Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
H
hmesker
Guest
Yes please. Thank you. Does it come with your autograph?
Blog post: Hexagram 3 and the very beginning
- Thread starter hilary
- Start date
Not sure if this very kind offer was intended for myself or Harmen. If it was intended for me I was be delighted to read it. Perhaps there are patterns and reasons that I have not considered.
I have looked, I havent found anything (yet) of any coherence or rationality. I hope there is, I know the Yi works, I know that it works better for me than when I was using various othere methds than I do now, I know there are underlying principles, though like us all I am learning more all the time about them. It would be fantiastic to find that the sequence we use in the book has a rationality and a coherence. That would make things a lot simpler.
I think perhaps I may not be explaining myself clearly enough, if that is the case, apologies for my clumsy use of language.
I think I have checked the Yi and that is why there seem to be a lack of validation for the "sequence" we use.
The ones that are symmetrical. Hexagrams: 1,2,27,28,29,30,61,62, (63,64 is ambiguous)
So although 28 "pairs" are "created" by inversion through 180 degreess
By line reversal. as per Hex 1 to 2, 27 to 28, 29 to 30. 61 to 62, perhaps the multiples rules 63 to 64.
I think the point I was trying to make was that, although one can view a large number of "pairs" by 180 degree rotation, other methods of pair creation could apply. The question then would be, what is the rational reasoning for choosing one method over another.
Hexagrams 63 and 64 as an a example. Is it lines being changed, Trigrams being swapped,or a transform by 180 degree rotation.
As an aside. In Chinese Medicine, the 24 hour clock, presented as how Qi flows through the meridians, presents lots of very "interesting" patterns. Without going into considerable detail, the "clock" is simply not accurate. There is a better, simpler arrangement, and being built on underlying principles explain many of the reasons why particular Zang Fu relate to each other in particular ways, why certain point combinations are used and various other "mysteries " about Chinese Medicine. But if you look at the "patterns produced by the clock system, you might be tempted to think that these patterns are indicative of something significant and meaningful.
But the result of "patterns" that result from something that has even a degree of order in the first instance, is just a mathematical consideration that will happen when any order is created. Though of course the more symmetrical the "order" appears the greater the appearance of pattersn is likely to be.
My take on it is that a rational and coherent sequence would illuminate and there would be no contradictions or discrepancies, at least not ones that couldnt be explained with a bit of further thought.
But I dont see or find that in the patterns that are generated by the arrangement of Hexagrams that make up the book as we know and use it today.
The question still remains that even if the pairs themselves have valid relationship and it is rational to use different rules for pair creation, that unless pairs oare all there is there would have to be some rationality to explain why, for example, Hexagram 4 is followed by Hexagram 5. Even if 5 and 6 are valid pairs where is the rationale that shouldnt place the pairs in the reverse order so that the sequence went, 2,1,4,3,6,5,8,7 or, 2,1,3,4,6,5, 7,8 or any other arangement of arrangement within each pair.
My view is that if a sequence is valid in its own right then any pairs would automatically be apparent in a coherent and rational way.
All the best
Dave
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479
You aren't selling the sequence book as an actual book though are you. I thought it was the course that's in CC library
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,201
- Reaction score
- 3,462
Oh, sorry, this is embarrassing... the offer was just for Harmen (because I owe him quite a lot of favours). You can find it inside Change Circle.
It doesn't, as far as I know, have a single formula that could generate the whole thing. What it does have are a lot of patterns and symmetries intricately woven together with the text.
This is the point where I really wish quotes on this forum included other quotes... ah well...
Non-rotational pairs...
Yes. There are also another 3 pairs that are ambiguous in the same way.
How they're created...
Yes.
Oh... you mean not which method is used, but how should we think of it? Whether something like 63/64 should 'count' as an inverse or an opposite pair, and on what basis?
Well, it's all three. Also, you missed out nuclear hexagrams: 63 and 64 are also one another's nuclears.
In practice, they seem to have the closest relationship of any pair: everything's complete and incomplete at the same time. Ending with 'Not Yet Across' is one of those things about Yi that offends people with logical minds; to me, it seems like a very large-scale joke.
Hm, no, it may well be that the particular kind of consistent order you're looking for just isn't there. It's more playful than that. More like Shakespeare, as I was saying, or a human being; less like the Fibonacci Sequence or what-have-you.
Yes, that's the one. Ebook rather than course (it was going to be a mini-course before it got so completely out of hand) but yes, digital not physical.
Firstly my apologies. I somehow missed your posting and only just came across it when I was double checking something.
I am sorry that you see it as continuously disagreeing and "arguing". I am trying to be consistent and bring the discussions back to fundamental consideratons.
I appreciate that it might seem like that but this is just a discussioin and only if there was something in my posts that was capable of creating a "fire" in someone's perspective would that be a problem. Personally, using the same analogy, I may be a fire chaser. I see something in my own life and need to know why, to understand why I acted or reacted in that way, why I get on with some but not with others. That willingness to embrace the presence of contradictions and inconsistencies does result in some rather disturbing results, it has impacted hugely on my understanding of Chinese Medicine and I had to let go of a lot of dearly held beliefs and left myself feeling incredibly vulnerable in order to do that.
I think that while I know of some aspects of underlying principles, and so can be confident that they exist, it would be rather arrogant to say that I know and understand them. I woukd not be posting on the Forum and asking for the insights and experience of others if I knew and understood the correlations between various methods of comprehending the mysteries of the universe and ourselves. I have set out the principles of rational logical and coherency as the means of discussion and most of my "arguments" have been to point out that those critera have not been met and so the responses could be just from a personal belief viewpoint or could be from thte experience and understanding of underlying principles, but if that is not clarified and without the validation of coherent argument it is impossible to know. Or that the responses themselves are not rational, coherent or logical and that there is another view that may possibly be considered that might just reveal the lack of rationality in that response.
