...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Hexagram 3 and the very beginning

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
Hexagram 3 is the first hexagram where the two kinds of line mingle, and so it’s associated with the very beginnings of life. The Sequence says,
‘There is heaven and earth, and so the ten thousand things are born.
Overflowing the space between heaven and earth, the ten thousand things.
And so Sprouting follows: Sprouting means filling to overflowing;
Sprouting means the beginning of things’ birth.’
Hexagram 3, Xugua
The long-standing ‘primordial soup theory’ of the origins of life on earth says that lightning strikes in surface water created more complex proteins that were the beginning of RNA.
If you squint a little at the trigrams of Hexagram 3 –

zhen inside kan, or thunderbolt/ shock in the water, you might imagine this as the generative moment.
However, a new theory is catching on, that life began in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. Seismic activity in the depths: a perfect match to zhen within kan.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary

"Hexagram 3 is the first hexagram where the two kinds of line mingle,"

Could you clarify what theory you are using that has determined the order that we have the Hexagrams today.

Has always seemed to me that there are huge contradictions and inconsistencies in the "ordering" of the Hexagrams. It make little sense to have Hex 1 and the Hex 2 with each line tranforming to its opposite and then with Hexagram 3 and 4 a differernt principle applies. Even if it could be shown that 3 and 4 were connected as a pair in the same way that 1 and 2 are, where would the rational, coherent and logical theory be that progresses Hexagram 2 to Hexagram 3. It seems like one enormous leap, from 2 to 3; no unbroken lines to two, with one inf teh 5th place, so no coherent movement.
It ahs always seemed me that perhaps, in the sequence of moving from 2 to 3 that what we call Hex 24 would be the next and then, applying the same principles as from 1 to 2, that the 4th in the sequence might be 44.
The turning point and then coming to meet can be seen as a logical progression.
But this is just speculation. I have never consdiered that the "pairings " or the "ordering" ever made any sense.
Where are the theories that underpin the understanding of the order that we have the Hexagrams today.

Love the graphics.

Looking forward to the new site. I really am rubbish at formatting.
  • :hissy:

I hope my posts are more readable than they were originally.

  • :confused:

All the best Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
Hi JD,

I don't know of a single theory that accounts for the Sequence as a whole. (Well, there are some - Google 'classic Chinese combinatorics' and I think you'll find something - but nothing that's wholly convinced me so far.) What it does have are countless patterns, symmetries, reflections, and allusions to the Sequence in the text of the hexagrams. A great deal of meaning is created, not just with the one-step-at-a-time approach described in the Xugua (Sequence Wing you can find in eg Book III of Wilhelm/Baynes) but also across bigger sweeps of hexagrams.

(I started researching this last year for a 'mini course' but ended up writing a book. There's a lot to find when you start looking.)
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
(And yes, throughout the history of the Yi, people have thought as you did that the received Sequence makes no sense and they should rearrange the hexagrams in a more logical way. It's frustrated and bewildered a lot of people.)
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary

I agree that it is bewildering. But my question would be if the "sequence" makes little or no sense why do we "use " it to determine pairs and relationships.

If the Trigrams are just a memory aid, very possible, considering the lack of those that could read and write thousands of years ago, any sequence based on swapping Trigrams would just be an aide be memoire as well, so no real sequence at all.

If there is no real sequence then perhaps the interpreation of Hexagraam 3 as something to do with beginnings is yet another contradiction.

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,725
Reaction score
91
The idea is you have to look to see what is there before you start assuming the sequence is wrong and you have a better idea.

You are standing outside looking in not seeing anything that's actually there because you haven't looked as Hilary has.

So you really aren't in any position to argue unless you actually have bothered to look for yourself at how the text itself reflects the sequence or looked to see the wonderful patterns within the sequence.

These patterns and symmetries can only arise because the sequence is as it is. But unless you look at it, which you clearly haven't, then you will not be able to appreciate that.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
Hi Hilary

I agree that it is bewildering. But my question would be if the "sequence" makes little or no sense why do we "use " it to determine pairs and relationships.
I didn't say it made little or no sense - on the contrary. Only that it can be bewildering.
If the Trigrams are just a memory aid, very possible, considering the lack of those that could read and write thousands of years ago, any sequence based on swapping Trigrams would just be an aide be memoire as well, so no real sequence at all.
The Sequence isn't based on swapping trigrams. (It does make a lot of patterns and arcs with trigrams, though.)
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
I didn't say it made little or no sense - on the contrary. Only that it can be bewildering.

