This is topic is a bit trite, I know, but I couldn't help myself.

I met a guy last weekend. We were introduced by a mutual friend. We seemed to hit it off and as I was leaving he asked me for my phone number and said that he would really like to see me again.

But...he hasn't called! So I asked "what should I know about M's delay in calling?"

I received 59 (dispersing) with moving lines 2, 6 to Hex 8 (union)

Line 2 seems to be about dissolving obstructions and some type of internal change. But line 6 is avoidance of danger! I keep wondering if my friend told him something about me that would make him run for the hills. Sometimes girlfriends can be well-meaning but the things they say can backfire. I'm not sure, I'll have to ask her (she's out of town right now).

I am hoping that it is simply that he has the jitters and he needs to overcome (dissolve) his fear of danger (rejection?)

Any thoughts? How does 8 Union play in to this?

It suggests that he has gone off with friends or gone home, lost your number and you won't hear from him again.

That's uplifting! LOL.

I appreciate this interpretation but it doesn't make sense unless he lost his phone. Also he's good friends with a friend of mine and he could EASILY get my number from her. SHE is out of town though (gone to see a friend) so maybe he's waiting for her to return?

openheartsf said:

so maybe he's waiting for her to return?

Click to expand...

Maybe not, we shall see.

clearly your interpret of the reading is that he's not going to call, which is totally fine, I say weed 'em out quickly! if he's not interested i sure don't want to waste my time.

however, it would be helpful if you could explain how you got this interpretation. you are obviously much wiser than myself in understanding the i ching.

The trouble with readings of this nature is that there is too much ambiguity...it is a little like asking "where are my lost keys?" ..you can speculate about the meaning, but there is no way to pin it down.
59, dispersion, certainly points to something gone awry...but it could be he lost your number, it could be that he got distracted by other things/people, it could be that he decided it wasnt a good idea ( including that he heard something that frightened him as you said), and it could be that he had another love interest he decided to stay with.......it could mean so many things! there is no way to be certain from a question like that. And 8 is the same...again the ambiguity...did he decide to stay with someone else... or he is holding fast to a decision he made....8 simply says he is united with an idea/person/decision..

I suggest you ask a question such as "Yi, what is your opinion about my hopes about hearing from him" or "what are my chances of developing a relationship here" or "can I expect to hear from this man in the near future?" or simply "what can I expect from this?" all of those questions might give you an idea of what's going on with this and whether you should expect anything to come from the brief encounter and request for your number. The Yi can usually give you a fair idea of where things stand and advise you on the best attitude to take for now.
Best, Bamboo

Line 59.2 says that he has gone to someone who supports him, that could be a family member, a friend, or his wife, and at a stretch his job.

Line 59.6 is different as it suggests that he is purposely avoiding contact with you.

Willowfox, thanks for the clarification!

Bamboo, yes I agree! It seems that the yi will leave this age old question ambiguous for now. Who knows why they don't call - it could be so many things!

I like your suggestion to ask my question a different way.

He called!

The guy in question called me while I was on vacation in mexico. the message said he had been in and out of town for the past few weeks and he hoped i remembered him. hmmm...well kind of a weak explanation if you ask me as I am fairly certain that cell phones work 'out of town' but he called nonetheless - and i guess he did not in fact loose my phone number just wanted to give an update!

Two weeks to call you shows a great deal of disinterest on his part, and perhaps he did or didn't lose your number, does it really matter now? But look at line 59.6 as it suggests that he did not want to make contact with you at the time of your question, as this was indeed correct, the phone number is really not the main issue here because even if he had lost it, he could easily ask your friend what the number was couldn't he?

And I would presume there are cell links everywhere these days, so going out of range in the US would prove to be quite difficult, but lacking any real interest in you seems easier to prove.