My humblest apologies. I was not ignoring you. I felt that there was a risk of our discussions becoming personal and I didnt want to be directing posts directly at you for risk of the contents being taken as directed at you persnally and create upset or bad feeling.
I did promise that I would respond to your questions and I should have made it clear that I considered that I had done that in a later post in the thread. My apologies for not making that clear.
Again, apologies if my lack of coherent language is responsible for that.
The repititions are because, with my limited understanding, perhaps I struggle to find alternative ways of referring to the same fundamental points. That would also explain the obsessive perception.
Though as I am not actually proposing any particular view, other than to question that a view might be a "belief" and so could be valid only for us in our capacity as individuals, and that from my understanding and experience there are underlying principles, and the differentiation between any belief and the knowing of underlying principles is vital, as without underlying principles then a belief in anything, or a belief structure would be all that was left and the human brains capacity to make anything seem like it makes sense would mean that most of the thoughts "attached" to the Yi would have no meaning or relevance, the history would be irrelevant, the methodology wouldnt matter as it would all be an illusion. And only if there are and we reference underlying principles would the illusions become apparent.
That is I think simply because no one has to date responded with any reference, directly or indirectly to underlying principles. That is fine, other than it makes a huge differerence as to the perspective the person is coming from and with out clarification it is impossible to know whether what they are stating has any relevance or not. There is no problem in not having underlying principles, the Yi still works in whatever way be believe it works. But for those that try to dress it up as having significance or meaning, because that can only happen if there are applicable underlying principles and without some sort of acknowledgement of them the dressing up might just be words without any relevance or substance to the matter of underlying principles.
I am sorry that either my interejections are not clear or there is no comprehension of what I am saying becuase there is no knowledge or understanding of underlying priniples and the ordinances of heaven by anyone that is reading my posts.
I have no way of knowing if it is my presentations or that no one is understanding. If it is the former I will certainly consider a change of approach.
At least you did ask specific and relevant questions, which I did try to address. Though I should have made it clear that I had done that elsewhere and I should have made it clear that I hadnt addressed that personally to you for the reason of not wanting to cause any distress or offence.
Even if we have different perspectives and understandings on things, you have at least been open in what you think and what underlies your perspective. I didnt want to appear to be criticising your personal take on life, we all have our own journeys and the feeling that comes across is that you try to do that peaceably. I would certainly not be wanting to seem to be criticising anyones attempts at a peaceful life.
I appreciate that, but the reference to fundamental underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven is just such a clear way of putting it. If I was to put it another way it might be taken to mean something else. I appreciate that in one sense it is complex, the inter relationships between the Yi, the Tarot, Astrology, Chinese Medicine, Ying and Yang, the Dao, Nueropsychology, Mathematics and Physics, to name the more obvious ones, may make the subject appear to be rather complex. But under it all are simple principles, force, energies, the same things generate all that we can know and experience, if we know those then some of the mysteries of the universe are solved. But there is one major problem in the middle of it all. Human beings. As human beings we love to have solutions to everything and even when we dont actually know the answers we think that we do and convince ourselves and others that we know what is going on. But there are far more questions than answers and the presence of inconsistency, of contradictions, of a lack of logical, rational coherence, or no signs of resonance is one rathere large indicator that the illusion of a belief in something, rather than knowing of something has kicked in and created the illusion.
Non e of that should bea surpise to anyone at all. It is a basic of psychology nad has been demonstrated in many, many ways that we live in a self created illusion, which we share with others a lot of the time so it not an unpleasnat place to be and as it is most definitely a part of human nature there can be no real criticism of it, BUT, it is only a part of us and the rest of us also needs to have its say, part of that part is the knowing of what is real and the connections and realtionships between things, in a rathere limited crude sense it could be said that one part of us experiences things in proportion and one part of us experiences thing as equals. The world of equals is vitally important, it gives us maths and without maths many of the wonders that we enjoy to day would not exist. But the world of mathematics, the world of equals, is only a part of our story, a story that we were much more familiar with as children but which we lost as we "grew up".
I could describe the two ways of using the Yi in those terms, on one hand we can use the Yi to comprehend the proprtionality of everything, but that requires a comprehension that there is an everything and a knowledge of how the everythings fit together, otherwise one doesnt have a proportional perspective, on the other we can use the Yi as in the sense of "equals", so an answer equals a question, it rather limits what the questions can really be about, and as there is no frame of reference that validates whether the "equals" is correct or not, pretty much any answer can be interpreted as an "equals".
But then if someone does not "agree" it should be rather simple to show me why and how I might be asking incorrect questons or presenting incorrect points.
I hope that you realise that I am not intending to be confusing, I am certainly not intending to evade anything, and absolutely I am not being dismissive. Though if someone doesnt respond to the contents of my posts in a relevant, coherent, rational or logical manner and tries to ridicule me in some way or another, which you obviously haven been doing, then they can expect a certain degree of dismissiveness. But I would prefere to avoid that completely. My interest is the "truth" whatever that is. Not an individuals truth but a truth that has commonality, whether that is called underlying principles or not. My interest is what links and ties us all together as humans, what is it in us that needs to be fulfilled, to be content, to know the purpose and meaning of life.
I thought that a Yi community would be delighted in discussions of that sort. The Yi, for me and all the others I have known, apart from a few, has always been a joy, ann inspiration and a way of looking inside the fabric of the self and the universe.
But perhaps I was mistaken an the Yi community is not really interested in such things, or only wants to pay token gesture to the Yi's inner and underlying qualities.
All the best, Dave
Last edited by a moderator:
F
Freedda
Guest
I think you are not mistaken and are absolutely right here - and that after trying hundreds of times, it is obvous that no one here has the understanding nor the answers you seek. And with evidence and proof that clearly spelled out for you, why do continue to try? That's not at all rational.
In regards to the hexagram sequence discussion, I think that everyone is right!
