About Shao Yang and Shao Yin

[dfreed]

FYI: for those whom are joining this thread late, or are otherwise as confused as I am ...

... you might want to take a look at Plutonian's Post 8, above, which for me feels very reminecent of his origianal post - though he will need to confirm this. As usual, I'll plug my own summary too!

Plutonian's post touches upon one of the main issues - or points of confusion - with this thread:

Yet, nowadays, Hatcher and Vilá, which are much newer translations, put it the other way around:

(But) According to the logic Surnevs describes, namely:
the first system should be correct.

... in brief - as I understand it - some people here are relying on Bradford Hatcher (and saying how much they like him) but at the same time they seem to be saying that Hatcher is wrong about the 'correct' 2-line images that show us stable yin, changing yin .... even though Hatcher's understanding agrees with much that Nielsen shows us ...

... or at the very lease the are questioning Hatcher, even if it's just because he just doesn't 'feel right'. (I hope I captured peoples' thoughts on this?)

So, is Bradford right or is he wrong? Or is he correct on lots of other stuff but not about the 'si xaing' ? And by extension, does this also mean earlier, historic meanings and authors about the 'si xaing' are also wrong?

And if all that seems very confusing, well that's because it is - as far as I can tell (or not tell).

BUT !!! AGAIN, I invite you to look at items 1-3 at the end of my Post 15, where I bring all the different 'pieces' into aligment with Hatcher's understanding (and what's shown in Nielsen), which led me to a unique idea about the nature of stable and moving lines, and Yin and Yang (and perhaps the big picture?)! I welcome people's thoughts about this.

Best, D

 

[dfreed]

if

is old yang or moving yang, is it meant to be the same as

?

If so, what happens when it's in hexagrams? In other words, should we think of hexagram 1 as three old yang lines on top of each other?

I ... figure hexagrams and Si Xiang are completely separate concepts, not to be conflated, except Nielsen's table seems to say otherwise by calling

a moving yang line. He uses the same terminology.

And you think I know the answers here? (Actually, I do!)

This thread is about the 'Si Xiang' - which is broadly translated as the 'Four Figures' or (Bradford's) Four Emblems'.

As I see it, the two line figures (which seem to be at the heart of this discussion) are just one kind of 'si xiang' and I think of them as being representative 'symbols' only ....

So, when I think of the 'si xiang' I first think of them as the four types of lines we all know and understand (and love) - as they are basic to how we work with the Yi.

As to why we have these two-line figures? I'm not sure, but there is this idea I've often heard, that goes something like this:

"There's the One (dao), which gave birth to the Two (yin / yang), which gives us the Four, which gives us the Eight (trigrams), which gives us the 64 (hexagrams)...." (or that's my loose rendition of it).

And somewhere along the way, the 'Four' were depicted as the four types of lines (that we're all familar with), AND also as four 2-line figures .... Why? I really have no idea! I just know it's much more meaningful and useful for me to work with the 4 lines, so that's one way I define the 'si xiang'.

As to Nielsen, I left out the text, but this table is meant to be a summary of some (but not all) of the different definitions and meanings of 'si xiang' - just like we have multiple and varied definitions of words in an English dictionary (some of which are useful, known, and some of which are confusing or archaic .... )

So (and I hope you're still able to follow me), Nielsen gives us "definitions" for the 'si xiang', as:

* the numbers 6,7,8,9 (re: used in a coin toss, or yarrow stalks)

* the four types of lines: broken-stable, broken-moving, solid-stable, solid-moving (you are familiar with these, since they are the only types of lines we get in a reading! )

* the trigrams Light, Water, Thunder, Lake - from the late-heaven trigram circle (which I learned about from Harmen and which I make use of!)

* and (finally), the 4 two-line figures .... (which seem to be at the heart of your confusion, but you're not alone here!)

-- And Nielsen also explains where some of these came from - see my above posts with the historic references.

So ... just as with dictionary defintions, some of these 'xiang' (figures, symbols) you and I will understand and can make use of, and others - not so much!

Personally I don't find it useful - nor does it make any sense really - that I'd replace the 6 individual lines of a hexagram, with 2-line figures; nor do I find it useful to 'divide' a hexagram up into 3, two-line figures (which also makes no sense).

And so my suggestion is, use your common sense: if it's easier to 'define' the 'si xiang' as 6,7,8,9 or as the four types of lines .... than just go with that!

