A Recent Critique of the Yijing and its Believers

[fyreflye]

http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?

 

[fyreflye]

For clarification:
Barnum Effect: http://www.skepdic.com/barnum.html
Confirmation Bias: http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

 

[rodaki]

each to their own . .

 

[meng]

I think all those elements written, plus others, come to play in any sort of divination.

If someone thinks their conscious (waking) mind is all there is, I'd ask them how it's possible, then, to surprise yourself in a dream? If you are the one dreaming, where do the elements of shock or fear come from? How can someone surprise their self, unless there's more to consciousness than they're consciously aware of? Science has yet to even answer what consciousness is. That being the case, it's not relevant to me whether classical science can explain divination.

How about prayer? Does prayer effectively work? If so, is it merely mental reinforcement, or can it actually effectuate change beyond ones conscious self? Classical science can't answer that either.

I'm with Dora: to each their own.

 

[pantherpanther]

http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?

The past and the future and all their possible manifestations may co-exist in the present .

To paraphrase a recent note by W Streiber:

'A recently published study suggests the illusion that time is moving only in one direction is caused by amnesia induced by a quantum-mechanical process that erases all traces of temporal anomalies, such as time moving backwards, or shifts across timelines.

Lorenzo Maccone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that the entropic nature of movement through time may be an illusion. He told the New Scientist, "if you analyze (the laws of quantum dynamics) carefully, you'll see that all the processes where things run backward can happen, but they don't leave any trace of having happened."

Do they? Scientists don't believe that the mind can detect these anomalies.
In Macchone's view, while a fallen tree may rise again when time moves backward, we never see this because the information is not retained anywhere in nature. Of course, such an idea assumes that quantum mechanics must operate in large-scale events, while most scientists believe that the indeterminacy implied by these laws unfolds only on the scale of the very small.

I suspect that Newtonian mechanics are, essentially, an illusion imposed by the mind, and that the more supple mechanics we observe in the world of the very small also pertain in the large scale. '

 

[Sparhawk]

http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?

Yes, something like "an article about the Yijing published in a place called 'The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' is showing its hand before the bets are placed..." Would you think that for a work that has an accumulated exegesis of at least 3000 years this is the first time it is confronted by a "logical construct" bent on debunking it? Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan's article is half-baked and shows a very superficial knowledge of the Yijing. Only enough knowledge to find lightly educated faults in it.

Now, I'm sorry you are missing Chris Lofting's rebuke to that article (available at his I Ching Plus Yahoo group). Coming from him, who shuns magical thinking like the plague, it is a very significant note, full of the same kind of logic Mr. Sullivan tried to use, but in the other direction.

BTW, I like the way you pop-up, after big time lapses, to provide bits to think about...

 

[fkegan]

Hi all,

Tough to take the article in the The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry too seriously, especially as it fails to deal with its own problems with the Barnum Effect and Confirmation bias. If you don't agree with their assumptions a priori the article makes remarkably little logical sense.

Of course, every time I cast the Yi upon some question and wonder, where is that resulting hexagram going? And then cast again and get that exact resulting hexagram only now with moving lines indicating that next step, I do not find myself wondering what psychological foible of mine messed with the "random" probabilities of the coins to fool me that way.

Frank

 

[pantherpanther]

Yes, something like "an article about the Yijing published in a place called 'The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' is showing its hand before the bets are placed..." Would you think that for a work that has an accumulated exegesis of at least 3000 years this is the first time it is confronted by a "logical construct" bent on debunking it? Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan's article is half-baked and shows a very superficial knowledge of the Yijing. Only enough knowledge to find lightly educated faults in it.

D

Mr. Sullivan can't think and ask a real question. It's his superstition and mindless "belief."

 

[lsdavis]

Mr. Sullivan should write a letter of complaint to President Hu Jintao suggesting passages from their classical heritage that need clarification; perhaps the Chinese leadership can offer him some satisfaction on this very pressing matter?