I, along with some others, believe that there is a logic to the whole sequence. That doesn't mean we necessarily understand the logic. But we can point to some characteristics of it.
So, in answer to jukkodave, I say that people for thousands of years have been asking exactly the questions you've been asking. You are in good company! A sampling:
Why are there six lines? Why not four or five or ten or twelve or....? Been asked.
Why is it so confusing? Been asked.
Why is it in the order it is? Been asked many times over, and answered with numerous invented schemes.
What is the principle behind it all? Been asked by philosophers through the ages (see Sung Dynasty Uses of the I Ching for a good sampling)
Can the hexagrams relate to the calendar? Been asked.
Can the hexagrams relate to the Five Elements? Been asked.
Can we generate the sequence with a computer program? Been asked.
And so on.
I believe that the sequence's logic is far, far beyond what most of us can fathom. I compare it to music. I have no problem making up a short little ditty. But when I listen to Bach, or try to play one of his pieces, I can clearly see that there is complexity in it that is far, far beyond what I could ever create, and I can barely understand how it works. His music makes utter, beautiful sense, both in its simplicity and in complexity. That adds richness for the listener and performer both. Also, like the Yijing, music can be analyzed in many ways: chord progressions, melodic allusions and references, how a piece relates to a composer's other works, historical context, musical genre, and in Bach's case in relation to the liturgical cycle (come to think of it, Bach played with all of these elements in exactly the same manner as the Yijing sequence creator did). All of these are valid methods of analysis (and believe me, many of those people are having EXACTLY the same kinds of discussions/arguments that appear here).
In discussing the Yijing hexagram sequence, some people over the centuries analyze it by pairs, others by trigrams, some by text. Some look at it through historical lenses, others through mathematical, anthropological, ritual lenses. Some seek overarching principles, others seek internal relationships of lines or trigrams, or relationships simply of paired hexagrams as a whole. Some seek to link it to principles beyond the book itself. Some pursue logical explanations and others are content with it being amorphous. All are valid.
Remember, the Yijing is just someone's ideas and scheme recorded and passed down to us in present day over span of three thousand years! The sequence IS a framework, just as is the text and the hexagrams. Maybe if we could explain it, it wouldn't be as interesting.
Enjoy its mysteries!
Barbara
I, along with some others, believe that there is a logic to the whole sequence. That doesn't mean we necessarily understand the logic. But we can point to some characteristics of it.
So, in answer to jukkodave, I say that people for thousands of years have been asking exactly the questions you've been asking. You are in good company! A sampling:
Why are there six lines? Why not four or five or ten or twelve or....? Been asked.
Why is it so confusing? Been asked.
Why is it in the order it is? Been asked many times over, and answered with numerous invented schemes.
What is the principle behind it all? Been asked by philosophers through the ages (see Sung Dynasty Uses of the I Ching for a good sampling)
Can the hexagrams relate to the calendar? Been asked.
Can the hexagrams relate to the Five Elements? Been asked.
Can we generate the sequence with a computer program? Been asked.
And so on.
I believe that the sequence's logic is far, far beyond what most of us can fathom. I compare it to music. I have no problem making up a short little ditty. But when I listen to Bach, or try to play one of his pieces, I can clearly see that there is complexity in it that is far, far beyond what I could ever create, and I can barely understand how it works. His music makes utter, beautiful sense, both in its simplicity and in complexity. That adds richness for the listener and performer both. Also, like the Yijing, music can be analyzed in many ways: chord progressions, melodic allusions and references, how a piece relates to a composer's other works, historical context, musical genre, and in Bach's case in relation to the liturgical cycle (come to think of it, Bach played with all of these elements in exactly the same manner as the Yijing sequence creator did). All of these are valid methods of analysis (and believe me, many of those people are having EXACTLY the same kinds of discussions/arguments that appear here).
In discussing the Yijing hexagram sequence, some people over the centuries analyze it by pairs, others by trigrams, some by text. Some look at it through historical lenses, others through mathematical, anthropological, ritual lenses. Some seek overarching principles, others seek internal relationships of lines or trigrams, or relationships simply of paired hexagrams as a whole. Some seek to link it to principles beyond the book itself. Some pursue logical explanations and others are content with it being amorphous. All are valid.
Remember, the Yijing is just someone's ideas and scheme recorded and passed down to us in present day over span of three thousand years! The sequence IS a framework, just as is the text and the hexagrams. Maybe if we could explain it, it wouldn't be as interesting.
Enjoy its mysteries!
Barbara
Hi Freedda
Because I asked the Yi, it said continue, until I until things are clear. As I dont have clarity and it seems that possibly no one else that has bee responding does then perseverence furthers.
Clarity may not come from anyone that has responsed yet. So someone may read my posts and go, Oh I know that answers to that and respond.
Clarity may come from myself and the process of asking question, making points and trying to explain my self may knock down a wall or two if mine that enalbes me to see clearly.
I think the biggest problem, as far as the Yi comunity is concerned is that if my questions are revealing that everyone in the Community is using the Yi as just another method of prediction and fortune telling, and not with conscious knowing of underlying principles, then that sets the the use of the Yi as nothing different from any other form of divination, including ones that can just be made up, there is nothing special about it, and the history becomes irrelevant, that meanings, the translations and the interpretatiions become irrelevant, all the academic and scholarly works become irrelevant. As those things are only relevant if it is something special that was something of value that was passed down based on something fundamental such as underlying principles.
Put that with what Neuropsycholgy knows about the incredibly skilled way that the human brain creates the world that we live in and the probability that the "interpretations" of the Yi and the readings are figments of imagination and for the most part ot wouldnt matter what readings we got we would still be able to "find" a meaning in a Hexagram, something that was examined 30 years ago and found to be possible, and Neuropsychology confirms is a highly probable likelyhood, and so the most likely conclusion, if not the only conclusion is that what is being said abou the Yi, about what it means, what it for, what it can do, are just complete figments of our imagination, and the Yi could say anything at all and we would beleive it as being relevant to us in our lives.
