Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
So I check LEFT: "Context of the situation is more about values".
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??
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?
.
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.
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 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.
Yes, Is this about the missing cord? Please give the details about how you made your choices.
Maybe tomorrow I am brighter than now - or maybe now I am brighter than I was when I thought it was not difficult...
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.
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).