Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
I agree. It's another interpretive tool, one that Karcher came up with. And as with any tool (or idea ...) they can be used and also misused (and misunderstood).The ideal does not replace the primary hexagram, ... It's another angle.
the "ideal line" doesn't replace the cast line.
Life is just one huge bucket of plagarism, ....
@Trojina maybe that could be the one-sentence summary? (Or not, but I can't think of a better one offhand.) (Also what Hilary quoted and said here.)The Ideal gives you a hexagram that represents the most effective way to
think about your entire situation, the ideal way to visualize it and act on it.
Haven't we found with fan yaos that sometimes it's important to know where exactly you are in the relating hexagram? Not always, maybe not ever absolutely, but if you happen to be at one of the lines that's at odds with the general drift of the hexagram, couldn't you go wrong by not noticing that? And then same with shadows and ideals (or so I told myself).Shadow and Ideal lines - please understand how naively I did this. It was nothing more than thinking, "Well, we use fan yaos and paired lines and even the lines from nuclear stories (which I haven't spent much time with yet), so maybe all such lines are useful!" And then I tried it and found them helpful.
Does any of that help at all?
Post 14 when asked about where she got the lines fromShadow and Ideal lines - please understand how naively I did this. It was nothing more than thinking, "Well, we use fan yaos and paired lines and even the lines from nuclear stories (which I haven't spent much time with yet), so maybe all such lines are useful!" And then I tried it and found them helpful.
I guess I figure if paired lines and fan yaos are things, then shadow lines can be things just as easily. Who knows, though.
Mixed feelings. I sympathize with your point, really I do, but it's tricky to reject things while at the same time not reading them. Bradford isn't easy to read, either, yet it's good we do. Etc.
My best suggestion is read Karcher's pdf (it's quite short) and read Hilary's - go back and forth between them, even. Most important - look at examples while doing so
If the answer you get isn't telling you the potential of the situation what's it for ? If your answer, the primary hexagram/lines/relating hexagram aren't telling you what you might achieve directly what are they for ?So Ideal = 'ideal potential of the situation' and probably also 'what we might achieve directly'.
Personal thought: we probably won't get far with the Ideal without fully digesting the difference between the two trigram arrangements first. I tend to think of the Before Heaven arrangement as the product of people's desire to have everything well-ordered and comprehensible, so I'm never going to be exactly captivated by the idea of using it to build a hexagram.
Difference is I know where the yin pattern comes from, it comes directly from the change lines.The ideal does not replace the primary hexagram, and the "ideal line" doesn't replace the cast line. It's another angle. It might be sort of, vaguely, akin to what Hilary says about the yin pattern:
Does any of that help at all?
I wish I could find one of my examples of how "effective" might be a better word than "ideal." Sometimes the ideal hexagram really will be scary, and really is best to think about it that way and not find its idealized better side. (In other words, not like Hilary's 28 one.)
I think it has to do with acknowledging/ recognizing/ seeing the badness, so you can deal with it. If I stumble on one I'll post it
Again I see your point, but we have to try using it in order to see. The other context things have credibility because people have demonstrated it by using them. It's a vicious cycle.
Personal thought: we probably won't get far with the Ideal without fully digesting the difference between the two trigram arrangements first. I tend to think of the Before Heaven arrangement as the product of people's desire to have everything well-ordered and comprehensible, so I'm never going to be exactly captivated by the idea of using it to build a hexagram.
Re: My question about where shadow / ideal lines come from: So it's experimentation
If Hilary doesn't recognize the Ideal and has said she would never use this method to build a hexagram then I think she's probably right.
Experience where the shadow and ideal lines seem helpful ....
It kind of is in Hilary's "Shadows" mini-course in the Library. She makes it clear she's not really on board with it, but she explains it and gives it some space as part of Karcher's idea. So we could send people to that.I asked where the information here on this website was on the Ideal given I thought it should be in CC or wiki somewhere otherwise it should not be a category heading in wikiwing should it ?
I mean, to start with you need two separate diagrams which aren't in front of you when you cast a reading.