(None of us are required - thanks goodness! - to understand the 'si xiang' only as 2-line figures; and we're definitely not required - nor encouraged - to make use of something that we don't understand!)

What is adding to the 'confusion' (at least for me), is that some people here can't seem to agree on what the four 2-line figures represent and/or stand for .... (thought both Hatcher and Nielsen seem very clear on this point!)

... and some here are trying to use these four 2-line figures as a way of finding deeper, greater, hidden, or underlying meanings / cycles .... and in doing so, some people have generated a great many graphics and circles, and also additional trigrams, hexagrams ....

It is of course fine that people do this! It's just that it's not my cup of tea (so I can't really explain most of what they are doing), and I find much of it speculative and based on peoples' ideas about the dao, or yin/yang, or the nature of the universe, or the underlying patterns of the Yi .... Again there's nothing wrong here, only I find much of it confusing.

One example: Plutonian and I both said we don't use these two-line figures in interpreation, but he does say he can imagine "an interpretive method that includes bigrams (two line figures)". So, here's another possible way someone might look at the these 4 two-line figures.

In other words, the list of what's being discussed here, and how we 'might' define all this is getting quite long ... perhaps more than some of us (like me!) can handle. But such is the nature of our discussions here.

So, similar to the varied 'definitions' of the four figures, I'd suggest you take what you need or like from all this, and as to the rest .... that's your call. (And you can of course ask questions of the particular authors here as to what they mean.)

I hope that's of use to you. I'm open to more questions. Best, D.

 

[surnevs]

breaknow, I find this (#14) interesting. Thank You for sharing.

 

[Trojina]

But of course. I never meant to say anything differently (though I did not emphasize them in my summary). And these larger cycles and deeper meanings are discussed here quite a bit, more so than I think they were in the 'original post'.

It's just in post 15 you said

2) My interest is primarily with using the Yi for readings, castings, interpretations - and I am less interested in the 'big picture' or the hidden meanings of symbols, etc. The information I've provided here is practical and useful. (Or ... I am interested in these big, deep meanings and cycles, I'm just finding this in other places and in other ways)

I am not looking at the larger, big-picture 'cycles', though - as noted - these are certainly ways of depicting the four kinds of lines or the four images.

Today you say

... and some here are trying to use these four 2-line figures as a way of finding deeper, greater, hidden, or underlying meanings / cycles .... and in doing so, some people have generated a great many graphics and circles, and also additional trigrams, hexagrams ....

It is of course fine that people do this! It's just that it's not my cup of tea (so I can't really explain most of what they are doing), and I find much of it speculative and based on peoples' ideas about the dao, or yin/yang, or the nature of the universe, or the underlying patterns of the Yi .... Again there's nothing wrong here, only I find much of it confusing.

You're saying it's not your cup of tea, it's too speculative, it's to do with people's ideas of ying/yang and the underlying patterns of Yi? Seems you don't feel that the graphics and so on are useful.


But is this thread required to be your cup of tea though especially given it's not your thread?


If I told you all you had written here is not my cup of tea I'm guessing you'd tell me to go and read something that was my cup of tea. If I told you repeatedly what you'd written in your own thread was really not to my taste at all and not what I was interested in I imagine you'd tell me to let you have your discussion with those who were interested in peace. You'd be right.

What you are writing about is not my cup of tea, I'm simply not interested and lack background knowledge. No judgment in that it just doesn't interest me. But if I kept on arriving on the thread to tell you I wasn't interested I imagine you'd be puzzled as to why.

Though I don't understand the thread there were a few concepts I was a bit interested in such as the ideas about flow and the 'loopiness' and cycle of breath and breakmov's graphics. My perception is fwiw, there was a conversation going on about cycles, underlying meanings, big picture, exchange of graphics and you keep saying the conversation cannot really be about those things as it doesn't interest you.

 

[dfreed]

But is this thread required to be your cup of tea though especially given it's not your thread?

I have no idea what your point is???? I'm not requiring anything of anyone.

 

[Trojina]

I have no idea what your point is????

Really? I think I have written very clearly indeed so it would be pretty hard to misunderstand what I have said.

I am not saying you did something wrong I am wondering why you keep announcing how you are not interested in what Plutonian and others clearly are interested in discussing. If one is not interested in the content of a thread one can simply pass it by without declaring how uninterested one is in it. You have declared your lack of interest in this many times and it puzzles me. It also seems to me you have redefined what the thread is about? You said, intending to be helpful no doubt

If you look at my Post 15, you'll see a good summary of what this thread is about.