 

[bradford]

http://tinyurl.com/mubwl7
Any comments?

He's been ill-informed about sooooo many things.

 

[maremaria]

Thanks to Mr Sullivan I found this. http://www.granrose.com/main/articles/thesis2.html

I haven’t ready the whole paper. My late adult onset myopia makes my eyes pain and makes reading difficult. Its time to buy those glasses, grmphhh. uch:

But my eye catch two little passages.

1. In addition to the concepts of archetype and archetypal image, the concept of symbol will also be important for this thesis. The word "symbol" is based on the Greek symbolon, from sym, "together," and bolon or ballein, "to throw or fit."15 The Greek word refers to the practice of breaking a coin or other small object in half when friends parted. Each half of the object would serve as a reminder of the friend during his or her absence. Then when the friends were reunited the re-fitting together of the two halves would serve as a kind of proof of his or her identity. One friend could also entrust half of the object to a further friend or relative and thus show to the holder of the original half that this stranger was entitled to recognition or hospitality. Thus, as Verena Kast puts it, "... the symbol is a visible sign of an invisible reality. ... When we interpret, we seek the invisible reality behind the visible and the connections between the two."16 In contrast to signs, for example, the road sign "+" (meaning "crossroad ahead"), a symbol points to "... an intuitive idea that cannot yet be formulated in any other or better way."17 As A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis expresses it,
"Symbols are captivating pictorial statements .... They are indistinct, metaphoric and enigmatic portrayals of psychic reality. The content, i.e. the meaning of symbols, is far from obvious; instead, it is expressed in unique and individual terms while at the same time partaking of a universal imagery. Worked upon (that is, reflected upon and related to), they can be recognized as aspects of those images that control, order and give meaning to our lives. Their source, therefore, can be traced to the archetypes themselves which by way of symbols find more full expression ....18"

And
2. There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.

Maybe #2 doesn’t makes sense to you why I mention this, but it does to me because few hour ago I talked about that crack with a friend.


Perhaps Mr Sullivan needs a new pair of glasses.

 

[meng]

Seems a pretty sincere outside attempt to look inside. A pretty safe and clinical procedure with no personal investment or risk. Science can do so better than that.

I don't believe there's any contradiction between science and divination, in their truest forms. There are missing pieces in our understanding, is all; and there may always be. Some things can't be known in the same way other things can. Some things known have no words, and need no explanation or validation. Every attempt to do so only diminishes it.

 

[fkegan]

Hi Maria,
The article is a Jungian analysis of magic and magicians without any particular connection to divination in general or the I Ching in particular.

The notion of the 'Yijing and its believers' neglects one fundamental difference. Folks stay with I Ching divination because they find their personal oracles insightful. Others find the I Ching opaque and thus useless when they don't find some oracle meaningful. It is a personal and subjective division.

If you don't find the I Ching oracle meaningful, it would be very difficult to think well of the I Ching, which would require admitting you aren't up to snuff relative of these other folks.

Frank

 

[em ching]

Some things can't be known in the same way other things can.

Nicely put - an inescapable fact - and I don't think scientists could argue with that

I recently posted a thread kind of on this issue (probably rather badly written my brain doesn't seem quite up to critical/ scientific analysis.. maybe because I am emotionally involved with the Yi myself - and don't want to think of it as inanimate (it's a friend!.. so there you go. I'm sure a skeptic would jump on that admission.

Jung on synchronicity: 'Whatever is born or done in this moment of time has the quality of this moment of time'.

That cannot be argued with when you consult the Yi - because I get my relevant answers and then have, in the past, supposed what if I got this answer? And come to the conclusion that it would be completely irrelevant and unhelpful.
Such as if you're in the middle of a spat and you get a hex about harmony, which wouldn't be a viable course of action or a possibility.. Although I suppose you could say, that the Yi is illustrating what harmony entails - and highlighting that it's preferable to your current situation... But, it is so hard to believe there's nothing more to it than chance - when the answers sometimes even provide specific images that fit your situation...