Which of course is completely valid of the individual, but it means that the purpose of the Forum, possibly the purpose of the site is negated. If the only one that anything makes any sense to, is the individual, and the only agreements we have are with those that share our self created " picture" of the world, any comments or posting would just be the perpetuation of an illusion and wouldnt change anything, apart fom what we permitted within our illusion. - Unless of course there was knowing, understanding of fundamental underlying principles, of the ordinances of heaven to guide us, to provide a framework, to ask as a measure by which to evaluate the validity of any preceptions or views.
All the best
Dave
- Joined
- Sep 20, 1970
- Messages
- 12,941
- Reaction score
- 2,418
Dave, it could be that what you really need is someone to conduct a seance for you, and invite the original authors, and ask them these questions.
I'm joking, but also making a point.
I'm joking, but also making a point.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 1970
- Messages
- 12,941
- Reaction score
- 2,418
Also, you keep saying you did a reading which told you "perseverance furthers" (without, notably, telling us the actual reading).
"Perseverance furthers" - fine, but maybe Yi meant the sort of perseverance people have been engaged in for thousands of years, since the Yi was written? Which is a lot different from thinking you can bludgeon "the truth" out of this forum in days or weeks, with a sledgehammer.
"Perseverance furthers" - fine, but maybe Yi meant the sort of perseverance people have been engaged in for thousands of years, since the Yi was written? Which is a lot different from thinking you can bludgeon "the truth" out of this forum in days or weeks, with a sledgehammer.
Hi tacrab, welcome to the discussions, nice to have another perspective to stimulate the discussion.
The inherent problem with "belief" is that everything and anything is possible in belief land.
It would be just as valid for someone to say, I believe there is no logic, and because ot would be their belief it would be just as valid.
The inherent problem with pointing to "some" of the characterists is, that it is just cherry picking the bits that suit us, and are in accord with what we believe, and just ignoring the bits that dont.
There have been some wonderul concepts put out about all sorts of things because someone has pointed to "some" charateristic.
Yes all been asked, and --- not answered----.
Which means one of the following:
There are no answers because there are no "underlying" principles and no ordinances of heaven; and the whole thing is based on nothing at all and is just made up and works because any made up system works, either, simply because we believe it does, or because we have lost contact with the subconscious parts of our brains and apparently random methods such as the Yi, Tarot, Astrology etc are just ways of accessing what we already know but dont know how to accress it in our subconsciousness.
There are underlying principles, but no one knows what they are sufficiently to be able to explain and questions, such as those above, and contradictions, and discrepancies or any lack of rational coherence.
It is kind of more than important that even if we dont know the answers to all the questions that we know the differentiatioin between if there are underlying principles or if there aren't.
The vaidity of what anyone says or thinks revollves entirely around that basic differentiation.
If that was the case, the sequence logic would have also been beyond the originators of the Yi's capacity and that would reveal the Yi to be a made up contrivance with no value beyond what accessing our subconscious might hold. Which may be significant of course, but beyond that all the considerations of translation, interpretation, meaning, would be meaningless as the whole thing would be made up and we could continue the making it up in whatever way we liked.
Even if it is beyond "most of us" does not mean it is beyond everyone. And if it beyond most of us then those that have written about it should be also saying the same thing. They obviously think it is not beyind them or they wouldnt be commenting or interpreting.
The analogy with music is however not relevant. There are underlying principles to the Yi, beyond those of what "rules" may be applied to music, which differ considerable from classical to jazz, and even within Classical and Jazz, Atonic classical, Romantic Classical, Swing Jazz, Contemprary Jazz, try putting, just for one example, an Upper structure Chord over Romantic Classical and see if that sounds good -most of the time it doesnt.
Music has a richness for the listener of various reasons, partly because that it what we are used to and a particular type of music resonates with us, it hits emotional centres, it hits parts of the brain. If the Yi is universal, if it is a reflection of underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven then that is way beyond whatever music can do for us. Music makes us feel something, it doesnt help with solutions to our conscious problems, apart from perhaps realxing us so we dont feel so stressed about them.
But the point is that all are valid only in the context of the Yi being nothing other than just another long and continuing line of ways to look beyond our limited conscious selves. Just picking bits here and there, as you have described above, doesnt demonstrate anything outside of that very limited perspective, but, if there really are underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven pointed to and referenced in the Yi, or it is based on them, then all of the above methods of analysis would converge to a singular knowing and understanding and the ones that didnt would stand out like sore thmbs and could be easily discarded. But when non of thenm show any convergence with the others they just raises any sensible persons suspicions that most of the analysis is contrived, created and just made up.
Thank heaven there are underlying principles to guide us through the mess of confusion.
I am of course acutely aware that it may just be someone's "idea", or at least most of what we think we understand and use. We dont of course know, based upon what has survived, if the Yi is a single entity or the accumulation of dozens of different methods.
A framework is something that "ties" the rest together, So the "sequence" is not a framework, any more than the text or the Hexagrams are. And they would have to be accurate to be a framework, meaning that we would know the answers most of the questions you detailed. If we dont know that the sequence handed down to us from King Wen is accurate or meaningful, he might have been completeky of track and deluded, then the sequence is most defintely not a framework. If we cannot get the text right and agree on it, then that is most defintely not a frame work. If we dont "know" if and why the Hexagrams are constructed the way they are, are they composed of single lines only, of Trigrams, is the whole Hexagram the only relevance, is everything relevant, if the "images" of the broken and unbroken lines are significant or if they are symbolic and could be replaced by somehting else to create a completely different image, if we dont know if the Trigrams are even correct in their interpetations and meanings, if we dont know all of those then perhaps we are palying a guessing game, with no idea if we are guessing right or not, or the whole thing is just made up and it doesnt matter one jot either way. But then the really interesting thing would be how and why methods of divination, even one that have been made up on no rules or principles at all, work the way they do. Is it because the power of "belief" is so great in humans that we can convince ourselves of anything, or is it that our subconciousness is capable of more than we think.