14 days +, so this man didn't call because he wasn't interested, as obviously "other things " were more tantalizing.

willowfox said:

Two weeks to call you shows a great deal of interest on his part,

Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't mean "two weeks to call you shows a great deal of disinterest...?"

and perhaps he did or didn't lose your number, does it really matter now? But look at line 59.6 as it suggests that he did not want to make contact with you at the time of your question, as this was indeed correct, the phone number is really not the main issue here because even if he had lost it, he could easily ask your friend what the number was couldn't he?

And I would presume there are cell links everywhere these days, so going out of range in the US would prove to be quite difficult, but lacking any real interest in you seems easier to prove.

14 days +, so this man didn't call because he wasn't interested, as obviously "other things " were more tantalizing.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

He probably had something else that he was more interested in, it didn't work out for whatever reason, and now he's calling you.

einhorn said:

Are you sure you didn't mean "two weeks to call you shows a great deal of disinterest...?"

Click to expand...

Oops! Yes I did, thanks for pointing out the mistake which has now been corrected.

openheart

Basically, men call if they are interested. Who knows if his story is true or not about why he didn't call, but he did call. Men face certain risks too if they call back. Women will sometimes give us phony phone numbers. Sometimes they will give us a number only because they don't feel comfortable saying no. A man never truly knows what's in store for him if he calls. In your case I wouldn't play too hard to get, but I wouldn't be overly enthusiastic either. Either return his call and be moderately friendly, or don't in the hopes he will call again. If you pick the latter and he does call you will know he has at least some interest. The danger is he won't. If you return the call just be moderately friendly, be nice, and just find out what he wants to do. In other words, play it by ear.

Gene

Thanks, I agree with you both that he wasn't interested enough to call. I've been dating long enough to know THAT MUCH - even without the yi reading. I haven't decided if I will call him back. Maybe I will, and I agree I will be friendly but not overly enthusiastic. If he can wait that long to call then the interest is probably just lukewarm. Or he was distracted by another girl (most likely that is what happened).

We'll see!

One thing to remember, a man can't afford to sound too eager either. A lot of women expect the man to call the next day, and maybe they'd like that, but maybe they might get freaked out too, thinking, doesn't he have any kind of a life of his own? It is a catch 22 for both sexes. For me, two weeks is no big deal. I certainly wouldn't want to scare a woman away making her think I've got no life but her, or make her think, "hmmm, what does he really want? Is he desperate? You understand where I am going with this right? I think a lot of times both men and women don't think outside the context of what they want in the moment.

Gene

Thanks Gene - it's good to hear a man's perspective. I agree that 2 weeks in 'man time' isn't all that long Also when we first met I had told him I was going on vacation.

Sometimes I think guys wait to call just to see how the girl will react. Will she be cool and breezy or will she give him attitude and spill the crazy on him (which makes us look a little desperate ourselves).

The dating game here in the U.S. and other similar countries is so funny! When I was in mexico it was so different how the men pursue women. You could say 'no' a million times and they would never give up! And they aren't afraid to look desperate...they are totally unafraid of rejection. Of course they HAVE to be that way because the women are more old fashioned. It's like they will pester you to death until you submit just to get them to shut up! But to be honest I quite like it and I think many women like it when men are a bit more aggressive (not all women I'm sure, but most of my friends do).

But I digress! LOL.

hi openheart

It used to be that way a little bit more here too, but the laws have progressed to the point a man is putting himself in extreme danger by coming on any too strong. It can get nasty. It is almost as if men are expected to do nothing until the woman gives them a hint they might be interested. If he shows an interest before then, he can be considered "the classic jerk." I don't think men here are so afraid of rejection per se as they are of crossing a line only the woman knows about and getting themselves in hot water. And I am not talking about anything physical, just an interest can be perceived in a very negative way. Sometiimes at work men get in trouble just for saying hi to a coworker. And then they wonder why we don't act like men. In all fairness, both sexes have their problems and are very confused about the role they should play in the modern world.

Gene

Gene

Hello Openheart and Gene

I agree, there is a huge amount of confusion and necessary caution around this issue. Here in the UK 'political correctness' has hammered away relentlessly for decades at removing any recognition of gender differences, and yet when it comes to the mating game most women still expect men to take on a traditional male approach.