In my recent thread 'Is it down to me?' I was trying to explore whether the Yi is confined to illuminating the moment based only on the enquirer's subconscious knowledge - rather than the Yi possessing omnipotence or being able to tell the future... as a separate entity or a guiding hand.. And for me there have been instances where it has foretold events - in that the reading I originally had about a situation - becomes even more relevant as the situation plays out over time.

I asked: Do you only mirror what's inside?
And received 14.1,3 > 24

I wonder if that reading does confirm that we are not divining the future? That the Yi does not claim to be a fortune teller? Rather, it is itself limited to the consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the enquirer?

:bows:

 

[hilary]

I'd ask questions about the 'only' and the 'inside' in that question.

I just looked at the original article - disappointing, as some anti-divination articles can be pretty interesting. A few years ago I found this one -
http://www.woodka.com/2005/10/31/divination/
- and wrote this post in response. Mind you, it's all rather odd, as Deng Ming-Dao is author of an above-average I Ching book...

 

[fkegan]

Hi Hilary,

As you note in your post, the heart of the anti-divination argument is:

Traditionally, people turned to divination. But how can any system of divination really help you? Whether it is turtle shells, yarrow stalks, crystal balls, psychics, or spirit possession, are the forces “out there” really going to provide any true reassurance? Depending on divination means giving up control over your own life. It’s also avoiding responsibility — you are able to say it wasn’t your fault if things don’t work out.

This is a view of total personal control of reality, if not down right solipsism; that is repugnant to science and divination. We all consult objective, outside sources for information, perspective or counsel. To not is to be truly weird.

The issue is only whether throwing coins is a random act controlled by probabilities of large numbers or a unique act that yields a result that one can subject to intellectual analysis and evaluate its utility and meaningfulness for you.

But, then if one starts with the view divination is alien and wrong any argument will creep in to justify your a priori and unconsidered opinions.

Frank

 

[fyreflye]

Thanks for the many thoughtful and interesting responses. One or more of you might like to write SI with your comments. As for me, Silence is the answer

 

[em ching]

I'd ask questions about the 'only' and the 'inside' in that question.

Hi Hilary

Not quite with your train of thought here - but are you saying that that is precisely it's wondrous ability - that it can externalize our whirring thoughts and emotions into hexagrams of great literature! Because it does seem to do that - helps your organize and compartmentalise - providing a stop-gap that encourages you to un-stick yourself from whatever issue you have and take steps towards dealing with it. It should be appreciated for its ability to make us see things from another point of view and enables us to handle our problems more objectively. So yeah it doesn't deserve the 'only'.

But in that way, are you more of the opinion that it is confined by our subjectivity and the boundaries of space and time - thus every Q should be along the lines of 'How do I consider my relationship with X...' or 'Help me with this problem in this moment'? Rather than 'How does X feel about me?' or 'What will happen in the future?' Do you limit those types of Q's? Do you not ask them at all? Or do you ask anything you feel like? and perhaps limit your expectations?

All I know is that it works, and yes maybe silence is the answer
Sometimes I do allow myself to doubt - doubt that I'm not just believing it works because I need to - rather than considering that any line of any hex could and would somehow relate to whatever you ask - But when I start having those thoughts I just look back over my I ching diary - too many specific images, repeating hex's etc - to be argued with

:bows:

 

[rabbistoryteller]

I Ching & "Higher Abilities"

Just kind of freewheeling here and responding to the Deng Ming-Dao critique (from one side) and the Charles Sullivan piece from the CSI website that started this thread.

First of all, I think that Rupert Sheldrake kind of nails the "hard-nosed realist" skeptical community when he refers to them as "vigilantes". He means in the intellectual sense. Based on their "religion", which is sometimes referred to as "scientific materialism", they have real stake in making sure that anything that does not jibe with their "flatland" view of reality does not gain any ground.

