35.2 - positive or negative?

[bruce_g]

Readers, sitters, interpreters & diviners, lets get out the ouji, wiji, wooji [spell checker couldn‘t help] board.

The IChing is a game and a joke, it used to be a good game and a funny joke, what happened ?

It still is, Steve. Laughter is in the belly of the beholder.

 

[ewald]

Good luck with your further inquiry into this, moonrise.

 

[autumn]

You're good at what you do.

Thank you, that's very appreciated, especially coming from a talented reader like yourself.

 

[autumn]

[Ewald
Well done¡¡¡

My ego issue in this thread: a brief return from sabbatical to second criticism of my diplomacy skills? I'm hurt.

Las personas que viven en casas de vidrio no deben tirar piedras

 

[jesed]

Dear Autumn

When I wrote "well done" to Ewald, it was a sarcastic comment.

Because Moonrise had actually accepted that it would be better for her to stop hurting helpself whit those questions... buth then Ewald came into field and gave her the extraordinary justification to go back into the previous pattern: "Oh, it is not that the answers point to move on, it is just ego issues of the readers".

Therefore, Ewald helped to again avoid the issue.

 

[ewald]

Therefore, Ewald helped to again avoid the issue.

Given that the final hexagram that Moonrise got was from 35. Progress, I highly doubt that she did.

I'd like to add to that, that my impression from Moonrise's final post is that she actually did a lot of work on this issue. Those defending their egos here at her expense know or understand very little of that. 20.2 comes to mind.

 

[rosada]

Although I felt that autumn gave her a richly deserved pinch on the tush and that moonrose's responce was way over the top, I was glad to see ewald send her an encouraging message. On another thread we've been discussing, "How to give a reading" and when I put this question to the I Ching I received, "10. Fortify the thinking of the people" and "10.6 Review what you've done right." NOT "Blast the seeker with the full truth of what a complete f**k up they've been." Not that anyone here did that, but why not give the full truth - no matter how harsh - if it's the truth? Because it wont get through! When my feelings are hurting I instinctivly put up walls and cling to my former opinions. It's not intentional. I don't even realize I'm doing it. But just like you have to build up your health before you go in for surgery, it's only when you're feeling somewhat good about yourself that you're able to consider changing. Thus I believe ewald's giving moonrose encouragement where he felt she was on track was the right thing to do - who knows, in so doing he may also have given her the ego strength to now see for herself where she's been off.

 

[jesed]

yes, sure

 

[ewald]

NOT "Blast the seeker with the full truth of what a complete f**k up they've been." Not that anyone here did that, but why not give the full truth - no matter how harsh - if it's the truth? Because it wont get through! When my feelings are hurting I instinctivly put up walls and cling to my former opinions. It's not intentional. I don't even realize I'm doing it.

Indeed.

What may seem like the most obvious truth to you, may not be for the other person. Not because you are wrong, but because that other person's view of the reality is not at all what you expect.

What is mostly happening when someone "doesn't get it," is that there is an unconscious memory of some more or less traumatic event or situation interfering. In fact, that is happening to everyone, very often. Why you don't notice that happening? Because this is the unconscious functioning.

In order to "get it," the impossible needs to happen: the unconscious needs to become conscious. These feelings of that traumatic event or situation, that one is trying very hard to surpress (keep in the unconscious) need to be experienced consciously. Then the unreality of that situation is realized, and the blockage dissolves. Then the person really gets it.

To get to this point, it is important to understand yourself regarding the issue. This is what Moonrise was talking about in her final post. She clearly is on the right track, and already has done a lot of work on the relating issues.

And mind you, understanding yourself if the hardest thing. The unconscious is everywhere in you. You don't see it - because it's unconscious. (46.6)

Following the answer of some Yijing readings, without understanding, does not do it. It is like being blind and being guided, you're still never going to see. Getting a pinch on the tush is definitely not going to do it. You can't force someone to understand. It only makes someone put up barriers, and you have turned yourself into an enemy (4.6). Which is exactly what we saw happening.

 

[autumn]

*sigh*

Jesed- I'm sorry about that, I didn't get the sarcasm at all. Rosada, you are right. You have a very nurturing personality, and if I needed a reading, you would be someone I would trust very much to be sensitive, understanding, and yet also truthful.