Social reform has tried desperately to ignore innate biological instinctive drives and the outcome is utter confusion. Outwardly everyone is extremely cautious about breaking politically correct taboos, whilst privately they resent the loss of personal freedom and expression. The outcome is that as a society we risk a serious psychological split between a false persona and repressed complexes. The UK already has the highest divorce rate in Europe and the highest teenage pregnancy rate. There are now more unmarried and single-parent families in the UK than traditional nuclear families. Maybe this is the cost of progress, but in most other European countries where the traditional nuclear family is still used as the basic social framework there is far less evidence of fracture and the breakdown of social cohesion as seen in the UK.

All this is a long way from Openheart's original question of 'why men don't ring' - but maybe the above helps to some extent to explain the confusion that now prevails. Peter

Here in the UK 'political correctness' has hammered away relentlessly for decades at removing any recognition of gender differences, and yet when it comes to the mating game most women still expect men to take on a traditional male approach.

Click to expand...

Nah....... that's not "political correctness" that's just English men being screwed up about women....... LoL!

Social reform has tried desperately to ignore innate biological instinctive drives and the outcome is utter confusion. Outwardly everyone is extremely cautious about breaking politically correct taboos, whilst privately they resent the loss of personal freedom and expression. The outcome is that as a society we risk a serious psychological split between a false persona and repressed complexes

Click to expand...

Oh OK so really the English are all suppressing their urge to use the "N" word with Black people? Meanwhile, what the hell is "an innate instinctive biological drive" ? That's such a loaded term. It falls flat even on a genetic level because people have such diverse variations I think the problem is more like English men can't handle strong women - they feel threatened by them poor lambs......

The UK already has the highest divorce rate in Europe and the highest teenage pregnancy rate. There are now more unmarried and single-parent families in the UK than traditional nuclear families. Maybe this is the cost of progress, but in most other European countries where the traditional nuclear family is still used as the basic social framework there is far less evidence of fracture and the breakdown of social cohesion as seen in the UK.

Click to expand...

And Spain has one of the highest abortion rates (and domestic violence) ............... gosh and yet we are so family oriented! (Although not very "nuclear") What about Holland, Sweden etc etc......... How come they have even stronger equality policies and none of the issues you describe? Are you a Daily Mail reader or what LoL?

Try looking in a different direction......... how about things like the need for a CRB check before you can even speak to a child or take a photo of your own child in the school play or volunteer to referee a football match? How about the complete loss of respect and awareness of the elderly? How about the demonising of young males with all the derogatory terms in use such as "hoodie" or "yob" etc., blah blah blah.......

Will go put on my plastic mac ready for incoming tomatoes......

Lucia

Peter

You couldn't have said it better. This is a really good commentary on the modern world. And Lucia, men can't handle strong women? Of course they can't. We don't have any defense against them. The law protects women. Any time there is an altercation between a man and a woman the law considers the woman to be in the right, regardless of what happened, until and unless there is overwhelming evidence to the opposite, and even then, the man's reputation is toast. Why would women want to be strong? Who does it help? Of course, they have to take care of themselves. Of course they've got to set limits. It's fine to be strong in that way. The trouble is too many women look at every little thing a man does and interpret into some kind of sexual come on when he's just trying to be nice. Two different men do the exact same thing and with one it's true love with the other its sexual harrassment. How does that help anyone? How does a man know which way it's going to turn out. This old adage about men not being able to handle strong women is silly nonsense concluded by confused women who have no idea what is going on in the world around them.

Gene

This is all just your opinion Gene, doesn't it belong in Open Space ? You don't have the ultimate truth on these issues and nor does anyone...but you are seeing the world very much in terms of your own perspective and your seemingly unhappy experiences with women.. I actually think you projected your own opinion very much on to the readings here in terms of what you supposed the man was thinking..Fair enough, its hard not to but you are turning this into a mini lecture of 'something I know all about...women'

It sounds to me, as a woman, you speak of us virtually as a non human seperate species ..which you can explain..almost like a zooologist or something. And you last sentence in your post kind of confirms that.