But to me what the thread is about is entirely down to the person who started the thread? How can it be otherwise? It feels like the thread was about a certain perspective or angle of interest involving patterns and cycles, using graphics, exploring ideas, none of which interested you so you decided what it was about instead.

 

[dfreed]

What is adding to the 'confusion' (at least for me), is that some people here can't seem to agree on what the four 2-line figures represent and/or stand for .... (thought both Hatcher and Nielsen seem very clear on this point!)" Others, but never Dfreed !!!

You are exactly right! I am not confused by what each of the 'si xiang' symbols mean.

Another: Dfreed said: " ... and some here are trying to use these four 2-line figures as a way of finding deeper, greater, hidden, or underlying meanings / cycles .... and in doing so, some people have generated a great many graphics and circles, and also additional trigrams, hexagrams ...." and some here, but never Dfreed !!

What are you implying here? You're confusing me!

What has confused me are dfreed's novel-sized replies where an intelligent gentleman like he is, could easily have expressed himself much more concise.

Yes, I am intelligent - thanks for noticing! And if there's something I've said in my posts that is confusing to you, please feel free to ask me about it. I'm more than happy to try and clear things up; or should I say, 'we' would be happy to answer your questions!

 

[dfreed]

It's your words I quoted.

Good for you! Quoting highly-intelligent people is always a good thing! That's why I was quoting and sharing from Hatcher and Nielsen. And I assume that's why you are quoting me.

 

[Plutonian]

Good point, but it's not just the images, he says he replaced his entire post with one sentence. I have no idea why.

Plutonian, that was not even slightly what I ever intended, and I hope you know that.

That was the first post of the thread, the entire foundation for it, and it's a loss to the thread that you deleted it. You have a right to, that's why there's an editing period, but still.

If you'd like to reconsider, we moderators can restore it.

(I don't understand what all of you are talking about here, I have a lot of reading to do, but it seems interesting.)

oh i know. it just seemed to me that a more simple kickstarter (a simple question) was better than a whole bunch of images to get things going. I know you didnt mean me to erase my images dont worry!

 

[dfreed]

But to me what the thread is about is entirely down to the person who started the thread? How can it be otherwise?

I always assumed that what a thread is about is entirely up to the people participating in the thread, and I think either you or others have pointed this out many times. And besides, I'm not requiring that this thread go in any particular direction, or 'be about' anything other than what we've all made it about. How can it be otherwise?

 

[Trojina]

You are exactly right! I am not confused by what each of the 'si xiang' symbols mean.

You may however be slightly confused about who's thread it is and their intentions and interests when beginning a thread? I stand to be corrected on that point not knowing others views only going by my own perceptions.

I always assumed that what a thread is about is entirely up to the people participating in the thread

Of course but the person who began the thread is still the one who knows what the original idea for the thread was because the thread was his or her idea. You have repeatedly said that the graphics, ideas about yin/yang/flow and so on are of 'no interest' to you. However they are of interest to Plutonian, breakmov and others.

 

[dfreed]

You may however be slightly confused about who's thread it is

Of course but the person who began the thread is still the one who knows what the original idea for the thread was

You seem to be quite confused here, so let me clarify:

Yes, I do know who started this thread. And yes, of course Plutonian knows what his original idea is. And to help make it clear to you, me, and everyone, he started this thread by asking:

Could anyone share some good sources about the nature of the Four Images or Si Xiang?

 

[Trojina]

Hopefully exploration of loopiness, graphics, patterns yin/yang /will in any case feel free to resume posting following this brief interlude of discussion about the thread itself.

 

[Liselle]

You seem to be quite confused here, so let me clarify:

Yes, I do know who started this thread. And yes, of course Plutonian knows what his original idea is. And to help make it clear to you, me, and everyone, he started this thread by asking:

Could anyone share some good sources about the nature of the Four Images or Si Xiang?

You know very well that wasn't his original first post.


Plutonian, I still wish you would help us re-create your first one (would have to think about how to do that as your editing window has expired), and that you would un-delete others.

As I said before, it is okay if threads deviate from the absolute letter of how they started out. In this case I don't see a single good reason for any relevance problems.

 

[dfreed]

this brief interlude of discussion about the thread itself.

Some of us never stopped discussing the 'si xiang' - or at least we didn't intend to, until the 'brief interlude' came along.