Why not your preference? Exploring Divination is a good place for it, at least I think so. Several of us have already exhausted ourselves discussing it here, and I don't see any particular reason to move to private message. We could always put a link to the new thread in this thread.if you think it will be helpful, I can consider doing a thread here about creating and using the Ideal - though that's not my preference.
Which I think is your point - if it's not deducible from a cast reading, how can it be real? I get that, but I'm not sure about rejecting things because they're complicated. Lots of complicated things work that most of us don't understand. On the other hand, people are good at dreaming up "systems" that are fantasies. Who knows.
Yes, I get that. It's sort of 'fabricated' (my word for it), but I thought the image might still be of use to you. I have shrunk it down a bit. I will try to do a thread about it, but I have some other stuff I'm learning, working with right now. Best, d.It's still not as in front of us as everything we can see ...
'Life being one big plagarism' I got from a You Tube video years ago where they were showing comparisons of scenes in various films down the ages. Words, story lines, imagery, mannerisms by actors, camera angles etc all the same or similar. There were I think 3 installments but no idea what it was called. It's probably still there if you want to take a look..... or I expect there is a copy of it.I often see this. It's just that I like to know sources (whom said what, and where did they say it) and I also like to - whenever I can - give credit where credit is due, regardless if it's from Rutt, Karcher, Wilhelm, Hatcher, Barrett .... Without these, it makes it seem like I came up with all my brilliant ideas all on my own!
'Life being one big plagarism' I got from a You Tube video years ago ....
That's what I'm talking about.
Hi DavidYes, and now that you've shared your sources (at least in part) and have explained what you mean, you have given what you said context and I can better understand it, And I get it, that it's not just about "one huge bucket of plagarism".
That's what I'm talking about.
FYI: we should not believe everything we see on YouTube. I've seen all sorts of made up crap about the Yi, as well as US politics, and most of those people have pretty iffy (or no) sources; and a lot of it is plagerized - and then repeated over and over and over.
D
You are right Trojina that was all I was writing about . To be perfectly honest I didn't get the quote from there it's just that the YouTobe vid was the catalyst for me taking on a world view about 'Life being one big plagarism'. I have no copyright on that phrase either so please feel free to spread it far and wide or if you'd prefer throw it in the waste bin.
What does it have to do with believing stuff on Youtube ? I thought Mykey just meant that is where he got the quote from.
Saying where he got the quote from does not amount to believing everything on Youtube.
Hi back! I was trying to say that I now get what you are saying - because you shared your sources and that gave it more context for me. If you took offense, I apologize. I also changed my 'Youtube' comment, which I meant to be a caution - to myself as much as anyone - that I think we need be careful about our 'sources' in this internet age. I removed it since it seems to have offended some people - you might want to look at what I put in it's place.Hi David
For what it's worth, that's how I took it - questioning (with some very good questions).Moreover this is a discussion forum. I'm not being disrespectful to Liselle, I'm not trying to stop her exploring her ideas, at least I wouldn't want to stop her, but I have questioned her about it.
It is. At this moment I'm in an argument with my own self over "It seems to work in readings!" vs. "But true, how it's constructed is weird!"If I decide at this point I reject the concept of the Ideal that is my right.
Hi davidHi back! I was trying to say that I now get what you are saying - because you shared your sources and that gave it more context for me. If you took offense, I apologize. I also changed my 'Youtube' comment, which I meant to be a caution - to myself as much as anyone - that I think we need be careful about our 'sources' in this internet age. I removed it since it seems to have offended some people - you might want to look at what I put in it's place.
D.
Thanks. It seemed to have elicted some responses, so I removed it, and replaced it with something that I feel is more relevant - which you responded to.I didn't see a necessity to remove your post, however that is your choice.
... aware of the Irish DNA ... (and) bodies found elsewhere in UK with DNA showing origins based in Middle East or Far East.
Please don't ask me for sources though ....
Plagarism means so many things to so many different people ...
There is probably something about it to be found in a Google search. There might even be a You Tube video.!
I have always taken every reading as a guide to my personal development and every reading has made sense within that context.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).