The problem is, others have provided those kinds of readings to Moonrise over the course of about 9 months about same issue. The nurturing, supportive messages re-directing Moonrise to the truth of the situation were accepted for the attention and nurturing they provided, but the message to leave this in the past was discarded. Thus, the issue is not solved and she returns with the same serious issue (stalking someone who wants to be left alone).

I wish there were some way to communicate, "this does not have the slightest thing to do with ego", but there isn't, because to defend the issue is to involve ego. But look at the facts here. I didn't give Moonrise a reading in these last posts, Ewald, so your logic that I'm just mad that someone didn't listen to me (nothing at all like me, if you knew me) doesn't work here. She posted two questions about the same issue a week or so ago that I didn't respond to. Two or three months ago, she posted the very same question.

Two or three months ago, that very same question was, "How do I make this man see how much I needed him to hear me?" "How do I say goodbye in a nice way?". He had blocked her email. When people block your email, and you continue to try to contact them, in my state that begins to border on stalking.

Interestingly, the response Moonrise had in this thread is very, very similar to the complaints she had against this man. He just "won't listen". He just "won't understand". So, it seems as if the world is against Moonrise when she is told, "you've gone over your boundary here, stop."

How do you respond to something like that? Well, you could throw away anything supernatural and operate with common sense and intuitive insight. What those faculties tell me is that here is a person wasting their life on a non-existent relationship they cannot let go of, and here is a person very disconnected from their own emotional reality. Hence the question, "Why do you find it impossible to hear this message?" It's not a rhetorical question, and it is not asked out of anger and irritation. It's a serious question, because he's already blocked her email. That's a pretty serious sign that someone wants you to go away, and by continuing, you are tottering close to the edge.

Or, you could rely on the readings. Should I send the email? 62.2.3- The situation is quite extraordinary. It is unusual. If you continue, you are likely to incur injury and harm.

 

[autumn]

In order to "get it," the impossible needs to happen: the unconscious needs to become conscious. These feelings of that traumatic event or situation, that one is trying very hard to surpress (keep in the unconscious) need to be experienced consciously. Then the unreality of that situation is realized, and the blockage dissolves. Then the person really gets it.

To get to this point, it is important to understand yourself regarding the issue.

If the problem is serious enough, then most will not be capable of doing this. If they don't get it right away, and return with the same issue after a period of thoughtful self-examination, then what begins to happen is transference.

That's what's going on with Moonrise when she talks about her "profound disappointment" with the "bad readers" on this board. She is transfering this issue she's stuck on to the board, instead of to the friend she refers to in her posts.

We are not in a therapuetic relationship with Moonrise. This is a message board and half the time it's impossible to discern the emotional inflections of the text, let alone build a therapuetic relationship with a querent. The best thing that can happen is for her to find a solid basis in reality by people reacting to her naturally.

Drawing a boundary, as her friend did, is a natural response that should direct her back to the immediate social reality of her situation.

 

[bruce_g]

Note dates of threads and the topics (go to page 2, first post). This same issue goes back to Sept. 2005. I count 14 months of same. So I ask, who is helping her by continuing to offer interpretations? Also note the patience of some fine interpreters here. Note how early Brad, for instance, told it like is was. Well intentioned as it may be, no-one is helping this woman by playing into her folly.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/search.php?searchid=8625&pp=25

 

[hilary]

I should've said earlier - I admire people's willingness not just to put time into readings, but also to keep track of a series of readings and pay attention to their coherence. Without that, coming in on the tail end of a conversation, it's easy to miss things - and in the context of a forum it'd be easy to lose that continuity (and lose the plot). It says a lot for the readers here that you've held on to it. :bows:

 

[ewald]

If the problem is serious enough, then most will not be capable of doing this. If they don't get it right away, and return with the same issue after a period of thoughtful self-examination, then what begins to happen is transference.

Do you mean projection? With transference a particular object relation (an abusive parent relationship for instance) is projected onto a person (like a therapist), while projection is more general, where also feelings (like being stuck) are "seen" on people where they aren't there.