I think I will change my name to 'The Thread!', then any of us can start a discussion about The Thread! and we'll all be clear exactly what we're talking about.

 

[Trojina]

Plutonian, I still wish you would help us re-create your first one (would have to think about how to do that as your editing window has expired), and that you would un-delete others.

Yes, and I also hope the post posted today that was deleted might be reposted.

 

[dfreed]

You know very well that wasn't his original first post.

Okay, then let me clarify, I am very clear about the current topic of this thread, and I assume so is Plutonian. And I can't be clear about a thread topic that no longer exists. And I too don't have any problem with deviation (just like I don't have a problem when someone changes the topic of their thread!)

If you need me to clarify anything else - or if you have any questions for me regarding anything I've shard about the current thread - and its deviations - feel free to ask.

 

[Plutonian]

Sorry for the delay!! And thank you ALL for participating I'm really enjoyeing reading all of you.
I'm really sorry for deleting the images of the original post, but I felt they were a lot of information to kickstart a discussion on a rather simple topic (4 figures). I'll try to leave some maps in this post, in order to clarify what I think the four figures allow us to do, or at least understand, about the inner (and outer) workings of the Yijing.

Part 1:

This is the "cycle" or infamous "loopy" disposition (dismissed by some of the most brilliant minds of our time, yet still of interest to us simple peasants).

​

This circular disposition shows the logic that operates behind coins, where we get the following results:


So, these are basically the four images or "si xiang".
The confusion stems of the different viewpoints different translators and authors had on these on the course of time. While Hatcher, Vilá and other authors believe the order to be as shown above, other authors, as Wilhelm for example, believe it to be the other way around, namely:

So thats what I wanted to open up in this post, since Tai Yang and Tai Yin are not really a matter of discussion.

Part 2:

So, I'll try to deal with the "loopy" and non-loopy theories here. The infamous loop theory is one i do not like as being conceived precisely as a loop. A loop is a perfect repetition of the same, over and over again, while in reality, the same thing happens under different forms. Lets put it this way: trigram KUN can be symbolized with a "clay vessel", with a "mass of peopl", with a "carriage", etc, and yet they all share the same underlying symbol of KUN.
Thats why I'd say we should conceive it as being less of a loop, and more of a spiral. Let me clarify this with an image:

Here we see how the circular pattern remains the same, BUT it extends in time, and isnt just "closed in itself". So, we can say the first "loop" is cycle 1, and the second "loop" is cycle 2. In the same way we count our years and don't just say "we are in summer of who-knows-when", but "we are in the summer of year (loop/cycle) 2021".
So, the spiral/loop/loopy or however we call it, makes sense when we want to see the necessary movements. We know we are bound to a certain regularity which we could call "a loop".

BUT! And here is where my dearest most beloved friend Dfreed comes in, there is a problem!

In terms of using the Yi, in any given reading, we only have 'moving/ changing' lines 'moving to' or 'changing to' stable, unmoving lines. Therefore, any given reading is not a continuous cycle, loop or process that goes on and on .... Instead, unmoving lines - Shao Yin and Shao Yang - remain unmoving (regardless of what they started out as).

Therefore, any graphic depicting the 'four lines' as a repetitive 'loop' does not represent 'change' as it's described in an individual casting or reading

He's right! If he'd have read more carefully through my response instead of just dismissing it he would have seen i was agreeing with him. But well, no le pidas peras al olmo.
In an hexagram, we only consider 9 and 6 to be changing lines, but not 7 and 8. These are considered to be "stable" lines, namely, unchanging ones. And while 9 and 6 are about to change their nature, 7 and 8 are not expecting any change of nature for the moment. If we applied the "continuous loop" to a hexagram, we would end up with this:

While change does follow the circular disposition (9 -> 8 and 6 -> 7), it is not bound to time as we understand it.

If we wanted to apply the "loop" or "spiral" theory to the Yi, we'd end up in perfectly organized cycles that never change or mutate, or nothing. If this was so, ¿why would we use the Yi in the first place? If all that happens is necessary, and there is no room for contingency (chance, randomness. etc) then we would have no need of using the yi. But there actually are unexpected events that surprise us!

So, i see two ways out of this:
1.we could say every tiny event is bound to a greater cycle which could be unknown to us, and that there are as many cycles as things in existance (which is actually true), yet all of them bound to a greater cycle which is necessary to all of them.
or
2. Beyond "necessity", there is free will and a certain amount of chaos, necessary to keep things changing and in motion.

