Chris Lofting's System

rodaki · Jun 12, 2011

pocossin said:
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:

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.

Click to expand...

How could one decide which possibility to select?

hi Tom,
I often have trouble filling in questionnaires so this never made absolute sense to me . . I guess that in this case the option of 'facts' fits best of all (issue of 'is'). I'm thinking that Lofting obviously wanted to create a process of streamlining the problem, leaving out all the mental chatter . . sometimes I wonder if what he was aiming for is really that different from emptying one's mind to find a place from which to fish an answer out of clean and fresh waters, but then again that's probably me trying to find the benefit of a doubt for everyone even when it doesn't make much sense . .

Anyways, I often found aligning with others' systems very troubling :duh:

Trojina · Jun 12, 2011

Didn't Chris himself once share that he had a lesser form of Aspergers Syndrome ? You see if he did have something along those lines it would likley be helpful and make sense to him to classify very neatly what was a 'value' issue and what was a 'fact ' issue . That might seem a natural way of sorting things out to him whereas to others it is not possible to compartmentalise questions to this degree.

To some people it may seem a perfectly natural way to think but if your brains not wired that way maybe its just not going to work for you.

I could be wrong, maybe he didn't say that I just have a vague recollection of it. All I know is my brain isn't the 'best fit' for that kind of analysis.

rodaki · Jun 12, 2011

That Chris was probably an Aspie sounds quite the obvious thing for me . . but although I also exhibit traits of it it doesn't mean I can follow Chris' thought in all times .. I think I can understand how some things might not have made the same sense to him as to others, or read a little bit between the lines but that's as far as I can go. You're probably right though T, for people who need to keep everything in neat categories (Aspies or not), Chris' approach must make a good fit!

pocossin · Jun 12, 2011

sparhawk said:
I'm sure you realize that that's NOT Chris' problem (or his system) but our own.

I also disagree, Luis. These three dichotomies are the independent variables of his system:

1. facts/values
2. actual/potential (my terms)
3. proactive/reactive

If they cannot be determined, then nothing that follows from them is meaningful.

Are these dichotomies real? Are they like A and not-A or like hot and cold. Hot and cold are relative positions on a scale. Facts and values admit of degree (intensity), involved different parts of the nervous system, and are typically concurrent. Lofting evades this complexity by the phrase "I am feeling that the situation is more about":

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')

Do we know our feelings well enough that such decisions are possible? Or will we get tired of trying and just pick one arbitrarily?

rodaki · Jun 12, 2011

pocossin said:
Are these dichotomies real?

Do we know our feelings well enough that such decisions are possible? Or will we get tired of trying and just pick one arbitrarily?

the first question is one I often find myself asking . .

the second is where I'm thinking his own sort of 'tricking the ego' might come in . .

Sparhawk · Jun 12, 2011

trojan said:
I disagree, i think it is his problem in that such a reductive system does not recognise the complexity of human emotion, thought , behaviour, so most people will not be able to narrow questions down to whether something is fact or value

Perhaps you have low expectations for "most people"... I'm an optimist.

Indeed, the man created a reductionist system of questions whereby, his belief was, any given person would be able to analyze him/herself and be able to tabulate their feelings. Granted, it is a forced system, perhaps unnatural in the way it makes us twist and unknot ourselves to come up with a meaningful selection of answers but still doable. I think the system has merit. Chris believed that the complexities of human emotions, etc., could indeed be reduced to simple "operators." That emotions are more like events, some sustained, some ephemeral, but all the product of simple operators that, his thought was, we should be able to identify if we paid enough attention.

Mind you, the reason I brought Chris in conversation in the Kitchen section was because it is a system that forces us to analyze ourselves. Perhaps I misstated my intentions when I suggested it. I'm not saying Lofting's system is IT but that it has merit, at least as a starting point to help us deal with the moment we are in because there's nothing objective about leaving answers to randomness and chance when we ourselves are the ones throwing the coins and interpreting the answers. What Chris did was like saying: "well, let's deal with ourselves first and forego of the randomness in the process because we are the center of our own circle."