I think in this instance, what's more likely is that Moonrise had been noticing a general unwillingness to help or support her the way she wanted. Your brief sentences indicate that you didn't want to put much time into answering her, so you were put in the category of those unwilling, with a significant possibility of irritation. That rather undiplomatic last sentence "Why is it impossible for you to hear that message?" is impossible for her to answer, and is consequently felt to be derogatory. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you meant that as a genuine curiosity or help, but it's pretty hard not to read it as a derogatory statement, in her situation.

In my view, people asking questions about their situation need to be supported, as that helps developing insight. Same in this instance. Unfortunately, people may be using verions of the Yi that are not exactly clear (like Wilhelm's), so they want clarification, which is why they come to this forum (not necessarily for something else). Helping Moonrise to get the meaning of her readings clear is in my view the compassionate thing to do, and supports her process. Eventually, that helps things to get clear for her.

What exactly her process is, is not clear. She may be working on it on her own, with a therapist, or as part of a spiritual practice. I noticed her using the term "inquiry" for it, which is a term I have only occasionally seen used outside of the Diamond Approach. Inquiry as of the Diamond Approach is pretty advanced, and I'm confident that someone practicing it has a very good chance of dissolving her issues.

 

[ewald]

"How do I say goodbye in a nice way?"

That sounds like an attempt to let go of the situation.

 

[willowfox]

"September 17th, 2005, 10:29 AM
moonrise
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 1970
Posts: 139



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, everyone,

I need your advice very much. Recently I broke off the communication with a friend who was very important to me. He misunderstood my intentions...and everything ended.

He is much much older and he was something like a guide to me not a man I wanted to be with. Here was the misunderstanding, actually. He though I wanted something, a relationship with him, but it was not the case.

I asked already what to do about him...but now I asked Yi Jing how to get over this, because I am so hurt that this had caused me some sleepless nights. I feel terrible, so guilty that I was not careful about how I expressed things and I got misunderstood and on the other hand I feel that he was a little too stuborn, not ready to listen and he just stopped communicating with me.

This is eating me alive, I admit and I asked how to get through this. I got:
27.4 ->changing into 21

I guess 27 is suggesting I should tend to my own self, take care of my thoughts and correct attitude. 21 is suggesting I speak the truth since it is "biting through"? Or should I not be tempted to speak and just wait?

Can you help here, please, I would be so grateful!"

Moonrise asked the same question the first time on September 17th, 2005. I did not realize that she has been asking the same questions about the same man for over one year now. If I had known, I would not have played her game. The IC has told her no for over a year now but she still will not give it a rest. She has an obession, a bad one and needs professional help not the IC, not diviners, soothsayers or whatever.
None of us are guilty of arrogance, or not being sympathic to her, I am surprise at how patient some people have been when they in actual fact knew the truth, that Moonrise has an obession problem plus an attitude problem.
On one occassion I was told by another member on this forum to apologise to Moonrise for being too blunt with her, well to hell with that. I was telling her as clearly as possible what the IC said, so if it was not to her liking, tough cookies, chum.
So, it would be really great, if we the diviners on this forum could get along with each other without the continued backstabbing, name calling and the silly sarcastic remarks. We don't win prizes you know, some of here are doing a sevice, tending to the people who have a problem, just like a nurse who tends to the sick.
We each have our different approaches, whether it be 10 B.C. or 25 A.D. A few are blunt and to the point, some give a yes and no together, and some just waffle. One or two make predictions and say it to the point, well let them do it.
This section says "Friends' Area", well I for one have yet to experience that yet!

 

[autumn]

No, ewald, I did not mean projection, I meant transference.

You are intelligent and insightful, and therefore the only thing I can conclude is that you have not read her posts, or you would realize the severity of her disturbance. You would also realize she has received several empathic, sensitive responses since Sept. 2005 on this issue, including responses from me in the 38.1 thread.

Moonrise states in Sept. 2005 that she never had a father. She states this friend is 40 years her senior works as a therapist. She states he is the "only person who has ever understood her". She states that he "thought she wanted a sexual relationship with him", but he was wrong, and she is deeply disturbed about the misunderstanding and loss of friendship. She states that she will see him in January if she goes to some kind of "place where he will be there" assumed to be related to his profession, but has not been invited to see him. In her Nov. 2006 threads, she mentions she will "see him in a few months", which I assume (and of course, I could be wrong) means she will try to show up at this professional convention in January 07.