Part 3
Question remains: Do shao yang and shao yin, 7 and 8, turn into 9 and 6 respectively? According to the circular disposition, they have to. And in cosmic processes, which are not bound to our free will, they most certainly will. BUT, since we have free will and we can live in discordance with these cosmic cycles, not a single line is BOUND to change, unless we operate it, follow it, or make it happen. Obviously there are things that happen and cant be avoided, but there are others that can happen or cannot. And these are, to me, the ones we should look onto when using the Yi, and not only the necessary loop of all things in existance.

I hope I managed to make myself clear somehow, and hope we can keep on debating further subjects on the matter of the Si Xiang. I mostly wanted to clear the air on some of the more intrincated topics that came up, but leaving all the theory apart, the si xiang are, to me, fundamental to understand yijings logic.

un saludo
j.

Attachments​

 

[Plutonian]

Some of us never stopped discussing the 'si xiang' - or at least we didn't intend to, until the 'brief interlude' came along.

The focal point switches from WHAT we discuss to HOW we discuss it when several participants start feeling annoyed with the attitude of a single individual.

 

[dfreed]

BUT! And here is where my dearest most beloved friend Dfreed comes in ....

dfreed said:
In terms of using the Yi, in any given reading, we only have 'moving/ changing' lines 'moving to' or 'changing to' stable, unmoving lines. Therefore, any given reading is not a continuous cycle, loop or process that goes on and on .... Instead, unmoving lines - Shao Yin and Shao Yang - remain unmoving (regardless of what they started out as).

He's right!

Thank you, thank you .... and now that we have reached a place of agreement (and no blame), I still want to ask you:

Do you agree with Hatcher's (and Nielsen's, et al) understanding of the Si Xiang? That the Shao Yin and Shao Yang are unmoving lines, and represent stability, and are represented by the numbers 8 and 7, etc. ?

If you answered this already, I mistakenly missed it. But in either case, I'd appreciate knowing what you think: Do you agree with Hatcher? Disagree? Or are you still pondering this?

 

[dfreed]

The focal point switches from WHAT we discuss to HOW we discuss it when several participants start feeling annoyed with the attitude of a single individual.

And whom might you be talking about in the third person? If you look back through this thread, one of the administrators said, clearly, that I had done nothing wrong, so you can't possibly be talking (or backstabbing) me, now can you mi amigo?

But if you now want to deviate even further and talk about our 'feelings', then by all means, let's do just that! I have all kinds of 'feelings' I could share .... even beyond how I feel about the si xiang.

 

[Plutonian]

About the original post, it stated my confusion on which symbol is Shao Yang and which one is Shao Yin, based on the disposition of the Xian Tian heaven, where it would seem to grow from the bottom up:



This disposition is supposed to be described in the Shuo Kua, chapter 2, section 3 (in wilhelms version)

(The symbols of) heaven and earth received their determinate positions; (those for) mountains and [lake] interchanged their influences; (those for) thunder and wind excited each other the more; and (those for) water and fire did each other no harm. (Then) among these eight symbols there was a mutual communication. (LEGGE)

But recet discoveries show that the Hou Tian comes before in time,

 

[Plutonian]

If you answered this already, I mistakenly missed it. But in either case, I'd appreciate knowing what you think: Do you agree with Hatcher? Disagree? Or are you still pondering this?

I think both can be considered valid in either position, but I mainly agree with Hatchers pov since it makes more sense to me when understanding a hexagrams working. Yet, i think the confusion comes from the fact that XX century authors based themselves on the Xian Tian as the most ancient of dispositions, which depicts a bottom-up growth of both yin and yang.

 

[dfreed]

Who might these someone be

Well Sven, I'm sorry, I guess it's me (or should I say 'We') whom are confused! Perhaps you might be willing to answer my question, below, and you can help clear up my confusion about the Si Xiang.

Do you agree with Hatcher's understanding of the Si Xiang? That the Shao Yin and Shao Yang are unmoving lines, and represent stability, and are represented by the numbers 8 and 7, etc. ?

Plutonian said he can go either way on it but he 'mainly agrees' with this. So since that's not really a definitive answer, maybe you can provide one. And as a reminder here is a summary of what Hatcher says is true about, these four images, including that the two stable, unmoving images both have one yin and one yang line, and the two images which are each made up of either two yin or two yang lines represent changing / moving states ....