So I think that it gets more and more intersting the more we know and understand, the more we investigate and ask difficult questions, including if the Yi is valid in the sense that perhaps we think it is. The truth is always more fascinating than any illusion though it may not appear so on first examination. The skin of any illusion, which may be appealing and fascinating is soon revealed as empty, dull amd lifeless beyond the skin.
All the best
Dave
moss elk
visitor
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,288
- Reaction score
- 1,065
"..and in conclusion of the Vulcan Institutes twelve day introductory module of Oracle studies.."
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,201
- Reaction score
- 3,462
Dave, can you give us an example of the kind of thing you mean by 'underlying principle'?
Things I can imagine different people might describe as an 'underlying principle of the Yi:
What's your idea of an underlying principle?
Things I can imagine different people might describe as an 'underlying principle of the Yi:
- synchronicity
- probability and randomness
- yin and yang
- truth
- compassion
- change
What's your idea of an underlying principle?
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479
Hilary we have asked him this question a hundred times already
Maybe you will have more luck but no has had any so far so not sure why the effort continues. Let's see
Maybe you will have more luck but no has had any so far so not sure why the effort continues. Let's see
F
Freedda
Guest
You are missing the point here. The 'underlying principles' are obvious to everyone, or at least to all of us whom only want to 'pay a token gesture' to the Yi. They are:Hilary we have asked him this question a hundred times already .... Maybe you will have more luck but no has had any so far so not sure why the effort continues. Let's see
The Trigrams.
The Five Elements.
The Sequence.
... have I missed anything?
The Five Elements.
The Sequence.
... have I missed anything?
D.
Hilary we have asked him this question a hundred times already.
What's your idea of an underlying principle?
Maybe you will have more luck but no has had any so far so not sure why the effort continues. Let's see
Hi Trojina.
If I have been asked a hundred times then the answer I have given a hundred times is the same:
If I knew the answer to that I wouldnt be asking anyone anything on the Forum.
*It is one thing to be aware of something and knowing of it.
*Yet another to have knowledge of it.
*And yet another to understand it.
That is why I have used the 3 different descriptions of experience.
So while I have knowing of underlying principles and some small knowledge perhaps, my understanding must be lacking, hence the need to ask questions. What little I do know makes it obvious so that the contradictions, the discrepancies and the lack of rational coherence stand out in strong contrast.
What I do know and understand is from mainly Chinese Medicine, from Neuropsychology, and what I have directly experienced, which confirms the existence of what could be termed underlying principles. I could have used any terms but used those because they are part of the Commentaries.
Then there is the logic, which is simple. If there are no fundamental underlying principles then the whole thing is just made up in our heads and means nothing at all other that any belief that we wish it to have. Remebering that a "belief" is really just another way of saying that one doesnt know. Not even a particularly noce or honest way, as the presentation of a "belief " is that it wmeans something and one knows something, when of course if one knew it one would be able to say so and there would be no need of any belief whatsoever.
But if it is only a belief then all of the theories, all of the study, the academicism the translation, the interpretations, would just be in our beliefs and imaginations, we wouldnt "know" at all, and that would make the Yi no different from any other form of "divination". It wouldnt be special and the history would be irrelevant. All the teaching and the learning would be pointless, because there would be no "foundation" other than it being someones constructed belief or the combination of many peoples constructions.
Only if there are underlying principles would there Yi be different from a method of divination that could just be made up by anyone with a bit of imagination, with no need of any principles at all to make it work, which Neuropsychology tells us could well be nothing other than the persistence of our self created "picture" of life, the univers and everything. Which is why we have Science and anyalytical thought and the requirement of rational and coherent thinking to minimise the possibility that things only exist in our imaginations and beliefs. And just because a million people think the same, Psychology shows us that mass illusion is often the most powerful.
So, some knowledge, some experience, enough to know that "underlying principles" are real. Fill in whatever terms or terms you wish that describe a fundamental underlying quality, Qi, Yin and Yang, elements, Physics Particles, though you might have to be careful on that as they are debatable.
But obviously not enough to "understand" sufficiently to see how it all fits together, but enough to see when things are glaringly obviously not rational and coherent, to see when there is cherry picking to "make" it look like things work, to be aware that we build walls of belief and that when they get knowcked down then a different perception follows and as long as one doesnt try to rebuild the wall without looking around that differernt view can be most illuminating. To be aware of the enormous difference that the differentiation of whether matters are viewed in regard to any underlying principles or whether they arent.
Which is the same thing that I have been saying all along. So someone isnt reading what I am posting it seems.
I appreciate that thins may come as a most unpleasant shock to some but if the Yi is real, if the Yi does what the claims are, then the truth should be something that everyone should be desireous of.
And shaking up a few old beliefs shouldnt be a problem but should be welcomed.
So where is the problem.
All the best Dave
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,201
- Reaction score
- 3,462
OK, so you don't know what they are.
How would you recognise an underlying principle of the Yi if you found it?
Do you know any underlying principles for any other field? Can you give us an example?
How would you recognise an underlying principle of the Yi if you found it?
Do you know any underlying principles for any other field? Can you give us an example?
F
Freedda
Guest
Jukkodave,
A few years ago there was a teenage girl who commuted to high school on the same early morning ferry that I did, and we both ended up walking into the same neighborhood when we got off the boat: my headed to my car; she to a friend's house before school.
After a while, she started 'acting out' by blocking the stairs on the ferry, saying lewd things to women in the wash room, stalling other people walking the same sidewalk who were on their way to work, ...
Early one dark morning, I yelled at her because she was shinning a laser pointer at people, thinking it was funny. She she said she was sorry, and we went our own ways, but after that she started to seek me out on our walks - including 'stalking' me by intentionally waiting in spots that she knew I would walk by.