The Sequence isn't based on swapping trigrams. (It does make a lot of patterns and arcs with trigrams, though.)
Puzzled, I am, as to what the intrinsic difference between being "bewildered " and something making "little or no sense" might be.
Bewildered, confused, puzzled, which wouldnt be the case if the sequence made any sense, even a little sense in how the "Hexagrams" might rationaly, logically and coherently progress.
Are we expected to believe that the underlying principle of change become linear, so that there is a begining and an end, so that there was a "before change", before change was happening or possible, and an "after change", when change ceases. When it is apparently based on cyclical processes of 5E and Trigrams. Seems like not only a lack of rationality but a distinct case of illogical nad incoherent thinking on the part of those that established the "sequence" and a similar case for us to believe it.

Much if the "sequence is clearly based on "swapping " Trigrams. 3 to 4, 5 to 6, and most of the 64 are " paired" in reversing the Trigrams, rather than swapping the lines as in 1 to 2, 27 to 28... which cannot be Trigram reversed, and so the lines, rather thatn the Trigrams, are swapped.

Arbirtrary rules, which wouldnt exist in a sequence that was rational and coherent, but would be a brilliant way to remember 64 Hexagrams.

Dave

I think I have just got the "quote" thing. Sorry it took so long.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
Puzzled, I am, as to what the intrinsic difference between being "bewildered " and something making "little or no sense" might be.
One is an intrinsic quality of the Sequence; the other is a quality of our (lack of) understanding.

...When it is apparently based on cyclical processes of 5E and Trigrams.
Where do you get the idea that the Yi has anything to do with 5 Elements?
Much if the "sequence is clearly based on "swapping " Trigrams. 3 to 4, 5 to 6, and most of the 64 are " paired" in reversing the Trigrams, rather than swapping the lines as in 1 to 2, 27 to 28... which cannot be Trigram reversed, and so the lines, rather thatn the Trigrams, are swapped.
I'm guessing that dyslexia makes it tricky for you to see hexagram patterns at a glance. It might help to draw hexagram 3, take a piece of paper and cover over one trigram to see what the other is. Then do the same for hexagram 4. You'll find that 3's lower trigram is different from 4's upper trigram.

(In fact, the hexagram created by swapping 3's trigrams is 40, and you can swap the trigrams of Hexagram 27 to get Hexagram 62.)

The Sequence is arranged in hexagram pairs, each odd-numbered hexagram paired with the even-numbered one that follows. 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 etc.

The main principle used to generate pairs is inversion: turning the hexagram upside-down. Again, this may be hard to see, but if you draw hexagram 3 on paper and then rotate the paper 180 degrees, you'll find you are looking at Hexagram 4.

The same is true for 5/6, 7/8, 9/10... all the hexagrams, except where turning the odd-numbered one upside-down would give the same hexagram. Then, as you say, the lines are all changed. There are 4 of these exceptional pairs, that punctuate the sequence at beginning, middle and (almost) end.


Arbirtrary rules, which wouldnt exist in a sequence that was rational and coherent, but would be a brilliant way to remember 64 Hexagrams.
Pairs do help as a mnemonic - you have 32 items to remember instead of 64 - but they are also units of meaning. Also, the two principles used to generate pairs, inversion and complementarity, are also used to generate some bigger patterns in the Sequence.

I think I have just got the "quote" thing. Sorry it took so long.
Well done. Just in time for the migration to the new forum ;) .
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
One is an intrinsic quality of the Sequence; the other is a quality of our (lack of) understanding.
.
But there is no "intrinsic" "quality" to the sequence. It isnt even a sequence in an comprehensible way.


Where do you get the idea that the Yi has anything to do with 5 Elements?
.
5E form the basis of the Trigrams. The qualities ascribed to the Trigrams is based on 5E. 5E is the basis for change, just as the Yi is.
If they are not both linked and connected in a fundamental underlying way, then one or both of them has to logically be wrong.


