Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
60 and 56 are complement/opposites, fine - where does he get the "what pairs with 62" part?60 opposes what pairs with 62, 56,
Liselle, I assume you added your post because of the discussion about the word / character 'fu', is that correct?A short thread with a relevant title:
A bit late to start worrying about the thread going off topic now. No-one has mentioned Whincup for more than fifty posts.If so, it occurred to me that if this is of interest, that it might warrant it's own thread - so it's not buried on page 4 of a thread about Gregory Whincup's "Rediscovering the I Ching". Just a thought.
I thought it was totally relevant to the discussion about modernist vs. traditional interpretations! The fu thing is a shibboleth: if someone translates it as "captives," you can more or less assume they are in the modernist camp. If they see it as "sincerity," they are very likely more on the traditionalist side.Sorry, fellas, I looked back and it seems I did barge in here and started this tangent. Irfan mentioned fu in passing and then I asked a bunch of questions, and no it doesn't have anything to do with Whincup.
@hilary do you think it makes sense to try to move the fu posts?
Not bothered at all! There have been some fascinating ideas floated around.It's your thread, so if you're not bothered by it, fine. It probably won't make Hilary unhappy, not to move a bunch of posts. Venturing a guess.
You are right; this thread has gone in many different - and interesting - directions.A bit late to start worrying about the thread going off topic now. No-one has mentioned Whincup for more than fifty posts.
IrfanK is not bothered by it and neither am I. In fact I wasn't clear what the issue was (since threads often - or quite often - go off in different directions), but it seems cleared up regardless.It's your thread, so if you're not bothered by it, fine.
It's your thread, so if you're not bothered by it, fine. It probably won't make Hilary unhappy, not to move a bunch of posts. Venturing a guess.
@Sparhawk seguing to elephants in the room - what made you change your signature after years and decades?
Not inconsolably so, no.It probably won't make Hilary unhappy, not to move a bunch of posts.
Not inconsolably so, no.
However, I am very disconcerted by the disappearance of small green dragon. Where has he gone?
I have pondered on your question quite a lot while I'm going through Field (and re-reading Marshall, and waiting impatiently for the copy shop to finish binding Shaughnessey's thesis). Your example is a tricky one, because there's such little obvious connection between the two concepts. Far more often, it's like 27, where you get the later, rather ethereal idea of spiritual nourishment and sustenance. Then you look back and see the jaws of the animal being used as an oracle. But the ideas are still connected and you can see how one evolves into the other, how they are related.Which opens up the next question: if we could establish beyond doubt that it meant 'captives' when it was first written, and it has meant 'sincerity' for maybe a couple of millennia, what is it saying when you cast Hexagram 61 today?
Which opens up the next question: if we could establish beyond doubt that it meant 'captives' when it was first written, and it has meant 'sincerity' for maybe a couple of millennia, what is it saying when you cast Hexagram 61 today?
Hooray! Delighted to see him.It warms my heart the little guy is so popular. Go get them, little Aerouant!! Bite softly!
I can imagine 'bringing home captives to prove we actually fought the war at all' connected to 'inspiring trust' - but it does take a fairly elastic sort of imagination.I have pondered on your question quite a lot while I'm going through Field (and re-reading Marshall, and waiting impatiently for the copy shop to finish binding Shaughnessey's thesis). Your example is a tricky one, because there's such little obvious connection between the two concepts. Far more often, it's like 27, where you get the later, rather ethereal idea of spiritual nourishment and sustenance. Then you look back and see the jaws of the animal being used as an oracle. But the ideas are still connected and you can see how one evolves into the other, how they are related.
Ah. Actually, in 2010 I cheerfully talked about eclipses. Then I read Pankenier on the subject of Marshall and decided discretion (and 'startling anomalies'!) was the better part of valour.By the way, I looked at your book again to see how you dealt with 55, after reading Marshall. I thought it was great how you did exactly that, examined how the older story could possibly be related to abundance. Hehe. Although I noticed you tactfully refrained from actually using the word "eclipse."
Yes, but... the Shijing, chunks of which are more or less contemporary with the Yi, uses 孚 to mean 'trust'. So reading it the same way in the Yi is simple enough for me.Since you brought it up, @IrfanK and @hilary , about that question, given the context of the times and their preoccupation with war and sacrifice, I would be more inclined to consider the original meaning as "captives", just for the sake of simplicity. I would presume that "sincerity", as we understand the word in English, wasn't much of a concept when they had other relative concepts, such as "truthfulness" and "honor". On the other hand, "captives" were like heads of cattle... Pardon the brutality...