The entire idea that what they call "objective" is by definition more "real" than what they term "subjective" is a faith position. There is some very good evidence that it ain't necessarily so.

I could could go on and on about this, but I think people like Rupert Sheldrake do it much better than I ever could.

On the other hand, Deng Ming-Dao's argument has some strong validity, at least in my mind. However, I think his way of expressing it is both unrealistic and not very compassionate.

What I mean by this is somewhat expressed in that little zen story that I told in that "testing" thread in the Open Space forum. There are many variations of this story, not only in zen, but in almost all folk traditions.

Part of the meaning of these stories as I see them, has to do with utilizing a particular tool or device until you don't need it anymore.

I think that Deng Ming-Dao may be right about a developed ability to "divine" without any tools. However, I think that is one of the purposes of the I Ching itself. It is a bit like training wheels. Such tools help develop the intuitive sense.

It helps a lot to also have a meditational practice that works with internal energy and opens up and strengthens the energy centers (we sometimes call them the three "Tantiens": Lower - Middle and Upper and in that order) so that this it not a mere intellectual exercise.

In any case, Deng Ming-Dao's argument is a little bit like telling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps": it is easier to say than to do and not everyone can find these practices right away. BUt the I Ching is very accessible and available.

I do believe that, as with any tool or really anything, there is always the hazard of addiction and/or idolatry. But again, that applies equally to anything and everything. It is a kind of "reverse idolatry" to give more weight to this danger with divination than it does to say, a particular healing modality or a particular book of knowledge, wisdom, information or tradition.

There is saying in my tradition (the Jewish spiritual path), along the lines of even the tradition itself can become an idol. And that is true of every tradition and every branch of knowledge.

The real trick and key here is to use whatever tools one is using consciously. With awareness. In others words, to "wake up".

Again, this is often easier to say than to do, although most traditions talk about this being available spontaneously (usually after years of preparation! ).

So it become a kind of balancing act. With the I Ching (or any divinatory tool) no more or less so than pretty much any ritual, tool, book, tradition, relationship etc. The balance between using the tool and becoming attached to it.

The only "sin" is missing one's true potential to connect with "Source" (whatever that means for one). Call it what you will: Ground of Being, Nature, the UNiverse, God, the Dao, etc.

I am not an expert nor a master at pretty much anything. But for what little it is worth, I find the I Ching to be a genuine tool in helping with that process.

I think that these two perspectives discounting the value of this tool are actually helpful (for me at least), because they help me clarify why I value the I Ching.

 

[fkegan]

Let the skeptics chew on this:

http://dailyrevolution.net/?p=7523

The Earlier Heaven arrangement of the trigrams reflected a bit in the electron cloud of a single carbon atom by latest research.

Frank

 

[hilary]

I asked: Do you only mirror what's inside?
And received 14.1,3 > 24

I wonder if that reading does confirm that we are not divining the future? That the Yi does not claim to be a fortune teller? Rather, it is itself limited to the consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the enquirer?

:bows:

I'd ask questions about the 'only' and the 'inside' in that question.

Hi Hilary

Not quite with your train of thought here - but are you saying that that is precisely it's wondrous ability - that it can externalize our whirring thoughts and emotions into hexagrams of great literature!

No, I was just responding to the topology that seemed to be implied in the question - it sounded as though 'inside' were hermetically sealed off from outside, like a pot with a lid. What if 'inside' were more like the inside of a well, or a wormhole, or something? So if you look further inside, who knows where you might end up?

Because it does seem to do that - helps your organize and compartmentalise - providing a stop-gap that encourages you to un-stick yourself from whatever issue you have and take steps towards dealing with it. It should be appreciated for its ability to make us see things from another point of view and enables us to handle our problems more objectively. So yeah it doesn't deserve the 'only'.