Of course, that could be a wrong assumption. Perhaps he is invited her on holiday.

She states in Sept. 2005 that she and he did "say goodbye in a nice way". Six months later, she feels compelled to contact him again for exactly the same reason, "to say goodbye in a nice way". She states in several posts that he will not respond to her emails, and finally, states the email she sent was returned to her.

There are months upon months of the very same issue being repeated here. It is a disservice to not call attention to her need to cease.

 

[ewald]

Although I was aware of Moonrise asking before about a similar or the same situation, I wasn't about the details. Thanks for writing them out for me, Willowfox and Autumn. This makes it a lot easier for me to understand her situation and why Moonrise was treated like she was in this thread.

I decided to help with the interpretation of her readings because the one in the title of this thread was not being explained to her. Wilhelm's interpretation of it, that she repeated here, was confusing her a lot, while to me that interpretation seems completely off. In the context of this situation, Wilhelm's interpretation is actually reinforcing her attachment, and that is probably why Willowfox didn't want to explain it at first, and opposite to what Wilhelm is in fact saying later. While he actually wants to tell her what is best for her, he is probably making a cold and unsupportive impression on her, calling that second reading "invalid," and seeming impatient.

In order to let go, which she tries to do in spite of her attachement, it is vital to endure the feelings that come up and not to fight these. The way I explain 35.2 is applicable in that sense. While I said that she could send the e-mail, she eventually decided not to, which seems like a good decisision. I wouldn't be surprised if she actually learned something valuable from that.

Autumn's post, with it's brief sentences and undiplomatic last one, makes an irritated, impatient and eventually insulting impression on Moonrise, who is in a very vulerable position. (That is likely not Autumn's intention.) I don't believe this is about transference. That last sentence is said without the compassion that would be needed to express it, and that's what's blowing her up. (Remember that Willowfox earlier provided for a less than supportive athmosphere in this thread.) What little trust she had is now out of the window, and she feels even more vulnerable. She doesn't want someone insulting her like that to know the details of her private life.

In such a state, Lightangel's trying to save the situation by supporting Autumn, is not felt as supportive to Moonrise, but as siding and an attack. That is why I interfered. The way Lightangel responded to that of course didn't exactly inspire more trust in Moonrise, but reinforced her worst fears about this situation.

I'm getting the impression that people here have still tried to tell Moonrise to let go, while she's actually trying to:

You don't uderstand that by simply, casually saying to someone "oh just get over it" is insulting because you are disregarding me, not seeing me and my issue and not respectng that for me it is not so easy to "just get over it".

The hardest thing is to stand by and do nothing, while you'd wish you could help, but that is really all you can do.

The ordinary person uses force,
the noble one does nothing.
Persistence is dangerous.
A ram butts against the fence,
entangling his horns.​

 

[lightofreason]

the first occurence this time through was in the feelings thread where i suggested (a) she was doing too much and (b) try the emotional IC, IOW stop fart-arsing about with coin tossing and lets see what her emotions were 'seeing'. She came back with 43 and did not see the underlying unconscious focus - she took it literally as a 'Wilhelm' theme - but it goes deeper as I said in my reply:

"43 is a little bit more than that - it covers seeding. the planting of 'ideas' etc as it does the planting of image of self; to 'spread the word'. Thus your emotional state is interpreting the situation as you described it in general as a 43 situation.

It has a perseverence context in which operates a focus on intensity in expression. Overall we see cooperative exchange working in a competitive exchange context (heaven as base indicates presence of anger/singlemindedness/perseverence etc)

the 'correct' path through 43 is described by analogy to 40 - tension release through relaxing of structure by 'letting go'. You cannot seed things by being all tied up; too aggressive, too defencive.

It is possible that your heightened state forces a more 'rigid' thinking style and so the unchanging aspect - your answers were all EITHER/OR - definite, intense, focused, singleminded. Chill a little. Use the same method in a couple of hours to see if your emotion still 'feels' the same way about the situation."

This was not followed up, it was all considered too difficult, not understood, but I think the indication are more that it was spot on in identifying the underlying concerns.

