Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
What do you do in such cases? How do you relate to the answer when on one line is black and the other is white?
Yes I understand, but the question for both ansers was just something very simple like: "Should I take this course of action? Should I do this?" I feel like the answer in this 2 cases is very simply "yes you should do it because the output is very positive" and "no you shouldn't because the output would be tragic" Feels almost like the quantic Schrödinger's cat...The question does matter. You may see them as contradictory because you know the question. We don’t. How can we advise behavior without knowing what the subject is? We can’t read minds.
Thank you, breakmov. Let me take some time to metabolyze this and meanwhile here is the link of what I feel we are talking about sounds likeHello avatorotava
This is the question that "opens Pandora's box".
What to do and how to do it has everything to do with how one looks at the I Ching and the "personal belief constructed of how the I Ching interacts" to respond to the reality posed by each reading. It ends up being a very personal theory of how the I Ching responds coherently to each reading.
Have you ever imagined, for example, two people:
One believes that he can "read" the future, thoughts or emotions of others and therefore guides his entire study on a "personal theory" where his belief is necessarily linked to the way of doing the readings and their interpretation.
The other believes that "reading" the future, thoughts or emotions of others is not possible, that it does not make sense and hence guides his way of approaching the I Ching, "his personal theory of how to read the I Ching" in a way that is possibly antagonistic in some respects to the first-person approach.
...As you can see, this is a complicated topic, a "Pandora's box" topic and perhaps it shows the reason why many readings resonate more with some people and less with others... all very linked to " personal belief of how Yijing works.”
For example, I look at the two readings you presented and I see no contradiction.... both are two complementary photographs, two different angles of a common situation and both respond quite well together or individually to your situation.
I have a habit of deliberately not initially reading the context of the readings, as I believe (personal theory) that the structure of the reading shows something independent of the context of the reading and therefore common to all readings equal to the current one.
Even without a question and exposed context, there is something fundamental that coherently relates the structure and image created with the texts associated with the lines... once again we inevitably enter the domain of "personal theory".
In 50.3.4.6 -- 7 imagine something related to a context where you try to improve something but you are not yet in a position to do so... perhaps because you still don't know, or are undecided, how to leave something that is not compatible with the improvement that you want... or the need to gain clarity about what is "safe" or not to do... and meanwhile in this "uncertain terrain" where there is no strong enough personal and common purpose with others, a "common space with reasonable rules(*)", you "choose not to ruin" what currently exists.
In 58.1.2.3.5 -- 62 imagine something related to a "standby", a careful waiting in search of something better, because you don't know how to intuit this "common space with reasonable rules(*)" in order to interact, or communicate, in this space for improvement with others.
..anyway, here's this general outline based on the structure, so you can see if it makes sense or not...the link between the two readings is directly related to "common space with reasonable rules(*) in order to improve something".
breakmov
Do you think there is any section on this wonderful webpage were I can find some insight on this and close the Pandora Box?
That helps a lot. Thank you. Now the lines can be looked at in relation to taking an action or not. I don’t see them as contradictory. Breakmov‘s input is much more than I could have imagined. And Chris’ idea that the hexagrams take center stage hits for me too. I’d read from there.Yes I understand, but the question for both ansers was just something very simple like: "Should I take this course of action? Should I do this?" I feel like the answer in this 2 cases is very simply "yes you should do it because the output is very positive" and "no you shouldn't because the output would be tragic" Feels almost like the quantic Schrödinger's cat...
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The question does matter as much as the context and answer do. When you get 3, 4+ lines,My two latest readings were these (the question doesn't matter)
50.3.4.6 > 7
and
58.1.2.3.5 > 62
What do you do in such cases?
This.The more the changing lines, the less their relevance.
Except that no belief of any kind is required to comprehend a reading.What to do and how to do it has everything to do with how one looks at the I Ching and the "personal belief constructed of how the I Ching interacts" to respond to the reality posed by each reading.
Actually I've come to realize more and more how important this is. It's impossible to apply a reading now if it depends on things that haven't happened yet. The best you can do is understand it without applying it. Also don't worry or panic about not understanding it.If you don't understand them, it might be because real life hasn't gotten there yet. Look out for them as things go on - it might be advice about how to react.
That's interesting; I've never thought about those like that. Anything more you can say?1.7 and 2.7 are the examples that clue this to us.
Hi,That's interesting; I've never thought about those like that. Anything more you can say?
Google, bless it (this time), seems like it might be helpful based on search-result-page snippets. Putting this here for later when I have time to click things:Hi,
I have mentioned it a few times in threads.
So - checking to see if I understand - if 1.7 and 2.7 are meant to represent all-lines-changing, but they leave out the message of a whole category of lines (the ill-omened ones), then maybe all-lines-changing is something different from considering all six lines individually (the whole greater than the sum of its parts) - ? And then that applies to multiple moving lines generally, not only 1.7 and 2.7?This time, I'll say:
Notice how the inauspicious omens in hex 1 and 2 (lines 1.6, 2.1 & 2.6) are not present in 1.7 and 2.7's messages.
Yes, it seems to be different.if 1.7 and 2.7 are meant to represent all-lines-changing, but they leave out the message of a whole category of lines (the ill-omened ones), then maybe all-lines-changing is something different from considering all six lines individually (the whole greater than the sum of its parts) - ?
I think it does.And then that applies to multiple moving lines generally, not only 1.7 and 2.7?
As in 'the more lines... the less relevant'Do you think it's a continuum as Cris seemed to put it?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).