...though this is another really good point.

But in that way, are you more of the opinion that it is confined by our subjectivity and the boundaries of space and time - thus every Q should be along the lines of 'How do I consider my relationship with X...' or 'Help me with this problem in this moment'? Rather than 'How does X feel about me?' or 'What will happen in the future?' Do you limit those types of Q's? Do you not ask them at all? Or do you ask anything you feel like? and perhaps limit your expectations?

I find that when I dig in and look for the question that most directly addresses what I want to know now, it's normally along the lines of 'how best to be, in relation to this, right now?' Maybe I need to know other things (like what will happen next or what someone feels) in order to know what to do, but maybe I don't.

A complicating factor: when I feel the need to know about what he feels or what will happen in order to decide what I want. Not sure what to do about that, except recognise how paralysingly complicated it makes things.

When reading for others, I put up red flags around the dodgy areas of questioning (ie mostly 'how does he feel?'), but I don't suggest it's impossible to swim there. There's 'What can the oracle do?', and then there's 'What actually works well, in a relationship between an oracle and a human being?' I feel more competent to talk about the second question!

Let the skeptics chew on this:

http://dailyrevolution.net/?p=7523

The Earlier Heaven arrangement of the trigrams reflected a bit in the electron cloud of a single carbon atom by latest research.

Frank

Oh - that would be exciting - but it looks as though someone has just drawn trigrams onto a photograph of a blue blur. Ah well. Maybe when they get a better microscope we will finally have photos of subatomic trigrams.

 

[meng]

I asked: Do you only mirror what's inside?
And received 14.1,3 > 24

I wonder if that reading does confirm that we are not divining the future? That the Yi does not claim to be a fortune teller? Rather, it is itself limited to the consciousness (or unconsciousness) of the enquirer?

:bows:

I agree with Hilary's inside/outside view, that they're not sealed off one from the other. Knowing yourself and knowing the future might not be separated at all, other than by our own, or perhaps nature's own compartmentalization process. To be, we must be divided.

Therefore what concerns us here's the problem of clearly defining these discriminations, which are, so to speak, the backbone of morality. Unlimited possibilities are not suited to man; if they existed, his life would only dissolve in the boundless. To become strong, a man's life needs the limitations ordained by duty and voluntarily accepted. The individual attains significance as a free spirit only by surrounding himself with these limitations and by determining for himself what his duty is. W/B h 60

 

[em ching]

:bows: That makes sense - if there were no limits, there'd be no us - no nothing

Thanks for clearing up those issues Hilary - and as I am developing an issue with this ambiguity of what the best line of questioning is (or what you can get away with ) I will now mainly stick to your approach of asking 'How best should I approach this situation/person in this moment'. Because when you ask about others' feelings for example - and then feel, from your reality, that it doesn't transcend - then you start to doubt yourself and the Yi - which has never failed to help me when I've asked for practical insight - or when I've needed my present state illuminated. I don't think it should be used as a vehicle to carry your hopes - confirming or opposing them - because, that's not helpful - even if it does sometimes give you a momentary lift

:bows:

 

[meng]

I don't think it should be used as a vehicle to carry your hopes - confirming or opposing them - because, that's not helpful - even if it does sometimes give you a momentary lift.

That's a great statement, imo. Very common and dangerous thing to believe that the Yi is for or against our dreams and ambitions. Following a dream with the Yi as ones "chief spiritual adviser for material gain" leads to mental, emotional and relational train wrecks. If I want or don't want, and why - that, I believe, is what Yi speaks to. And that must fit into the rest of what I want, the big contextual field. Hence the senses of right and wrong, should and shouldn't enter in.

 

[meng]

Playing with an example..

John wants boat, a special boat to win tournaments with, which costs the same amount as adding a deck to the family's house, which his wife has been talking about for three years.

How many of you just formed a moral decision on what's right or wrong?

How would the Yi have answered to him?