Sparhawk · Jun 12, 2011

pocossin said:
I also disagree, Luis. These three dichotomies are the independent variables of his system:

1. facts/values
2. actual/potential (my terms)
3. proactive/reactive

My reply to Trojan explains, a little, I hope, what's the driver behind my suggestion. But hey, it can be discarded. If anything, it's been a conversation piece.

If they cannot be determined, then nothing that follows from them is meaningful.

Are these dichotomies real? Are they like A and not-A or like hot and cold. Hot and cold are relative positions on a scale. Facts and values admit of degree (intensity), involved different parts of the nervous system, and are typically concurrent. Lofting evades this complexity by the phrase "I am feeling that the situation is more about":

That's the thing, I happen to agree with Chris that such variables can be determined.

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')

Do we know our feelings well enough that such decisions are possible? Or will we get tired of trying and just pick one arbitrarily?

Do we? No clue but at least we should try to get to the bottom of them if we hope to have any control over our lives. As a matter of fact, I'd say we do it all the time but, just like breathing, we aren't consciously aware of it unless we turn our attention to them.

pocossin · Jun 12, 2011

sparhawk said:
That's the thing, I happen to agree with Chris that such variables can be determined.

Then please give us an example of it being done.

Sparhawk · Jun 12, 2011

pocossin said:
Then please give us an example of it being done.

How could I? If anything, Chris' system was a personal affair not a "Shared Readings" sort of reading. It is introspective and by its very nature something to practice in very rare occasions. Not the sort of compulsive coin-throwing that abounds everywhere else but something completely different.

But again, the idea was to point that Chris was, IMO, on the right track in dealing with our emotions as part of consulting the I Ching. The reason I suggested, in the Kitchen Section, that that aspect should be incorporated into readings.

pocossin · Jun 12, 2011

sparhawk said:
How could I? If anything, Chris' system was a personal affair not a "Shared Readings" sort of reading. It is introspective and by its very nature something to practice in very rare occasions. Not the sort of compulsive coin-throwing that abounds everywhere else but something completely different.

You're right, Luis. Chris's system is definitely a cure for compulsive coin-throwing

But if you can't give an example of it being used, unless someone took private lessons from him, I doubt anyone could.

anemos · Jun 12, 2011

I think that what happens when using EIC is a kind of h20.5.6 thing. You observe yourself and/or "system" and discern as possible as you can what is yours and what isn't .
or
how you affect the "system" and how it 'affects" you.

maybe you don't need to be 100% sure if you have chosen the right answers to the 6 question. I doubt if we can ever be 100% sure. Maybe what the querant now believes is a valid starting point.

heylise · Jun 12, 2011

I did use Chris' method once and got a very clear answer. It was as if I had asked an expert. Not like my usual conversation with Yi, as if a wise loving grandparent answers me, but rather what a business owner would expect from asking for an expertise.

So I tried to find a question.

We are discussing how to read an answer. Does the relating mean anything, and if so, what? The fanyao, Many lines a way to just give two hexagrams – which form a story. Everyone has her own way of solving those things. One likes the overview, another the details, one the feeling, another goes with literal words.
My question is: is it worthwhile to really discuss this? (As opposed to "is it only a question of everyone telling the rest how he/she happens to do it")
With 'worthwhile' I mean if it makes your relation with Yi richer.

Here goes…
The LEFT questions are about my (or our) view (context), the RIGHT ones about what is happening, working (text).

Context: I choose values, my question is clearly about the 'value' of discussion, not about finding solutions or rules. And I am quite certain about that. So I check LEFT: "Context of the situation is more about values".
Foreground : same : " Text is more about values". The discussion is not focused on fixed rules or such. Everyone is kind of exploring.
For both no "was" - it "is".
Second row LEFT: Context is about what could be (I don't know if it "is", I am asking if it could be)
Second row RIGHT: I choose " Text is about what was/is/will be", because we are already discussing.
Third row LEFT: are we more instigating or more responding?? Ummm, I think responding, so I choose "Context is being Reactive (responding)". This one is not absolutely certain.
Third row RIGHT: the way the discussion goes, is that people inspire each other, respond, so:
"Text is being Reactive (responding)"
Answer: Hex.3 in the middle, the realm of "man". (Below this is earth, nothing happens there, above heaven, same)