Try to remember first and foremost...we are human, like you and you way over generalise and over simplify in each and every way

And if you are going to go launch into a rant about how much wrong women done you maybe do it in Open Space...?

...having said that.... to Peter...I think its fantastic we can choose the kinds of family units we choose to live in. I know many couples, with kids and without kids who live apart, quite happily, with happy kids too. Its a total fallacy the nuclear set up is best. if you like it and want to live in it do so, but why try to dictate to others about how they should live their personal lives.

that belongs in open space too...though i suppose the original question 'why men don't call' was rather general. They call if they are interested...calling 2 weeks later signifies to me a very laid back, (one could say 'indifferent') level of interest..though if circumstances, ie being away was a factor i guess that may not be the case

Trojan

Your objections are noted. However, I don't think you looked at the whole thing because I stated that in fact, both men and women have issues on which they are confused. This came off a reading and that is why it is not in open space. I don't have issues with women. I think they are very nice and loving creatures. And I see over and over on the shared readings board the confusion that women go through with men. We don't understand each other. My complaint is that both sexes don't understand the differences between men and women. But I have seen things over the years that explain very well why men don't always call women, and this is what this is about, not any personal complaints.

Gene

Yes, as i wandered away from the computer it did occur to me that when i was young, teens, twenties, I just don't recall conversations with girlfriends about 'what does he think of me' because we always knew...because usually he wouldn't shut up about it ..so back then it seemed usual for the men to be very open about what they wanted.

Long conversations with other women about what 'he' wanted just didn't seem to happen then...but I'm not sure if thats due to a real social change in relations between sexes or if its just how it seems.

On reflection i see more where you are coming from yes...and i think actually its a whole lots worse for the generation now in mid life. My theory is younger men now can be genuine friends with women..whereas when i was young men and women just weren't 'friends' at all really..I notice many younger men relate to women and girls alot better than the previous generation..and also older men who still are quite secure in the chilvarous aspect of male/female interaction do quite well too because there is a certain ease and confidence in that...you know where you stand with them etc. The real awkward ambivalence i think is more between men and women in their late 40s to late 50s ?..maybe because they lived through a massive change in how the sexes relate.


well thats one theory anyway


actually i have the impression openhearts is quite young so maybe that blows that theory out of the water...lol....although it can be young men are more easily naturally just friendly with girls whereas in my day the only time boys bothered with you was if they wanted to take you out as their 'girlfriend'..they didn't just want to be friends...ooh no lol..whereas these days i guess young women can't tell if hes being just friendly or he wants more.....maybe life was easier in that respect back then...but i think theres alot of good changes the way things are now too in that i think back then boys really did think girls were like aliens. I remember one boyfriend saying to me at the time.."the trouble is (being a boy) you don't like girls but they have something you want so you have to be nice to them" I guess he was telling it like it was !

Nah....... that's not "political correctness" that's just English men being screwed up about women....... LoL!

Click to expand...

Well, here we go, I hadn't expected this discussion to plummet to this level quite so quickly. This remark is so immature it belongs on the school playground. And that's where I'm going to leave it.

Oh OK so really the English are all suppressing their urge to use the "N" word with Black people? Meanwhile, what the hell is "an innate instinctive biological drive" ? That's such a loaded term.

Click to expand...

No, English people are not all suppressing their urge to us the 'N' word but they are fed up with political correctness intruding further and further into their personal lives.
An innate instinctive drive is a natural need or reactive tendency embedded at an unconscious level. It's part of our survival and reproductive mechanism. If you think that is a 'loaded' term how on earth would you manage with an academic paper? In case you haven't noticed, women's (most women that is) instinctive drives differ to some extent from men's - the difference is biologically predicated. Women and men share some common instinctual drives but they also have different emotional, psychological, and physical instinctual needs. Political Correctness tries desperately to ignore these differences.

