu Yi Xue and so on).

Now I realize, thanks to you, that it can be misunderstood, as being "a bit assuming". (No matter several times I had said there is not a "I`m better", this is how is have been taked). Sorry this confusion.

Best wishes

Hi Jesed,

Thanks for not taking offense. Awhile back, when you wanted to leave the forum, I suggested just being yourself. That also means allowing others the room and openess to be themselves. Glad we can relax and be ourselves together, even if we don't always agree.

With respect,
Bruce

BTW, Jesed... yes, your explanation of your rationale was what I was looking for. I can accept both "cognitive" and "intuitive" rationales since like both you and Bruce that how I interpret.

So, thanks...

- Jeff

The best way to refine our interpretation is confronting them against empiric facts.

In this topic: January is already end.

Empiric facts:
a) The Court that exist when the question was made had been change in January 14, 2006. So, that Court won't convict Saddam anymore.
b) That Court didn't convict him to death, but did retain him in prision without any sentence

In a few days, I'll publish the same exercise, related to the new Court.