03 Difficulty at the Beginning; Sprouting
In a context of enlightenment, a new beginning, we utilise control.
"CHUN : begin or cause to grow; assemble, accumulate, bring under control; hoard possessions; establish a military camp; difficult, arduous. The ideogram: sprout piercing hard soil"

Now I try the same question with one exception: the third row left, which was not certain, now checked as "more instigating".
Answer:

39 Obstruction
Bypassing
In a context of self-restraint we utilise control.
"CHIEN : Walk lamely, proceed haltingly; weak-legged, afflicted, crooked; feeble, weak; unfortunate, difficult. The ideogram: foot and cold, impeded circulation in the feet."

Again only in the realm of 'man'.

So if we discuss this in a more responding way, we have to deal with 'difficulty in the beginning', a start of something. "In a context of enlightenment, a new beginning, we utilise control"
If we are more instigating, we have to deal with obstruction: "In a context of self-restraint we utilise control"

So, does it make sense, does a discussion like this make your relation with Yi richer?
Seems the way of responding has more space than being instigating.

To me the answer feels very 'factual', not at all emotional. Put things side by side and decide what is the best option. If I would like to know how to make more money (or friends or time), this way of asking would make sense. Questions about things you can 'think' about. If I want to know how to make a relation rich and rewarding, or how to deal with a difficult person, I would cast the coins.

heylise · Jun 12, 2011

Chris' checkboxes decide if a line is more yin or yang. There are 6 boxes, and as far as I understood, each box makes one line either yin or yang. Every line-place has a meaning, corresponding with the kind of question. So with 6 boxes you can get 64 hexagrams.
I think I miss something, because there are two more fields, at the top and bottom, and how hexagrams are generated there, I don't know. So maybe my 'understanding' is totally wrong...

pocossin · Jun 12, 2011

I have invited Jan Enuma to join this discussion.

pocossin · Jun 12, 2011

Lise, thanks for the example, but there is an error in your casting.

So I check LEFT: "Context of the situation is more about values".

"More about values" gives young yin for the first line, so the hexagram would be 8: "08 Passive Uniting, Admiring, Belonging In a context of devotion we utilise control."

rodaki · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
But if you can't give an example of it being used, unless someone took private lessons from him, I doubt anyone could.

Tom I'm curious . . are you saying that it's not possible for someone to make sense, fill in that questionnaire and come up with an answer??
I see how it can feel awkward but it's not made out of absurd principles, as far as I can see, it is trying to draw a line between subjective and objective truth . . I bet all of us can find our way through it even if the whole process defies what we are used to with the Yijing. I have used it i the past but it makes me miss the principle of randomness -that doesn't mean that his system cannot be used though . .

sooo · Jun 13, 2011

I did the drill three times or so. I found it quite accurate. It was a dissection of my own condition, or should say, it assisted in organizing my thoughts and feelings about the matter in question, or if there was no question, it reflected my sense of being. It was a recursive process, as advertised.

pocossin · Jun 13, 2011

rodaki said:
Tom I'm curious . . are you saying that it's not possible for someone to make sense, fill in that questionnaire and come up with an answer??

It isn't just a matter of clicking button but of understanding what one is doing. To use Lofting's method of casting thoughtfully, one must decide on the meaning of the terms situation, self (I), surroundings, facts, values, actual (what was/is/will be), potential (what could have been/is not/could be), proactive, and reactive. I have been unable to distinguish these terms. For example, how do facts differ from the actual? How do values differ from the potential (in the sense of ends sought). The term 'proactive' is not used by Lofting in its literal meaning 'acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory' but in the sense of initiating, having the initiative, or being in control. If I am initiating, why isn't this factual and actual?