Her pronouncements started out strange, but a bit funny: that her dad was a sheriff on the island and that she was going to report me to him (so I'd ask that she give me his number so I could call and introduce myself), ... but then things got weirder, as she claimed that I had been harassing her 'twin' and not her, and making up things that had never happened ... and that she was going to report me ... etc.
So, what started as an odd, but seemingly harmless interaction was starting to get way out of hand, and as an adult male I was increasingly worried what stories or accusations she might make up which could get me in trouble. So, within a few weeks, I contacted one of the principals at her high school (who was very familiar with her odd and troubling behavior) and after that she no longer commuted on the same ferry, nor walked into the same neighborhood that I was.
At one point I was talking with a friend about what had happened, wondering why she had latched onto me, especially since it had started with me yelling at her? He said that it was likely that she was desperate for any attention, and even though I had yelled at her, it was likely a more real response than she was used to getting - which I think was mainly that people just tried to ignored her.
So ....
My interactions with that young girl and the ways see was seeking attention reminds me a lot of your interactions here on this forum:
... you say they are about the Yi, and its 'underlying principles' - even when you don't understand or can't even explain the very things you want evidence for (which really means that they are no more 'real' than anything anyone else things or believes in, despite you claiming otherwise).
And this has become increasingly frustrating, especially since - just like that teenager - you want to argue about whatever belief you have - regardless of what's real. And simply calling it 'a discussion' doesn't make it any more real, nor any less argumentative.
I don't know your motivation, but I find myself wondering, is all this about your need for connection, and its based on your feelings and emotional needs, and not on any 'underlying principles'? So you remind me of that teenager who didn't ever want to stop interacting, no matter how confusing or made-up it was, nor how much confusion she might be inciting.
D.
Last edited:
Sorry Freedda. It is your good self that is missing the point.
The sequence most certainly is not fundamental or an underlying principle. It isnt even agreed on which version of a sequence should be used. Is it the post heaven sequence or the primal heaven sequence, or perhaps another one that has dropped out of fashion.
For something to be "underlying" it has to at the very least be rational and coherent. So the "sequence" in the book fals on that count.
The Trigrams ceratainly arent fundamental. And again there are various versions and no clear rationality to them.
Five Elements might be considered fundamental except that they arent rational or coherent, that there are huge contradictions.
And of course there is nothing to "connect" any of those with any other methods of understanding the universe, such as the Tarot, Astrology, Chinese Medicine, because 5 and 8 are factors of 12 or any other relevant numerical representations.
So none of those are fundamental underlying principles, they are "constructions from underlying principles, with the possibility that they are very poor constructions unlees there is a clear, rational and coherent way of explaing them and their connections with other methods.
But that does explain why there is so much confusion, if everyone is think that 5E and Trigrams are fundamental. But then why has there been no rational explanations of how and why they work and why they are relevant.
Dave
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479
No, try to be honest with yourself, you really cannot afford yourself the conceit that you are 'shaking up a few old beliefs'. This is a common enough conceit possibly because all it takes to support itself is the assertion of 'I am shaking up their beliefs so they are resisting me'. You want to be in that role of a belief shaker but the drawback is you don't know what your beliefs actually are so you have come royally unstuck.
So what now ? What are your options on a discussion forum ? I don't know. If you could answer Hilary's questions it might be a step forward otherwise...…………..well what then, what will you do ?
I can't see that you can just go on and on with what looks like a game of
It's going to wear very thin.
For whatever reason this is just a game not anything resembling a real discussion so at what point do we say please stop doing this or go and do it in your own thread ? Inevitably isn't that where this is going ?
Last edited:
F
Freedda
Guest
The point you are missing is that you have put forth this idea of 'underlying principles' but you have said yourself that you don't understand these, and that you can't explain them - so in fact, they may not even exist, or may only be part of your belief system.
And according to you, without evidence or proof how are we to know what is real, and 'fundamental' and not simply part of our own belief system? But, in the same way, without you offering any proof or evidence, how are we to know that what you're saying is not just a belief?
And despite how illogical you're being, you continue to present us with an idea that you don't understand and can't prove, but you demand that we provide proof and evidence for what we believe.
And no matter how many times people point our your own illogical arguments, you'll simply say what you believe is 'true' (because they are based on your unproven underlying principles); and that others arguments are not true (because they aren't based on these very same unproven underlying principles).
So in the end all you are offering is maddening, circular logic that can't ever be answered or proved.
And as I said, all this is likely besides the point - since I think the 'why' of you being here doesn't really have anything to do with the Yi, but is based on your feelings and need for connecting with others.
Or that certainly seems to be what's happening here.
D.
Whatever your end of the experience, and I am sorry to hear that you had to go through that, that is not what is happening here.
No I dont fully understand the "underlying principles", if I did I wouldnt be asking anyone, but I do know they exist, and I do know that coherence is one demonstration of when things are correct.
I see in the Yi many indications of "underlying principles of nature" but I also see a large number of misunderstandings and a lack of comprehension of those demonstrations. I have given various examples of those in my posts.
I see that various "views" have been taken, which while they make sense academically forget the context of the times they came from.
I know the ramifications of what Neuropsychology tells us about the way the human brain works and even though we are still at the very early statges of understanding the brain, one thing that is clear is that the human brain is not only highly capable of inventing the world around us but does so every day and most of the things we consider real are in fact not as real as we would like to believe.
I know, even though there are limitations, that the process of Science, or similar, are ways to reveal and minimse the "illusions" the brain presents us with constantly.
Yes they are real, that is my experience, that is also the experience of those that wrote the Dao and the other numerous similar works that refer to underlying principles in one way or another.
Have you realised the point that if there are no underlying principles that there are no measures and no framework by which to make sense of anything and evaluate if anything makes sense, or not, and given the Neuropsychological knowledge of how the brain works, that without underlying principles that there is no way to differentiate and every thing could be nothing other than a figment of our imaginations.
