Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Thanks for that Arabella,
I don't have the thank you button yet or I'd press it.
As I say, we are still friends and he does contact/visit etc he has just said he doesn't want anybody as a partner at this point in his life. I've said I'll wait but I'm struggling to find the balance between too much contact and giving him so much time and space that he forgets me... hence the question. I am playing it down with him.I shared this reading more because I thought the response from the yi was interesting in that it was a very similar response each time.
Normally I wouldn't read each moving line, it was more to try out an alternative technique to see how the reading 'felt' .
Thanks
I still have no button to say so... maybe I should ask the yi where my button is? Only joking!
I think my trouble is my impatience, it's the limbo and not knowing. I have found so many ways to further myself though in an attempt to forget the situation exists. I'm a busy little bee
These shared readings are so helpful I've found. Learning about using I-ching is one thing but to read other interpretations and takes on the lines helps with the learning curve.
I was debating how a text from me would make him feel... irritated? happy? trapped? I asked yi ching 'What is the outcome of sending him a text today?' I got the response 4.1.3.5
I saw a thread about dealing with multiple lines a few days back and i thought I'd try it out.
I would not choose one of three lines, nor use some convoluted method of trying to simplify an answer, anymore than I'd interpret a triangle as a straight line. There are three lines, and each makes a valid point, or it wouldn't be there for your consideration.
First, I'd consider that he would draw no firm conclusions from the action, that it's new input. Secondly, from h9 I'd surmise that he'd feel as though you were communicating casually about small matters. From line 1, I'd think he'd think some preliminary ground rules and expectations are being revealed by you, i.e. getting to know you. From line 3, I think he'd feel a bit flattered, have his ego stroked by the attention you give him. From line 5, I think he would take it as an innocent and open gesture. Bringing 9 back into focus, I don't think either of you should make a big deal about it. If you wish to speak to someone you don't know well, then do so. It seems all quite natural to me. Just try to keep the drama and/or pressure out of it. Then see what happens, as that's part of the fun of 4.
But this is down to personal choice.
My conclusion from that is that the process of interpretation is an intuitive one and there is no right or wrong way to go about it.
As does everything. That's why I began my comment with "I would..."
If there are three true considerations, it makes the middle one no less considerable. That's not an absurd way to interpret, but it is a limiting way. Some methods are downright absurd to me.
There are many rationales for using reductionist methods over the obvious one, because many folks find it too confusing to reckon with multiple lines. Some of these folks are even Yijing authors and/or considered as scholars. Who am I, an ordinary layman, to say otherwise? Well, I am just me, who has no difficulty with multiple lines. What the reading says is what it means - no more, no less.
This isn't to you personally, but to anyone who thinks that some form of convolution is necessary to decipher Yi's lines: Imagine if people did that to everything you said which expressed more than one point to consider, and if each person had their own method of rearranging which points you were really making; such as: you mean what you didn't say rather than what you did say - as is the case with some of these, um, creative methods, which some even have the audacity to call laws. Speaking for myself, it would make trying to communicate more than a little frustrating , whereupon I'd be inclined to :mmf: myself thereafter. Even if they've authored a book, so what? I could also author a book and say anything I wish to in it. That wouldn't authenticate what the Yi plainly says or doesn't say in any given reading.
But, whatever floats someone's boat. \____/
I think we're talking about two very different things. One being renditions, translations, interpretations of hexagrams and lines. The other being methods of divination. Regarding the first, I've found extremely different 'takes' on a given Gua or line, and this among even some highly respected translators. So, I'm in total agreement that it takes a fair amount of searching and cognitive reasoning to find the best fit for a given question and answer. But in regard to the second matter, I'm at a loss to understand why one would not accept the hexagrams and lines as they have been plainly given - other than having difficulty dealing with a more complex answer. If that's the case, then minimizing: literally throwing away lines, or in some cases all the lines, is indeed a way to simplify things. It doesn't mean someone can not receive something of value, or in some cases even a clearer answer to them by having to reckon with each and every feature of the black & white answer they've received. It depends on how deep someone wants or needs to deal with the entire answer they've received as it is. Sometimes one just needs a flash, a picture, an image for their cognitive mind to assemble the answer they are seeking to find. I have no problem with that, I do it too. However, I have a fair degree of familiarity with every line in the book on an experiential level. If I didn't, I'd be too curious to simply discard lines for any reason. And I've always found the practice of changing the lines received into lines that haven't been received, in order to have a simpler answer to reason with, a crazy practice. And when impressive names, either of antiquity or of contemporary origin are given as substantial reasoning to use such methods, it makes the method no more credible to me. It's not hard to count from 1 to 6. If there is one change line or six lines, there they are in black and white. It's beyond me why and how it's necessary to eliminate part of that answer, other than to simplify it, which gives one less feature to consider. If someone is happy throwing away part of their answer, or using some method to change the answer that was given, it's no loss to me that they limit the full spectrum of Yi's answer to a single line. Maybe they don't want or feel they need for the whole answer. If that's the case, fine, then call it what it is, not try to authenticate it because someone said that's the law in that case.It's like using a road map to get from point A to point B. You may not need to know all the crossroads along the way, but you do need to know where to get off one highway onto another, or you may find it useful to know where the rest stops are along the way, or where you can refuel. If you don't need to know those things, and all you want to know is how long it should take to drive across a single road or highway, then you can rightly throw out all that other information. But it doesn't mean that discarded information isn't there or has no possible relevancy to your trip, especially if you have to refill your gas tank or take a pee.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).