Yes, but... the Shijing, chunks of which are more or less contemporary with the Yi, uses 孚 to mean 'trust'. So reading it the same way in the Yi is simple enough for me.
Bit of a spoil sport, isn't he?Ah. Actually, in 2010 I cheerfully talked about eclipses. Then I read Pankenier on the subject of Marshall and decided discretion (and 'startling anomalies'!) was the better part of valour.
I'm not familiar with what Pankenier says in relation Marshall, and Hex. 55 and it's thick screens, curtains, eclipses, 'plough at noon', pole star, Big Dipper, etc. Anything anyone can share? And is this another example of how words, phrases change and evolve, and are interpreted/translated in different ways?Ah. Actually, in 2010 I cheerfully talked about eclipses. Then I read Pankenier on the subject of Marshall and decided discretion (and 'startling anomalies'!) was the better part of valour.
I'm not familiar with what Pankenier says in relation Marshall, and Hex. 55 and it's thick screens, curtains, eclipses, 'plough at noon', pole star, Big Dipper, etc. Anything anyone can share? And is this another example of how words, phrases change and evolve, and are interpreted/translated in different ways?
Thanks, D
Thanks for sharing. As far as I can tell, Pankenier and others questioned Marshall's interpretation that the screens and curtains in Hex. 55 refer to a solar eclipse - and more broadly, that Marshall found historic references and events in many - or many all? - of the hexagrams. I think they also questioned his scholarship and research. Do I have that correct?Oh boy... It got ugly... But it wasn't just Pankenier. Bent Nielsen as well.
No, I'm not looking for a 'stiffer structure' in the threads - far from it. I'm just wanting to more fully understand some things / ideas that have been shared here. Hex. 55 seems full of possibilities; heck, Rutt's translation of Line 55.2 even has 'Sacrificing captives who plead submission'!Methinks you are looking for a stiffer structure in threads but,
No, I'm not looking for a 'stiffer structure' in the threads - far from it. I'm just wanting to more fully understand some things / ideas that have been shared here. Hex. 55 seems full of possibilities; heck, Rutt's translation of Line 55.2 even has 'Sacrificing captives who plead submission'!
Best, D
A better way to phrase it is: I want to know more about what people had in mind with their posts and what they said, so we can more fully explore it. "Full understanding" - like a stiffer structure - are not my goals.Not sure anyone can "fully understand" it though.
The mysteries of the ancient Chinese text known as the I Ching continue to fascinate scholars and enthusiasts alike. While sinologists rely on historical criticism to explain the meaning of the work, those who use it for divination tend to accept without question the traditional account of its origin and purpose. Whereas modern scholars are generally dismissive of the book's reputed mystical significance, traditionalists often resent academic research into the oracle because it seems irreverent or iconoclastic. In The Mandate of Heaven, S. J. Marshall sets out to reconcile these opposing approaches. He plumbs the book's numerous, hidden historical references, reading them against other sources, and discovers that the oracle has far more narrative integrity and basis in historical fact than anyone has previously appreciated.
The Mandate of Heaven focuses on the story of the I Ching's origins. The book is attributed to King Wen, who died before he could succeed in overthrowing the tyrannical Shang dynasty. His son, King Wu, eventually triumphed over the Shang and established the Zhou dynasty as the legitimate royal house. According to the tradition, these events are in some ways alluded to in the earliest layer of commentary in the I Ching, but no sound historical basis has been discovered to substantiate this claim. Consequently, since the 1930s sinologists have discounted the value of this tradition. Marshall uncovers an account of Wu's conquest in an important, previously overlooked passage that tells of a solar eclipse believed by the King to have been an omen from Heaven to immediately march against the Shang. Marshall is able to match this account with a scientifically verified solar eclipse that took place on June 20, 1070 B.C., just one of his many historical readings that show how the earliest layer of the I Ching has preserved a hidden history that has remained undetected for three millennia.
By and large, I say what I have in mind , but please do quote anything you'd like me to say more about.I want to know more about what people had in mind with their posts and what they said
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).