I think the problem is more like English men can't handle strong women - they feel threatened by them poor lambs......

Click to expand...

...You've wandered back into the school playground again. This really is a tiresome chant wheeled out by feminist dinosaurs for decades now.

What about Holland, Sweden etc etc......... How come they have even stronger equality policies and none of the issues you describe?

Click to expand...

Holland and Belgium have a divorce rate on a par with the UK's

Are you a Daily Mail reader or what LoL?

Click to expand...

The Guardian and Telegraph actually, if you really must know.

how about things like the need for a CRB check before you can even speak to a child or take a photo of your own child in the school play or volunteer to referee a football match? How about the complete loss of respect and awareness of the elderly? How about the demonising of young males with all the derogatory terms in use such as "hoodie" or "yob" etc., blah blah blah.......

Click to expand...

And your point is ...?

Hi Trojan

Yeah, I think often both men and women see the opposite sex as the enemy in so many ways. Wasn't there a popular movie some time ago called, "sleeping with the enemy?" I never watched it so I can't say for sure what it was about, or maybe I am confused about the situation. But that is often the way it is, both sexes love and hate the opposite sex at the same time, and the old saying "you can't live with them and you can't live without them..." became later, "you can't live with them and you can't shoot them." Can't remember which movie I saw that had that line in it, but it had some of the same actors as the breakfast club in it. For some reason we want our partner, but we want them to be what we want them to be and when they aren't, we call them bitches and bastards, yet profess we love them at the same time. It's just a curious irony.

But I digress. I am older and the rules have changed immensely since I was young. When I was in high school it was unthinkable not to have a date on a saturday night. You took your date to the drive in movie or depending on the time of year to the Prom, usually somewhere where it was just the two of you and you started your mating sequence, at which time the woman would always get mad and walk home, but you were together again the next weekend because you didn't dare be without a date on a Saturday night. Now it seems like the younger people don't date so much as they just go to some party and if somebody strikes them right they head out together. It is more of a friendship ritual. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that in some ways it is healthier, and some ways it is not. The old way emphasized the men and women can't be just friends principle more, then new way they can be friends, but only up to a point. Once it gets serious, then they can't be friends with anyone else.

When people get older it gets harder for a number of reasons, and I think people who get divorced really get a dose of this when they start dating again. They find the rules have changed and they don't know the rules any more. Beyond that, the best people are generally already firmly involved in a relationship, and you have more to worry about when it comes to taking a risk with a date. Those who are a little weird in some way never got involved and are still looking. This is true for both male and female, so caution becomes a little more primary.

When I was young, the worst thing a boy could do would be something that appeared weak in his peers eyes. He would be called a sissy, and actually much worse, but I won't repeat it, and he'd better do something to make himself look more manly because if you didn't, you were out. It was okay for women to act weak though because they were women. And part of being a male was that girls being weak weren't allowed in the male fraternity. it would make the men look sissy. Of course, as they get older they start feeling hormones, so how do they solve the problem? They can't be with sissy girls, but they need... well you get the picture. So women were the enemy. They were someone to conquer sexually, but you didn't want anything more to do with them. Well, as men grow up they learn to respect the women more, and they fall in love, get married, etc. etc. etc. That's why your boyfriend said, "The trouble is you don't like girls, but..."

And that still plays out today but in a different way, sure, they can be friends more than in the past, but at the same time, out of those friendships, the same old scenarios are being played out in a different way. Neither sex gets what it wants. And when neither sex gets what it wants, what happens? They change the rules, but the same old game is going on underneath. So, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Gene

Hi Gene and Trojan,

My daughter just yesterday asked me why her boyfriend was so difficult to reach by phone. I asked what she really wanted to talk to him about, and after thinking about it a bit, she remembered he was a chucklehead whose conversation was totally without objective merit. Nice strapping boy though.

There was a book (made into a movie) with the title: He's Just Not That Into You!