I'm guessing that dyslexia makes it tricky for you to see hexagram patterns at a glance. It might help to draw hexagram 3, take a piece of paper and cover over one trigram to see what the other is. Then do the same for hexagram 4. You'll find that 3's lower trigram is different from 4's upper trigram.
.
In fact Dyslexia makes it rather easy to see patterns at a glance, to see patterns in the patterns, to see the way that patterns connect, or dont.
I know that 3's lower Trigram is "different" from 4's upper. But it is, as I said, reversed. That is the method of swapping for that Trigram, but because the upper Trigram of 3 is symmetrical it doesnt reverse by the same rules as the lower one. Arbitrary rules.
Hex 1 to 2 swaps the lines. Hex 3 to 4 swaps the Trigrams but only reverses one of the Trigrams. 17 to 18 reverses both Trigrams.
No pattern, no sequence, no logic, no rationality, nothing coherent at all. There is no rationality in the move, change, from Hex 2 to Hex 3.
The linearity of Hex 1 to 64 doens not concur with any notions of change, as they start and end. How would 64 change into Hex 1.

(In fact, the hexagram created by swapping 3's trigrams is 40, and you can swap the trigrams of Hexagram 27 to get Hexagram 62.)
.
That would be one possible way of "swapping". But where is the rationlity that swapping Hexagrams in that way is relevent or "connects the Hexagrams in a direct way.

The Sequence is arranged in hexagram pairs, each odd-numbered hexagram paired with the even-numbered one that follows. 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 etc.
.
I think most people would be aware that one can make "pairs" with consecutive odd and even numbers, But that is just the manipulation of numbers that only has relevance if the sequence is shown to be relevant and valid, and consistent in the first place. Otherwise it is an arbitrary construction that generates contradictions and inconsistencies.

The main principle used to generate pairs is inversion: turning the hexagram upside-down. Again, this may be hard to see, but if you draw hexagram 3 on paper and then rotate the paper 180 degrees, you'll find you are looking at Hexagram 4.
The same is true for 5/6, 7/8, 9/10... all the hexagrams, except where turning the odd-numbered one upside-down would give the same hexagram. Then, as you say, the lines are all changed. There are 4 of these exceptional pairs, that punctuate the sequence at beginning, middle and (almost) end.
.
As I pointed out when I said swapping and reversing. But why do that for some and not for the others.


Pairs do help as a mnemonic - you have 32 items to remember instead of 64 - but they are also units of meaning. Also, the two principles used to generate pairs, inversion and complementarity, are also used to generate some bigger patterns in the Sequence.
.
Mnemonics is only a tiny part of memory methods, the image based ones are infinitely more powerful and given the structure of the Chinese language imagery rather than mnemonics would have been more likely.
But as you say 32 is much easier to remember than 64 and the all you have to do would be to "pair" with the other, and you have knowledge of the whole set. Andas there are patterns within the patterns one wouldnt even have remebmer 32 to have the whole set in ones head.

I think the "units" may be more in our imagination that in any rational, coherent and logical reality.

They arent really principles, as they arent consistent. If the "principles" cannot be shown to be valid then any bigger "patterns" would just be the result of our imaginations and nothing to do with any underlying priniples of the Yi itself.

There are two branches of Mathematics, one that deals with application and one that deals with number theory. A lot of the number theory never makes its way into anything useful because it is just the manipulations of the sequences that we have created in the first instance.
We could put the "sequence" of the Yi in all sorts of initial patterns, you referenced that 3 and 40 are "linked" in a pattern. We would then have a whole different set of patterns within the sequence. That is just manipulation of the sequence that we humans created in the first place. It wouldnt make it "applicable" to the Yi, it wouldnt be representative of any underlying principles and it wouldnt aid our knowledge or understanding, even if it did generate a lot of "information", the information generated would only be of relevance to those that chose to "believe" in a sequence with no sequence.
Which brings us back to the differentiation between the Yi of fundamental underlying principles and the Yi as something else.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
You are standing outside looking in not seeing anything that's actually there because you haven't looked as Hilary has.


Obviously I havent looked in the same "way"as Hilary or we would be entirely agreeing.I am talking about underlying priniples and inner understanding, so not standing outside at all.