And so even if I had no direct experience or knowledge of any underlying principles at all, the logic arising from knowing how the brain works would be enough to generate the very same questions and points. It is only because I have some knowing of underlying principles that I am bothering to continue. If it was just about beliefs then I would have given up long ago, what would be the point of discussing and presenting or listening to any arguments, rational or otherwise if it was just beliefs with no proof that could ever be shown. Even if we had all the original documents, if they were just the manifiestation of someones "belief" and not the manifiestation of underlying principles they would be no worth to any one, other than those that wanted to add to their belief structure.
I asked the Yi and was advised to perevere, that something needed to be understood.
I have made ot very clear that I dont have a belief. I know what I know, the rest is questions and observations, they are not statements of fact or any belief and I have made that really clear, so to suggest that I have "beliefs" really is missing the point.
It is not about the need for vague connections, not on my part anyway, it is about the search for what is real. It is not about any manipulations of any surface pieces of information but about trying to undestand what might be the foundations for not only the Yi, but if they are underlying principles, the foundations for mch more besides. I personally think that is kind of important.
And despite the way you might be taking it, raising points and questions, and pointing out that the arguments presented in response from others male little or no rational or coherent sense is not "arguing", its called discussion.
So nothing posted by me has any "feeling" or "emotional" needs. Why would you even think that when I have tried to stick to facts and rationality.
Sorry that Science presents the possibilities that it does. Sorry that the information suggests possibilites tht question the beliefs that some might hold. Sorry if that possibilty of any truths is making anyone uncomfortable and shaking a few tress and breaking down a few walls.
But you really are missing the point, even if you were right and I was only here for some personal emotional or othere needs, the fact that no one has been able to respond to any of the question or the points I have raised, non one has been able to explain the contradictions or the inconsistencies, no one has been able to provide any rational or coherent arguments that would shut me up in an instant, becuase there would be no way to argue against indisputable rational and coherent arguments, is revealing. It doesnt take much to work out what it reveals about those that make any sort of suggestions that they know or understand anything about the Yi.
Why doesnt someone stop the "interactions" by addressing the specific points I have raised in a detailed way so that I dont have to keep repeating the same obvious things over and over again.
That might be a good place to start instead of criticising me in ways that are only guesses. And arent correct anyway.
Dave
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479
Lest it be missed can you answer these questions Dave ?
If you can't then you are just wasting time.
Whatever your end of the experience, and I am sorry to hear that you had to go through that, that is not what is happening here.
No I dont fully understand the "underlying principles", if I did I wouldnt be asking anyone, but I do know they exist, and I do know that coherence is one demonstration of when things are correct.
I see in the Yi many indications of "underlying principles of nature" but I also see a large number of misunderstandings and a lack of comprehension of those demonstrations. I have given various examples of those in my posts.
I see that various "views" have been taken, which while they make sense academically forget the context of the times they came from.
I know the ramifications of what Neuropsychology tells us about the way the human brain works and even though we are still at the very early statges of understanding the brain, one thing that is clear is that the human brain is not only highly capable of inventing the world around us but does so every day and most of the things we consider real are in fact not as real as we would like to believe.
I know, even though there are limitations, that the process of Science, or similar, are ways to reveal and minimse the "illusions" the brain presents us with constantly.
Yes they are real, that is my experience, that is also the experience of those that wrote the Dao and the other numerous similar works that refer to underlying principles in one way or another.
Have you realised the point that if there are no underlying principles that there are no measures and no framework by which to make sense of anything and evaluate if anything makes sense, or not, and given the Neuropsychological knowledge of how the brain works, that without underlying principles that there is no way to differentiate and every thing could be nothing other than a figment of our imaginations.
And so even if I had no direct experience or knowledge of any underlying principles at all, the logic arising from knowing how the brain works would be enough to generate the very same questions and points. It is only because I have some knowing of underlying principles that I am bothering to continue. If it was just about beliefs then I would have given up long ago, what would be the point of discussing and presenting or listening to any arguments, rational or otherwise if it was just beliefs with no proof that could ever be shown. Even if we had all the original documents, if they were just the manifiestation of someones "belief" and not the manifiestation of underlying principles they would be no worth to any one, other than those that wanted to add to their belief structure.
I asked the Yi and was advised to perevere, that something needed to be understood.
I have made it very clear that I dont have a belief. I know what I know, the rest is questions and observations, they are not statements of fact or any belief and I have made that really clear, so to suggest that I have "beliefs" really is missing the point.
It is not about the need for vague connections, not on my part anyway, it is about the search for what is real. It is not about any manipulations of any surface pieces of information but about trying to undestand what might be the foundations for not only the Yi, but if they are underlying principles, the foundations for mch more besides. I personally think that is kind of important.
And despite the way you might be taking it, raising points and questions, and pointing out that the arguments presented in response from others male little or no rational or coherent sense is not "arguing", its called discussion.
So nothing posted by me has any "feeling" or "emotional" needs. Why would you even think that when I have tried to stick to facts and rationality.
Sorry that Science presents the possibilities that it does. Sorry that the information suggests possibilites tht question the beliefs that some might hold. Sorry if that possibilty of any truths is making anyone uncomfortable and shaking a few tress and breaking down a few walls.
But you really are missing the point, even if you were right and I was only here for some personal emotional or othere needs, the fact that no one has been able to respond to any of the question or the points I have raised, non one has been able to explain the contradictions or the inconsistencies, no one has been able to provide any rational or coherent arguments that would shut me up in an instant, becuase there would be no way to argue against indisputable rational and coherent arguments, is revealing. It doesnt take much to work out what it reveals about those that make any sort of suggestions that they know or understand anything about the Yi.
Why doesnt someone stop the "interactions" by addressing the specific points I have raised in a detailed way so that I dont have to keep repeating the same obvious things over and over again. That might be a good place to start instead of criticising me in ways that are only guesses. And arent correct anyway.