Generally, boys call girls when they want something from them and don't talk much when not so motivated. Girls eternally ask why don't boys call up to talk to them more. Generally those are conversations girls have, boys are more interested in doing things like drinking or playing video games than talking.

In terms of the Yi Oracle Hex 59>>Hex 8 that is more likely a wry comment from the Oracle Spirit to Relax and Go With the Flow. Boys haven't called to talk about their feelings for millennia.

Ultimately, Why didn't the boy call? Whatever the boy or the situation the answer is: "He's a boy, and calling up would only cross his mind occasionally and probably for reasons no one wants to hear much about. More importantly--what is it you want from this guy? That is probably easier to negotiate these days than answering the eternal question of why boys don't care about talking about relationships the way girls do.

Ultimately, it is an evolutionary matter. Boys evolved to go off to do dangerous things like hunt or fight wars and not care so much if they never get home again. Doesn't leave a lot of room for casual conversation about or even awareness of their feelings.

Frank

peter2610 said:

Hello Openheart and Gene

I agree, there is a huge amount of confusion and necessary caution around this issue. Here in the UK 'political correctness' has hammered away relentlessly for decades at removing any recognition of gender differences, and yet when it comes to the mating game most women still expect men to take on a traditional male approach.

Social reform has tried desperately to ignore innate biological instinctive drives and the outcome is utter confusion. Outwardly everyone is extremely cautious about breaking politically correct taboos, whilst privately they resent the loss of personal freedom and expression. The outcome is that as a society we risk a serious psychological split between a false persona and repressed complexes. The UK already has the highest divorce rate in Europe and the highest teenage pregnancy rate. There are now more unmarried and single-parent families in the UK than traditional nuclear families. Maybe this is the cost of progress, but in most other European countries where the traditional nuclear family is still used as the basic social framework there is far less evidence of fracture and the breakdown of social cohesion as seen in the UK.

All this is a long way from Openheart's original question of 'why men don't ring' - but maybe the above helps to some extent to explain the confusion that now prevails. Peter

Click to expand...

I think where you contradict yourself..or where the contradiction lies is that on the one hand you seem to think nuclear families are for some reason the 'right' way, that marriage is good, etc etc and then also speak of 'innate biological instinctive drives' ?

But there is nothing more unatural to the males 'innate instinctive drives' than to remain with the same woman for 30, 40, 50 years (in marriage) and have sex only with that woman for all that time. Biology does not favour that, biology favours a man getting about and sowing his seed where he can. How can it ever really work to have the males 'innate biological instinctive drive' cooped up for 50 years in marriage ? Phew..it makes me feel claustrophobic as a female. Of course it doesn't work in terms of personal happiness and it never has. Men and women are often 'unfaithful'...naturally. Its a system that serves social order, social control..and i personally think for many people its past its sell by date. Okay some nuclear families may be happy though personally speaking I have never known one....except on TV, and I'm not exagerating. I mean if people are happy in the nuclear set up thats good but i don't see why you think its the ideal.


For myself the only part I think i may be with you is I think many women would actually like to spend much more time with their kids when they are little (which would seems a natural biological urge) and instead they have sort of made it seem shameful for a woman just to stay home and care for kids and some women feel they have to do it all and often they do due to financial necessity..in which case i think some long for the man to go earn the money so they could stay home...but you know that didn't work so great either for reasons i won't go into...as we are waay off topic.

All I'm saying is i think its often healthier the way things are now. At least couples who hate each other don't force themselves to stay together for the sake of the children...and it only scews the kids up anyway. whereas now many kids have richer lives through having parents in seperate homes especially when each parent gives them full attention when they see them.