For discussion, please give examples of this method of casting in use. Lise's example is helpful, only she introduced other terms -- text, context, foreground -- that needed to be resolved. I am proposing a Shared Readings using Lofting's method of casting. In reporting results when using the "Emotional I Ching Questions Method" it is better to give all the choices on the left and then the choices on the right because that is the order of the lines of the hexagram.

anemos · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
It isn't just a matter of clicking button but of understanding what one is doing. To use Lofting's method of casting thoughtfully, one must decide on the meaning of the terms situation, self (I), surroundings, facts, values, actual (what was/is/will be), potential (what could have been/is not/could be), proactive, and reactive. I have been unable to distinguish these terms. For example, how do facts differ from the actual? How do values differ from the potential (in the sense of ends sought). The term 'proactive' is not used by Lofting in its literal meaning 'acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory' but in the sense of initiating, having the initiative, or being in control. If I am initiating, why isn't this factual and actual?

.

I got stuck at the same point as you say here. i decided to treat each questions as if it was the only question I had to answer because I felt somehow there was a conflict if i took them together. Not sure if its correct but it helped me. Its like giving raw data.

Q.1 values/facts was not easy to answer. the root of my feelings is because the facts are against my values.
Q.2 time its was a bit easier to answer it. its about past but not what happened but what could have been. Its a matter ( for me) not "why you did that" but "why you didn't do that"... if that makes sense .

Q3. proactive/reactive . that was the toughest one. I had to ask lots of questions and eliminate many things before clicking the answer.

Not sure if i'm doing it right or wrong. I don't trust that method so far, its to clinical to me, so thats a big obstruction to be receptive , yet looking at the two hexs i got its very accurate what it says. It affirm in a way something i know and been told from some objective sources ( no oracles)

overall I'm not trying to find an objective answer. this is not possible. I try to check my bias and think of a bias-less answer. A clean unbiased answers don't know how possible is.

if that approach sounds helpful, i could reconstruct the reading and write more details on how I answered those questions, later in the day or tomorrow . Let me know.

pocossin · Jun 13, 2011

anemos said:
if that approach sounds helpful, i could reconstruct the reading and write more details on how I answered those questions, later in the day or tomorrow . Let me know.

Yes, Is this about the missing cord? Please give the details about how you made your choices.

sooo · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
It isn't just a matter of clicking button but of understanding what one is doing. To use Lofting's method of casting thoughtfully, one must decide on the meaning of the terms situation, self (I), surroundings, facts, values, actual (what was/is/will be), potential (what could have been/is not/could be), proactive, and reactive. I have been unable to distinguish these terms. For example, how do facts differ from the actual? How do values differ from the potential (in the sense of ends sought). The term 'proactive' is not used by Lofting in its literal meaning 'acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory' but in the sense of initiating, having the initiative, or being in control. If I am initiating, why isn't this factual and actual?

I think Chris and his online IC interactive doodad were more reliant upon automatic associations and reactions than to "thoughtful understanding of what one is doing." The more thought you give it, the less spontaneous and real it becomes. After all, it's about answering our own question; might as well be candid with ourselves about it.

pocossin · Jun 13, 2011

sooo said:
I did the drill three times or so. I found it quite accurate. It was a dissection of my own condition, or should say, it assisted in organizing my thoughts and feelings about the matter in question, or if there was no question, it reflected my sense of being. It was a recursive process, as advertised.

Please post an example here, giving the question and the decisions you made in filling out the questionnaire.

heylise · Jun 13, 2011

You're right, Tom, I made a mistake with the line I checked. It should be hex.8.

I thought "it's not really difficult" and was going to put it in easy to understand words - but studying it I got stuck myself. Now I know how the spider felt when he was asked how he made that web - and then couldn't do it anymore.

Maybe tomorrow I am brighter than now - or maybe now I am brighter than I was when I thought it was not difficult...

heylise · Jun 13, 2011

Some words don't resonate with me, I have to change them to words which make sense in an easy way. "Recursive", "text", I know vaguely what recursive is, can read what it is and see what it is, and still it stays alien. "Text" I have to change into something else. From Chris' page: "the text, what or who is working within the context", that makes sense. But I still don't have one easy word for it. The agent? The doer? Is there a noun for acting? The actor?

Left questions: context. Right questions: the actor. Hmmm.

anemos · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
Yes, Is this about the missing cord? Please give the details about how you made your choices.

No, that reading was a disaster. I felt into any pit I found on my way, lol The only positive outcome was that I realized some mistakes in my approach.