 

[fkegan]

Oh - that would be exciting - but it looks as though someone has just drawn trigrams onto a photograph of a blue blur. Ah well. Maybe when they get a better microscope we will finally have photos of subatomic trigrams.

Hi Hilary,
He doesn't explain how he went from the blue blurs to his trigrams. However, in terms of the magical thinking of the "skeptics" they would appreciate the image. They still wouldn't like divination, but that is a separate question.

Frank

 

[sergio]

Hello everybody;
Just a few comments.I found that for me the best question or questioning method is not to ask a question at all.When we frame a question we narrow the field of action to what we want to get from the situation thus limiting the scope of the reply.I found it is better to describe the situation or matter at hand and then cast the I Ching ,in that way I allow not only more latitude in the reply but also I open myself to appreciate other areas of the problem that need to be addressed other than my own vested interest. .
Second.Chu Xi in his introduction to the I Ching and its usage clearly states that the sages created the Yi to help humans in times of great turmoil and to help them take the right course of action when situations are not clear thus allowing them to be in harmony with the forces at play in a given moment.So what is the problem with using the IChing as a guide to action?Why can't we use it to determine out decision making and adjust it to the course set by the I Ching?How can we dissociate one from the other without defeating the purpose of consulting the I Ching?
Third,I do not think we can predict the future any more than we can predict the weather.No meteorologist can tell you what the weather will be be like in ,say,December 14 2009.They can only tell you it will be cold because it will be winter time but no more than that.Even forecasts for more than 72 hours are useless.Same way with the I Ching/When dealing with precise events and how to deal with them,what forces are at play ,it works really well but when we put it against the wall and ask "will he call me tomorrow? will I get my raise next week?" then the answer will not be as clear cut as we would want it to be.If we accept that the flight of a butterfly would produce a chain of events resulting in another event somewhere else in the world then we must also accept that the actions of an unrelated person would also produce a chain of events affecting my own situation in ways impossible to foresee for me.So the question is do I want guidance or do I just want to know the future so I can get my way and the hell with the right course of action in harmony with the forces at play in a given moment of time?
Sergio

 

[meng]

Sergio, funny but I was thinking about this same thing earlier today, and the thought came, saying: yes, but just the act of employing the mechanics of consulting the oracle is itself a question. The inquirer presents him/herself to the Yi as a question. As in 27.4, the tiger spies about, and bites through an answer, or at least something to chew on for awhile.

 

[em ching]

I found that for me the best question or questioning method is not to ask a question at all.When we frame a question we narrow the field of action to what we want to get from the situation thus limiting the scope of the reply.I found it is better to describe the situation or matter at hand and then cast the I Ching ,in that way I allow not only more latitude in the reply but also I open myself to appreciate other areas of the problem that need to be addressed other than my own vested interest. .
Sergio

Hi Sergio - really interesting reply there. Got me thinking! I've sometimes - especially when been in turmoil - been actually unable to frame a question - it's more of a 'Argh help me get out of this' and in that way it make sense what you say above - the answer then takes on your reality as a whole. By asking particular Q's relating to only an aspect or two of that situation at the time - a) too many readings could lead you back into turmoil and b) it feeds our egos more- rather than serving as practical guidance which can take the immediate effect of relief and understanding - while also illustrating what's most important to consider in that issue at the time. Perhaps there is only ever objective truth anyway - well, when it comes to dealing with the world and other people anyway. If that makes sense...

 

[em ching]

Chu Xi in his introduction to the I Ching and its usage clearly states that the sages created the Yi to help humans in times of great turmoil and to help them take the right course of action when situations are not clear thus allowing them to be in harmony with the forces at play in a given moment.

If we accept that the flight of a butterfly would produce a chain of events resulting in another event somewhere else in the world then we must also accept that the actions of an unrelated person would also produce a chain of events affecting my own situation in ways impossible to foresee for me.
Sergio

:bows: