Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
All I can say is that you've missed all the fun then. There's no way to describe Chris Lofting with any justice. The other choice is that he's dismissed forthwith. Believe me, there are many Chris but only one, unmistakable, "Chris". The man knew how to push buttons...
Ah, I see. Well, he probably would have found all of my questions inane then, and my buttons rather hard to find since I just don't know and therefore have little to argue about. Kind of an eating, breathing Hex 4.
You refer to what Brad said in the other thread about the sequence? Well, order can be found but it is of a subjective nature, that's basically what Brad was saying. People have been trying to find a raison d'être for the received sequence (KWS) for 2000 years. Perhaps there's none to be found, beyond what makes sense to you. The earliest record for the KWS, and for that I mean an actual documentary record for it that is contemporary with its inception, comes from the Jiaoshi Yilin. Actually, there are some scholars that claim that the KWS is derived from the order in the Yilin and not the other way around. Mind you, that doesn't explain the order at all either. Who knows, really.One thing I've just this minute understood from the last couple of threads on Exp. Divination is that there really is no order to the Yi. Well blow me down. Who knew?
Don't be fooled by my fiery little green friend, he's cooking...BTW, your grasshopper looks ready to squash your dragon.
sparhawk;139050 [U said:It should make you feel better to know that he considered everyone's questions inane[/U] although, his combative spirit gave him lots of patience to endlessly reply to them, even if only to show how limited one's mental capabilities were... I called him Hari Seldon and Mr. Spock...
You refer to what Brad said in the other thread about the sequence? Well, order can be found but it is of a subjective nature, that's basically what Brad was saying. People have been trying to find a raison d'être for the received sequence (KWS) for 2000 years. Perhaps there's none to be found, beyond what makes sense to you. The earliest record for the KWS, and for that I mean an actual documentary record for it that is contemporary with its inception, comes from the Jiaoshi Yilin. Actually, there are some scholars that claim that the KWS is derived from the order in the Yilin and not the other way around. Mind you, that doesn't explain the order at all either. Who knows, really.
Don't be fooled by my fiery little green friend, he's cooking
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=9401Jan Enuma is forming a study group of I Ching adepts, who are interested in a present-day approach of the I Ching, which goes beyond restyling the language of the old Classic. René van Osten in Germany and Chris Lofting in Australia are examples of this approach. At the moment Jan is preparing a comment on Lofting’s book “The Emotional I Ching”.
I have Jan's work in progress but won't post it here because I've not his permission to do so.
So the study group is progressing. Do you know if any applications like the hexagram 47 example have turned up? Concrete examples would help define terms.
We ask a question, we get an answer. Has anyone ever investigated the effect that the act of asking the question has, on our minds and perception of reality, independently of the answer? Along the lines of changing the nature of a particle by the act of observing it.
—Russell
l I think eventually that was the reason he was banned.
elvis was the name he used to create a new account after he had been banned.
BTW i think it was the case this forum was about the only place that didn't ban Chris...and for those who feel they are beyond mere human annoyance, those walking embodiments of hex 4 ie Abella and Dora......er you weren't here or you would have seen how it was..it may not have been mentioned but Chris definately did not believe in divination, thought anyone who did was livingin the stone age...you can imagine repeating that message at great length...and when i say length I mean pages and pages and pages...it did get a bit much...
ooh Trojan, you know your way of pushing your assumptions on what others say, for all its straightforwardness can get really too much. Whoever said that placing oneself in a hex4 place means you are 'are beyond mere human annoyance'?????
So no, I wasn't here during Chris's earlier postings, although I was here when he was 'elvis' and I stayed clear from conversing with him because I knew his previous discourse. And even though I wasn't there I have come across MANY of Lofting's posts and have often become VERY annoyed. I'm also aware that if I did engage with him I'd get very upset for not being able to really communicate BUT in trying to see a bigger picture (like the one we can see when someone is not around anymore and we're trying to discuss his system, not his style or his humanity or his annoying ways) then I see no point in going on with such critique, it's like criticizing someone born half-blind for not seeing the way you do, or a kid who has to move a lot for not sitting still -do we really need to do this?!!
We all come with our blind spots but I guess coming across someone who has theirs so pronounced, forces us to confront our own . . you do have yours, right?
And fwiw, I think Lofting was not blind to his own short-comings, and if someone looks closely you'll notice that his style gradually changed into something less laden with his one-sided scientifically burdened discourse . . to me that shows someone trying the best they can and I find that that's enough for me. As far as Frank is concerned, I always thought that I could find real GEMS in his posts although I often felt he could be a real pain in the a** and that's how I see it till now.
oh and fwiw no2, in my post I did mention that Lofting's method was actually against the grain of divination hence I don't know how useful it could be. I wasn't going to post anything more in this discussion but your comment really got me going
Other than that I agree with the rest of your post.
but both you and Arabella were referring to his annoying ways by saying you were pretty much beyond it all. There seemed no need to say that other than to imply being somewhat higher up the evolutionary pole than all those who did argue with him.... but it wasn't all hot heads you know that argued with him.
I'm sorry if i misjudged what you said it but frankly both comments irritated the pants off me at the time since i read it as you were sayingonly those with very firm beliefs would have argued and that wasnn't the case. Martin was pretty easy going for example and he argued with him
You both said since you had no beliefs it was impossible to argue with you ( er doesn't that tempt fate a little)...implying those who did argue were holding doggedly on to some egotistic belief battle and it wasn't like that
I am not going on with critisizing him anymore than anyoone else. Hes human with the same faults as anyone else but his style did impact on how his message was understood and still is. He possibly made something sound a whole lot more complex than it probably needed to. Then again i can acknowlege perhaps he also increased some peoples understanding adding to the wealth of knowledge on the Yi. I wouldn't know i never understood his work...nor even Toms summary
I really don't care about Chris's shortcomings. He never owed anyone sainthood just cos he posted here and he had as much right to his personality as anyone so if i refer to how he was its hardly meant as a damning critique . I agree that to speak of him at all personally here perhaps shouldn'thave got going here...then again its only natural I guess, we are people and people talk and I had this itchy feeling a bit of reality needed injecting in to the aura of saintliness that was emerging around Chris, bless his heart, so Russells first post was refreshing
I'd like to say that if i die ...you need not make me a saint you know I fully expect you to refer to me as a cantankerous old cow with a few reasonable posts here and there.
I am sorry if i annoyed you and Abella...I wasn't being too serious i just was a bit 'hmmm you know those who argued with him weren't all people whose buttons were easy pressed'
i hope you can forgive me now rather than when i have passed on
Oh, I wasn't annoyed. I didn't even read it until just now... It takes a lot to annoy me these days, I wore it all out moving twice in a month. I have a new motto: if it annoys you just throw it in the bin. That's how I've survived, having purchased a much larger bin.
Now back to Hex 4 -- I was thinking more on the order of "the young ignoramus" idea of the hexagram and that I'd probably be too uninformed to argue with someone like Chris or even understand what he was on about, and thus avoid ever bumping heads. My "buttons" to him would probably be pretty uninteresting, if not indistinguishable. Sometimes I'm literally too dense to know I was just insulted. Not a deep philosophic comparison of YiChing savvy, nor of anyone's personality, "yust a little yoke," as Bette Midler used to say.
look stop tempting fate,,,,saying things like this you will be guaranteed hopping mad at someone before night fall...its disastrous to say things like this didn't you know...its like saying 'i never get a cold' or 'i never fall over' guarantees immediate colds and falls
....geeez go careful here
I don't think the above is making him out to be a saint, either. It isnt hypocritical, imo, to appreciate a human being for his inherent goodness, mystery, vulnerabilities etc and even his foibles after his passing. I also think Chris got a lot of appreciation from people here when he was alive, too. he wasnt hated, he could be tiring and exasperating .
I think Hilary did ban him for awhile, but not permanently, there was the invitation to come back. like there was with Frank. same reason as above; he was definitely not hated, he was even enjoyed, but he could be tiring and exasperating without, it seemed, having a clue as to why
I don't think the above is making him out to be a saint, either. It isnt hypocritical, imo, to appreciate a human being for his inherent goodness, mystery, vulnerabilities etc and even his foibles after his passing. I also think Chris got a lot of appreciation from people here when he was alive, too. he wasnt hated, he could be tiring and exasperating .
How could one decide which possibility to select?I am feeling that the situation is more about facts (issues of 'is').
I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought').
I am feeling that the situation was about facts, but now I am not sure.
I am feeling that the situation was about values, but now I am not sure.
I have been mulling over Lofting's method for casting a hexagram for several day with no progress. Has anyone tried to use it?
http://www.emotionaliching.com/
The program is neat: push buttons and an answer pops out, but the hard part is to select which button in the groups of four to push. For example, the first line (first group of four questions) relates to facts and values with respect to the self. Every situation contains both facts (issues of what is) and values (human concerns). Consider the query, Where is my key? And these possibilities:
How could one decide which possibility to select?
Tom, since you brought this here, if this proposal doesn't create a conflict or messes what is been done in the Kitchen, could you or Luis create such a study group , if others are interest too ?
The program is neat: push buttons and an answer pops out, but the hard part is to select which button in the groups of four to push. For example, the first line (first group of four questions) relates to facts and values with respect to the self. Every situation contains both facts (issues of what is) and values (human concerns). Consider the query, Where is my key? And these possibilities:
How could one decide which possibility to select?
I'm sure you realize that that's NOT Chris' problem (or his system) but our own.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).