I'll try to brake it down and post tomorrow. Actually is pretty simplistic approach , its an one-stroke way of painting

heylise · Jun 13, 2011

The left row is about context, the right row is the actor(s).
Tom said the left questions are the three bottom lines of the hexagram, that would mean the inner trigram. And the right row the outer trigram. That would explain why the answer feels so "clear" to me, business-like, not fuzzy and emotional (organic) like a cast reading. An actor in a world. When I cast the coins I get an answer of me as part of universe, in and out are connected and have no clear boundaries.

pocossin · Jun 13, 2011

heylise said:
Maybe tomorrow I am brighter than now - or maybe now I am brighter than I was when I thought it was not difficult...

Well, let's hope you are brighter now. In answering the question 'Is it worthwhile to really discuss this?' when you chose 'I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought')' do you remember which values you had in mind? Did you wish to pay respect to the memory of Chris Lofting? Or did you have in mind the right of everyone to have their say? Or something else? Such clarification is why I think Sparhawk recommended Lofting's system.

sooo · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
Please post an example here, giving the question and the decisions you made in filling out the questionnaire.

Hell, Tom, it was years ago that I messed with it, and I haven't the faintest recollection of specifics, only the general impression I walked away with. Not my thing, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

LiSe, all recursion means to me is something which is reliably, repeatedly referencing itself. The lack of sense of magic is because there's no sense of other. To me, that was a titillating idea, not inconsistent with shamanic opportunity. It is like my old assertion of 'the challenge to believe', when you've already stripped belief altogether as anything reliable. And yet, without belief, there is also the lack of power which belief brings. There needs to be the other to have that warm, fuzzy feeling and association, which comes with trust. So that what you hear is believed.

Chris challenged to consider the Yi from a point of view which didn't rely on anyone but you, and the nature of our hardwired, recursive attributes, whether they are made conscious or not. We are self-repairing human androids - a little humor intended. But, all in all, he's probably right.

pocossin · Jun 13, 2011

sooo said:
Hell, Tom, it was years ago that I messed with it, and I haven't the faintest recollection of specifics, only the general impression I walked away with. Not my thing, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

No I Ching Journal?

You got through the questionnaire three times, so you're three times ahead of me. I haven't been able to get through it once. How about asking another question and showing us how you make choices in filling out the questionnaire?

Sparhawk · Jun 13, 2011

pocossin said:
Well, let's hope you are brighter now. In answering the question 'Is it worthwhile to really discuss this?' when you chose 'I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought')' do you remember which values you had in mind? Did you wish to pay respect to the memory of Chris Lofting? Or did you have in mind the right of everyone to have their say? Or something else? Such clarification is why I think Sparhawk recommended Lofting's system.

Let's remember where and when I posted the recommendation. It was in the thread about the Yijing course's syllabus, in the Kitchen section. What I said, precisely, was:

"I just want to throw in here that, perhaps, a study of Chris Lofting's approach to questioning, the questioning structure itself, might be useful."

(boldface added now for emphasis)

For some reason, completely out of my control, the whole issue has been blown out of proportion and over-analyzed.

My thought was that, being Chris one of the very few people I've known in my studies that deal with the issue of "emotions" when consulting the Yijing, and being "emotions" one of the most important drivers behind every single question posed to it, why not try to incorporate such a thoughtful angle in the place that would make the greatest impact: "A Yijing course for people new to it"

Please read again what I suggested initially. Nothing is cast in stone. Any system can be tweaked and adapted. Just don't discard the whole thing on the account of obfuscation.

But hey, it was just an idea. That's what the kitchen is there for, isn't it?

Chris Lofting's System

visitor

Supporter

visitor

visitor

visitor

One of those men your mother warned you about...

One of those men your mother warned you about...

visitor

One of those men your mother warned you about...

visitor

visitor

Supporter

Supporter

visitor

visitor

visitor

sooo

Guest

visitor

visitor

visitor

sooo

Guest

visitor

Supporter

Supporter

visitor

Supporter

visitor

sooo

Guest

visitor

One of those men your mother warned you about...