What was not covered is the obvious focus on sexuality issues in a context of anger (heaven root, lake top) nore the full spectrum of this hexagram. but given the history to 2005 we can see the sexual concern as well as anger present. The IC says the only solution, or 'correct' solution is in 40 - tension release through relaxation of structrure, let go.

My point here is that using the IC to tell us about itself gave better insight into the core concerns and such a better idea as to what was going on and so the need to 'tread carefully'. (I also asked Simon the same thing in using the Emotional IC in his recent emails where in both contexts the massive amount of questions being asked indicate real emotional 'issue' at hand, not something 'lite'.)

you guys need to do more work in understanding the IC+ focus through the Emotional IC work and supplement your 'coin toss' interpretations with considering the emotional welfare of the person asking the questions - yes there will be times when the material is 'sensitive' in that the result will show something being suppressed but the issue is on the repression where the emotions are at odds with the rationalising consciousness.

As such, these are not times to go charging in asserting one's interpretation with no consideration, and at times even destructive intent, for the questioner regardless of how many time they keep coming back.

Chris.

 

[autumn]

Ewald, how nice you don't think this has anything to do with transference. I guess I could go back and highlight some of the text that clearly indicates transference, but I think the point was that you're guessing I don't have education and training in clinical psychology, so couldn't have any idea what I'm talking about. In fact, I do.

I believe the projection and ego isssues here are yours.

 

[autumn]

You are convinced she is "trying to let go". She says in her first post in Nov. 2006 she will see him in a few months. Her last contact with him was reported in Sept. 2006 when she says he returned her mail unopened.

I am convinced you refuse to admit you are wrong because you've turned this thread into an ego battle.

 

[hilary]

Leaving all rights and wrongs aside, it's been my experience that online conversations about one another's psychological issues never go well.

 

[luz]

In such a state, Lightangel's trying to save the situation by supporting Autumn, is not felt as supportive to Moonrise, but as siding and an attack. That is why I interfered. The way Lightangel responded to that of course didn't exactly inspire more trust in Moonrise, but reinforced her worst fears about this situation.

Good. My post was not meant to be supportive for Moonrise or to inspire more trust in her.

Just because Autumn and others are not asking repetitive questions about painful details in their personal lives it doesn't mean they are not vulnerable too. Moonrise attacked them.

As WF pointed out, this is called "Friend's Area", not "Come and get your reading just like you like it, money back guarantee Area". Show some gratefulness, show some respect.

 

[ewald]

Well Autumn, I've thought about it, and changed my mind about the transference as an additional factor. I haven't seen it in the way that you described (a reflection of being stuck as in the issue she was working on), but that may be my lack of discrimination. I don't believe my perceptions of the situation, as described in my previous post, are a projection, though. Except for Martin, who was compassionate, most others were not particularly diplomatic here.

As I said earlier, I'm not denying that I have ego issues. I was able to locate and dissolve two of them as a result of the interactions in this thread.

 

[ewald]

Leaving all rights and wrongs aside, it's been my experience that online conversations about one another's psychological issues never go well.

I think you're right.

 

[martin]

you guys need to do more work in understanding the IC+ focus through the Emotional IC work and supplement your 'coin toss' interpretations with considering the emotional welfare of the person asking the questions

Agreeing about the emotional welfare but it looks like the answers of the IC to Moonrise about this topic have been remarkably consistent over a long period of time (more than a year).
Does this not make you think that there might be more to 'coin tossing' than you believe there is?

But, even if you use other methods, the question is still - and that is the issue here - how direct and confrontational you can be on a forum in a case like this, where a poster seeks help on a sensitive personal matter.
Confrontation can help and sometimes it's perhaps the only way. But it only helps if the other is able to hear it, to receive it. Maybe not immediately but sooner or later.
Can the other receive it? It's already difficult to know that in a face to face situation with people that one knows well. Let alone on an internet forum. So I think it is better to be careful and stay on the 'soft' side.

Something else, what I sometimes hear in this thread is a tendency to how shall I put it, pathologize (?) Moonrise. Maybe that's not the right word but in any case I hear something heavy and I'm not sure that it is that heavy, really.
Yes, this is painful for Moonrise, obviously, but being 'stuck' with something for a year or a even a few years is quite normal. It happens to many people. There is a problem (the loss of an important other, like in this case, or something else) and it doesn't disappear, it keeps coming back.
Who has never experienced this?
And if you are stuck with this or that, does this mean that you are wasting your life, that you are out of touch with your emotions, that you are suffering from a severe obsession, etcetera, etcetera?
Obviousy not.