Dave
F
Freedda
Guest
Again Dave, words, words, words, no evidence, no proof - only what you believe to be true, and your own criticisms - which I and others may or may not agree with ....
But I tell you what, I suggest we take this in a different direction .....
What if you pick a question to ask the Yi, and then you do the query with your two-card method, and then you and I and whomever else wants to can offer their 'readings' of what they understand the Yi to be telling us.
I've alerted @hilary; here to see what she thinks and if it would be okay to post in the Exploring Divination forum - instead of in Shared Readings - because it's getting some specific points about divination methods.
It would not be a contest - only people doing readings around a shared question, and then sharing what that reading is, so we can all learn from something that's actual, not theoretical. And then we can use the same question, but this time I'll pick the answer (the 'toss of the coins' as it were to determine the hexagrams), based on my method, and again we can all offer up our readings to share.
And anyone can use any tool or method they want to: the underlying principles, the lines, yin/yang, the trigrams, 5 elements, the sequence, the pairs, the nuclear, shadow or ideal hexagrams, even throw in neuropsychology, the tarot or astrology
.... and you can't judge another person' reading as being right or wrong, but you can ask (or they can offer up) what methods or processes they used to get their answer.
So what about that?
If you're game, I suggest that you first offer some suggestions to us for what the question should be - and I suggest that it be something 'higher level' - maybe - Yi, tell us, what can you teach us about how best to use you? Or, What are the underlying principles? OR .... ?
And once we've agreed on the question, we can start a new thread where you can share what the 'answer' is and we can all offer our interpretations.
d.
But I tell you what, I suggest we take this in a different direction .....
What if you pick a question to ask the Yi, and then you do the query with your two-card method, and then you and I and whomever else wants to can offer their 'readings' of what they understand the Yi to be telling us.
I've alerted @hilary; here to see what she thinks and if it would be okay to post in the Exploring Divination forum - instead of in Shared Readings - because it's getting some specific points about divination methods.
It would not be a contest - only people doing readings around a shared question, and then sharing what that reading is, so we can all learn from something that's actual, not theoretical. And then we can use the same question, but this time I'll pick the answer (the 'toss of the coins' as it were to determine the hexagrams), based on my method, and again we can all offer up our readings to share.
And anyone can use any tool or method they want to: the underlying principles, the lines, yin/yang, the trigrams, 5 elements, the sequence, the pairs, the nuclear, shadow or ideal hexagrams, even throw in neuropsychology, the tarot or astrology
.... and you can't judge another person' reading as being right or wrong, but you can ask (or they can offer up) what methods or processes they used to get their answer.
So what about that?
If you're game, I suggest that you first offer some suggestions to us for what the question should be - and I suggest that it be something 'higher level' - maybe - Yi, tell us, what can you teach us about how best to use you? Or, What are the underlying principles? OR .... ?
And once we've agreed on the question, we can start a new thread where you can share what the 'answer' is and we can all offer our interpretations.
d.
That is of course an important question.
You would recognise it; because it is coherent, because it is rational, because it stands out in contrast to any beliefs, because it is seen to endure, because it resonates with other things that make sense, because there is direct experience of it. Because it "fits" with other things that work like Astrology and Chinese Medicine.
Qi, Complimentary opposites, call them Yin and Yang or anything else you want to. Those at least I can stated that I have direct experience.
They are pretty fundamental and basic.
Dave
Have you actually read anything that I have said.
If they are just words why not actually try adressing some specific points of the words.
Not criticisms, though it is interesting that you are taking it that way. Observations based on scientific knowledge and not a little logic can hardly be considered "criticism", unless it resonates with the recipient in that way. I have made it very clear that regardless of whether there are underlying principles or not that the Yi still has value for whoever uses it. Just not in the way that they might think. That is just logic, that is just fact based on knowledge of Neuropsychology, how the brain works.
So no I am not going to play your game, and if you had read what I havebeen saying you would realise the pointlessenes of that and realise what the suggestion of that means.
Dave
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,201
- Reaction score
- 3,462
In the interests of clarification...
Is the existence of synchronicity an underlying principle of the Yijing? Or the fact that the Yi answers people? If not, why don’t these qualify?
In what way is qi 'rational'? Compared to, for instance, electricity - which can be measured, controlled and understood in terms of underlying physical laws - it seems more like an article of belief.
@Freedda; - I completely agree that discussing a reading and the process of interpreting it would be far more constructive. If this ever happens, though, I suggest putting it in Shared Readings anyway, because it would be a reading and we would be sharing it. And I agree with your suggested questions - definitely not anything personal. If you think people interpret political readings in a way calculated to support their own biases, you should see what we can do with interpersonal ones...
Jukkodave, over to you. How about letting the oracle into the conversation?
Is the existence of synchronicity an underlying principle of the Yijing? Or the fact that the Yi answers people? If not, why don’t these qualify?
In what way is qi 'rational'? Compared to, for instance, electricity - which can be measured, controlled and understood in terms of underlying physical laws - it seems more like an article of belief.
@Freedda; - I completely agree that discussing a reading and the process of interpreting it would be far more constructive. If this ever happens, though, I suggest putting it in Shared Readings anyway, because it would be a reading and we would be sharing it. And I agree with your suggested questions - definitely not anything personal. If you think people interpret political readings in a way calculated to support their own biases, you should see what we can do with interpersonal ones...
Jukkodave, over to you. How about letting the oracle into the conversation?
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479
FWIW I think involving Yi and actually going in to readings publicly with all this is a dreadful idea....
Really ? Haven't you seen enough or do you want it to drag on a bit longer...?
Also it's toying with Yi IMO.
Really ? Haven't you seen enough or do you want it to drag on a bit longer...?
Also it's toying with Yi IMO.
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 26,973
- Reaction score
- 4,479