Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Yes please. Thank you. Does it come with your autograph?I know this isn't particularly your thing, but would you like a copy of my 'Exploring the Sequence' book? It goes into all the patterns I could find (no doubt there are others.
I know this isn't particularly your thing, but would you like a copy of my 'Exploring the Sequence' book? It goes into all the patterns I could find (no doubt there are others).
I understand you don't want to take my word for it. That's reasonable. This is why I keep suggesting you look at what's there to find out for yourself.
I expect what you mean is that some hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees to form a different hexagram. True.
Now, I won't tell you anything. Instead I will suggest you go and look through the Yijing to check your own statements.
The ones that are symmetrical. Hexagrams: 1,2,27,28,29,30,61,62, (63,64 is ambiguous)Which hexagrams are these, that don't form a different hexagram when rotated?
How are these 'non-rotating' hexagrams formed into pairs?
It would follow from this that some if not all of those non-rotating hexagrams you just identified are related to their pairs through the manipulation of trigrams. Can you find an example to demonstrate this?
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.
Yes. There are also another 3 pairs that are ambiguous in the same way.The ones that are symmetrical. Hexagrams: 1,2,27,28,29,30,61,62, (63,64 is ambiguous)
Yes.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.
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?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.
Well, it's all three. Also, you missed out nuclear hexagrams: 63 and 64 are also one another's nuclears.Hexagrams 63 and 64 as an a example. Is it lines being changed, Trigrams being swapped,or a transform by 180 degree rotation.
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....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.
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.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
Jukkodave, the bottom line for me is that I really have no idea what points you are trying to make - nor what your central idea is - or why you feel you need to continually disagree and argue with othes. And that is why I have stopped responding to most of your comments.
You are like an arsonist who has started a fire, and then runs around shouting 'fire, fire, 'we' all need to put it out! - why don't people see my fire, why don't you all agree with me about what to do about it?' - when in fact, you are the one who created the problem in the first place.
You seem to be saying something about 'underlying principles' as the core of your arguments and statements, but I've never heard those clearly explained. At one point, I asked you if you would help me understand what you are saying - and I asked that you do so using far less than your usual 1,500-2,000 word responses, and you just ignored me.
You may have some very good and profound point to make in all this, but instead of being clear and understandable, you come across as argumentative (with pretty much anything anyone says), extremely repetative, obsessive, and dogmatic - none of which really leads to clear understanding.
And then after confusing us all, you then say 'gee, 'we' seem to be just as confused as when we started' or 'we' still don't have a clear understading of the 'underlying principles.'
All of which is true to a point, but the larger point is, you are either creating or greatly adding to this confusion by how have interjected yourself into almost every thread here, how you keep repeating in extremely long posts things which I - and I suspect others - don't understand.
And what you fail to understand is that something that's confusing, even if it's repeated dozens or hundreds of times, doesn't make it any more understandable.
And what you also fail to understand ... in a really big way ... is that some of us may just not agree with you. In which case, do you really think that repeating yourself over, and over, and over .... is really going to change things? You've stated your case, so maybe it's just time to move on.
And I believe that your response to my post here will be more of the same - which is the say more confusion, or evasion, or dismissiveness. And if this is what you've learned from your 'underlying principles' than it's no wonder we don't agree with you.
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.But perhaps I was mistaken and 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.
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.
What's your idea of an underlying principle?
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
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
Jukkodave,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.
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:
The Trigrams.
The Five Elements.
The Sequence.
... have I missed anything?
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
jukkodave
I want to know
Respondent
Thoughtful answer
jukkodave
I am so disappointed must be because I am a real revolutionary
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.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.
Jukkodave,
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.
Because I think 'why' you are here is 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 dishonest or made-up it was, nor how much trouble she might be causing.
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?
Jukkodave,
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.
Because I think 'why' you are here is 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 dishonest or made-up it was, nor how much trouble she might be causing.
Lest it be missed can you answer these questions Dave ?
"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?"
If you can't then you are just wasting time.
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, 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.
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?
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
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).