I think part of Moonrise's irritation, that she expressed in her post, has to do with this tendency to pathologize her. Like she wrote:

I have my own intelligence and I am using it to understand myself - and I don't need any kind of "help" from some imaginary wannabe therapists here! This is a Yi Jing forum, help me intepret the Yi Jing otherwise stay out! I have been clear about this many times and no one seems to consider it. It is disrepectful.

Yes.
And this is of course also an internet problem. It's hard to know what is really going on with people who post here. So better be careful ...

 

[luz]

Hi Martin ,

Perhaps obsessing is not pathological but behaviour that borders on stalking is.

And to expect others to go along with your obsession/delusion (or to perhaps not notice it?! ) also reflects a liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit of detachment from reality.

And after people have been patient and soft with her a few times, you can only expect them to either (1) reply no more or (2) reply with a little toughness since softness didn't lead anywhere. And I admire those who choose (2) because - I insist - they have nothing to gain by it and are showing more patience than those of us that choose (1).

So, I am right and you are wrong!

Just kidding!! You are a little right too.

 

[martin]

Hi Lightangel ,

A little toughness is okay and I don't disagree, basically, with the message that Autumn and others gave to Moonrise which is something like "now walk away from it, enough is enough". But that has been said to Moonrise many times before and she apparently did hear it, she understood the message and was not irritated.

In this thread, however, the message did irritate her, probably because it was formulated less "soft" and because of the pathologizing that I mentioned in my last post. If there is really any pathologizing is open to debate, I hear it, others don't perhaps, but it is in any case what Moonrise heard, I think, judging from how she responded in her post.

So, it all comes down to how things are said. And it's hard to find the right tone, and even if we find it it can still be misread.


Anyway, you are right and I am right too!
I am not just kidding!

 

[autumn]

That's an interesting question. I'm an advocate of strength-based, non-pathologizing paradigms. This forum is an excellent example of a non-pathologizing, strength-based enviornment. You don't come here as a patient. You don't receive a diagnosis. And you don't receive the psychological protection that being considered a "patient" implies- with its inherent dis-empowerment and condescion.

Instead, you receive peer-to-peer feedback in a natural social environment. But does that mean that all real negativity dissolves as soon as noone is there to render a diagnsois? Does the reality of each person's situation become inherently non-destructive?

Diagnosing Moonrise with Borderline Personality Disorder because she appears to exhibit behaviors consistent with the personality disorder on the Internet would be pathologizing, and irresponsible.

Trying to establish a therapuetic relationship with her on an Internet message board on the basis of an idosyncratic pscyhological tool with nomenclature based on a Chinese oralcle would be irresponsible.

But as for labeling her behavior and experiences as destructive- is it me who initially did that, or did she? I was not the first person who labelled her as obsessed. She posts several times in Sept. and Nov. 2005 that she knows she needs to let this go, but she cannot. I was not the first person who recognized this is draining her emotional energy, and not the first person who identified the fact that her relationship with this man in reality deviated significantly from her inner experience of the relationship.

She recognizes it. She tells us that she never had a free, natural friendship with the man. They only communicated over the Internet. He responded to her in a teacher/student dynamic. It wasn't a real, mutually supportive friendship. He took steps to end the teacher/student dynamic because he believed that she was inventing a relationship that didn't exist. He believed her interest in him was romantic.

And did I pathologize her, or did I respond naturally to behavior that in my own opinion (and I believe my opinion is valid) is not healthy and has negative consequences in her life? Dozens of well-meaning, senstive posts have accomplished NOTHING for her in reality over the course of 14 months.

As for the argument that she just isn't ready to hear the truth, if you read her posts carefully, you notice how selective she is in her responses. Sensitive responses trigger long posts where she looks like she's trying to work the problem out for herself, but in fact, she accomplishes nothing because she doesn't actually let the issue go. Responses that gently suggest that she needs to let the issue go trigger extreme defensiveness.

 

[luz]

I agree with Autumn.