As a child i was pretty sure i didn't want to live in a nuclear family when i grew up and that was before i even knew the meaning of the word. Many others must have thought the same thing. Its called social change. Why make out it was all better before. It wasn't, its better now IMO

The other great thing you seem not to have noticed is how good men are with little kids too these days. Some men stay home and are main carer for the kids but in general kids more often actually have a relationship with their fathers they never used to when he was out all day and didn't see his role as being a close one. When i see this, fathers interacting with their kids in a way they never used to, i think its quite lovely...so i don't get why you see all the change in our home lives as so bad. And its better for the fathers too, they know their children. Sometimes in the old nuclear system men could actually end up quite alone, as if they were just objects, bread winners nothing more. I saw alot of that growing up..men being quite emotionally impoverished in the end through alienation from their families who just saw them as providers.


Yup i think things are better now, no doubt about it. I guess i think people do split up a bit too easy, without thought but in general...anyway.....off topic..................

fkegan said:

.

Ultimately, it is an evolutionary matter. Boys evolved to go off to do dangerous things like hunt or fight wars and not care so much if they never get home again. Doesn't leave a lot of room for casual conversation about or even awareness of their feelings.

Frank

Click to expand...

Evolution is till evolving Frank..it didn't stop at a certain point. Womens bodies in Europe anyway are much bigger than they were in the 1940s..well we are all bigger. We can't hang on too much 'to man goes out as hunter/warrior' psychology. Even though it has, undeniably, much truth...it doesn't suit or fit everyone.. I know men who are far more aware of their feelings than women...so this old evolutionary argument is a little bit clumsy..sort of 'one size fits all' to keep apace with changes in modern society. Its a bit lazy to wholly fall back on it..as it only partially applies.

I blame that book 'Men are from mars...Women are from venus' for popularising this over simplistic categorisation of gender mentality. It was a purely descriptive book of how things stood at a certain phase in our evolution yet people clung to it like some sort of ultimate truth on 'how things are' rather than a snapshot of a moment.

openheartsf said:

This is topic is a bit trite, I know, but I couldn't help myself.

I met a guy last weekend. We were introduced by a mutual friend. We seemed to hit it off and as I was leaving he asked me for my phone number and said that he would really like to see me again.

But...he hasn't called! So I asked "what should I know about M's delay in calling?"

I received 59 (dispersing) with moving lines 2, 6 to Hex 8 (union)

Line 2 seems to be about dissolving obstructions and some type of internal change. But line 6 is avoidance of danger! I keep wondering if my friend told him something about me that would make him run for the hills. Sometimes girlfriends can be well-meaning but the things they say can backfire. I'm not sure, I'll have to ask her (she's out of town right now).

I am hoping that it is simply that he has the jitters and he needs to overcome (dissolve) his fear of danger (rejection?)

Any thoughts? How does 8 Union play in to this?

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that this guy is oblivious to the expectation he inadvertently created for his expedient action to get together with you.

59 - water shares density with air. It's a light thing. (to him)

Line 6, there is no blood (relationship) to hold with yet. Two weeks is no big deal for someone who says he would really like to see you again. What you probably don't want to do is make him regret his words.

Frank

I think this is a first. I actually can agree wtih you on something. At least the part about why men don't call. It is true, men will never call anyone, with very, very few exceptions, unless they have some kind of business to conduct, such as ask for a date or finalize a business deal. Men are rugged individualists. They take care of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. They never call their friends just to connect. They call if they want their friend to know the time a baseball game starts, at least if they plan to go together. Women will connect with their friends, they will discuss their feelings, they will discuss their relationships, they will talk about their hurts and pains. Men couldn't care less about this kind of thing. They will call if they want a date, or to complete some thing. They won't call just to connect. Men rarely do that. They don't even do that all that much with their parents or other relationships. Men are geared toward accomplishing goals, and they ignore anything that doesn't help them along the way. They will call a woman if it helps them accomplish a goal, not for any other reason. It's just the way it is.

And let me tell you, men and women aren't just different, they are as opposite as night and day. Anything a woman is inclined to do, men are inclined to do the opposite. Even the energy, as the Chinese would call Chi, or Ki flows inwardly to the center in a woman, and flows outwardly from the center in men. This is pure science, it is not speculation, and we do ourselves a great disservice if we don't recognize those differences.

Gene