- Name / trigram / direction / season / (no.) change state / 2-line symbol
- Shao Yang / thunder / east / spring (7) stable : yang line above yin
- Tai Yang / fire / south / summer (9) moving : yang line above yang
- Shao Yin / lake / west / autumn. (8) stable : yin above yang
- Tai Yin / water / north / winter (6) moving : yin above yin

Hatcher tells us (and shows us):

Yours truly, your confused friends, D.

 

[dfreed]

Yet, i think the confusion comes from the fact that XX century authors based themselves on the Xian Tian as the most ancient of dispositions,

Who are these XX century authors of whom you speak? Wilhelm is the only one who comes to mind, since my copies of Rutt, Nielsen, Hatcher, Field are all published in the XXI century?

And from what I've read, I don't see that anyone based their understanding of the correct symbols for the two-line Si Xiang on any of the trigram circles? Can you share where you read that?

D.

 

[Plutonian]

Who are these XX century authors of whom you speak? Wilhelm is the only one who comes to mind, since my copies of Rutt, Nielsen, Hatcher, Field are all published in the XXI century?

And from what I've read, I don't see that anyone based their understanding of the correct symbols for the two-line Si Xiang on any of the trigram circles? Can you share where you read that?

D.

Well until recently, XianTian was believed to be the oldest one, thats a fact isn't it?
And might i add, when we study books, we study peoples thoughts. So it might be good to think outside of the book from time to time. speculation, suppositions, beliefs, theories grown out of ones own reflection can also be valid, even if there is no historical fact to prove it, UNLESS, of course, we are speculating on a specifically historical matter, in which case history is the main authority. But in the field of metaphysics I don't think historical facts works as validating proof.

 

[dfreed]

Well until recently, XianTian was believed to be the oldest one, thats a fact isn't it?

Actually no. I think (from my experience on this forum) that many people studing the Yijing know very little about any of the trigrams circles. I first learned about them a few years ago from Harmen Mesker, so from my first exposure to them, I learned that the Hautian Bagua circle is older. In fact, I don't think the Fuxi or Xiantain arrangement is even dirctly related to the Yi.

But setting aside what I know, you still haven't answered my question:

".... from what I've read, I don't see that anyone based their understanding of the correct symbols for the two-line Si Xiang on any of the trigram circles? Can you share where you read that?"

Or more broadly, can you explain how either of the trigram circles gives you a certain order of the four, 2-line figures?

Or .... perhaps you've already provided us with a speculative, mythical response and I just missed it?

... it might be good to think outside of the book from time to time. speculation, suppositions, beliefs, theories grown out of ones own reflection can also be valid, even if there is no historical fact to prove it, UNLESS, of course, we are speculating on a specifically historical matter, in which case history is the main authority. But in the field of metaphysics I don't think historical facts works as validating proof.

Are you now giving me creative and critical thinking tips?

What I think you're telling us - since you are no longer talking about facts, or authors, or books, or history - is that all the stuff you've been sharing with us is really just a homegrown mix of your speculations, suppositions, beliefs, theories, and fantasies ...

... and we should never have bothered with actually responding to you, since you really aren't looking for "some good sources about the Four Images or Si Xiang?"

Because clearly, facts, history and critical thinking are not what you're interested in.

You seem to be saying (unless I am once again confused for no reason) that this whole thread is based on your metaphysical beliefs, - maybe because of something you saw on the internet? - which makes me wonder why do you even bother mentioning Hatcher, or Legge or the Shuogua (or the many other authors I've heard you mention)?

My own far-reaching 'reflections' have many sources, and most often grow out of things I've read or experienced. Books, authors, history, etc. are the 'launching pads' so to speak, and from there I 'think outside' .... But I usually don't just grab random thoughts or fantasies out of the air, and then 'speculate' on them - and then turn them into 'facts' on this forum.

But now it seems (at least as far as my rational, thinking mind can deduce) you are telling us that you are a free-floating, free-thinking, multi-dimensional being whose feet never touch the ground and you can't be bothered with facts, or books, or history - unless you find it convienent to do so?

Sorry if this all sounds harsh, but you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid answering some questions about things you are saying. As I see it, you either read the XX century authors and know what they said, or you didn't! And if you didn't then just admit it, and kindly stop referring to them.

 

[hilary]

Moderator note: the above post was the final straw on an already over-burdened camel, and Dfreed is now banned.