So you really aren't in any position to argue unless you actually have bothered to look for yourself at how the text itself reflects the sequence or looked to see the wonderful patterns within the sequence.
But I have "bothered". So am therfore in a position to discuss.
The wonderful patterns would appear even in a"constructed "sequence.
A genuine sequence would not have a multitude of contradictions an inconsistencies and woul be explainable by rational,coherent and logical means/


These patterns and symmetries can only arise because the sequence is as it is. But unless you look at it, which you clearly haven't, then you will not be able to appreciate that.
That is obvous but any "arrangement" would generate apparent "patterns" and "symmetries".
I appreciate that there is no rationality to the sequence, other than possibly a memory aid.

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,725
Reaction score
91
Obviously I havent looked in the same "way"as Hilary or we would be entirely agreeing.I am talking about underlying priniples and inner understanding, so not standing outside at all.
Oh we're back to underlying principles are we I thought this thread was about something else. :rolleyes:

Yes you are standing outside looking at the sequence saying it's not logical when you have not entered into it to look at patterns it makes, patterns only just being discovered. What you say reminds me of someone looking at a bird and saying 'that's not logical or rational, that creature cannot fly it must be put together in a nonsensical way' and then the bird flies off and the fool stands there realising he doesn't know anything.

In other words your limits, your limitations of vision do not define the nature of nature or the nature of Yi. Possibly a step forward might be for you to realise you have limited understanding and vision so rather than demand the things beyond you scale down to your size and proportion be aware it's you who has to expand his understanding not nature that has to shrink down to fit you, what makes 'sense' to you.


But I have "bothered". So am therfore in a position to discuss.
I think you're in a good position to learn.


The wonderful patterns would appear even in a"constructed "sequence.
A genuine sequence would not have a multitude of contradictions an inconsistencies and woul be explainable by rational,coherent and logical means/
So we are back to your being the arbiter of what a 'genuine sequence' is even though you haven't yet read Hilary's book, studied patterns, reflections and the referrals in the text to the sequence.




That is obvous but any "arrangement" would generate apparent "patterns" and "symmetries".
I appreciate that there is no rationality to the sequence, other than possibly a memory aid.

Dave

That's an incredibly arrogant position to take. You take something you don't even understand, haven't studied at all, something grand and beautiful and intricate and try to box it in to your tiny little rationality box to say it's just a memory aid. Whether your limitation does come from arrogance or from the brain damage you mentioned in another thread I don't know but practically, here, for purposes of forum discussion, this limitation simply doesn't serve a purpose in achieving greater understanding which is the ultimate goal of any discussion I guess.

They arent really principles, as they arent consistent. If the "principles" cannot be shown to be valid then any bigger "patterns" would just be the result of our imaginations and nothing to do with any underlying priniples of the Yi itself
.


I think you should keep all your thoughts on principles in one thread of your own. Otherwise every single thread in this section is going to be swamped by your thoughts on principles. If you do start a new thread as was suggested earlier maybe you could explain what kind of answers you want so that other people don't waste time giving answers you reject.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
jukkodave said:
As I pointed out when I said swapping and reversing. But why do that for some and not for the others.
Please tell me which hexagram pairs are not created by the principle of either inversion or complementarity.
 

svenrus

Senior member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
16
Alfred Huang actually saw Hex. 3 as the first hexagram beside the four "Frame" hexagrams.
Here a cut from his book The complete I Ching:



AH1.jpg
AH2.jpg
AH3.jpg


:bows:
 

Attachments

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
Puzzled, I am, as to what the intrinsic difference between being "bewildered " and something making "little or no sense" might be.
An individual may be confused and bewildered, not able to comprehend something.
Standing next to that individual are ten other individuals who are not confused and bewildered.
See how that is possible?
Bewilderment is a state of being.

Just because one person does not comprehend something,
Does not mean that other people will share in the same confusion.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Oh we're back to underlying principles are we I thought this thread was about something else. :rolleyes:
What else is there. If we dont know or understand underlying principles, we have no framework, no measure with which to evaluate anything, including if the "sequence" that posItions a particula hexagram at the 3rd position and then because it is the "3rd" position, because 1 leads to 2 leads to 3, then it must be the next in that sequence and so must mean beginnings. But that interpretation only works if , and only if, the sequence is correct and valid. If it isnt, then the interpretation that has been derived of that particular Hexagram is clearly wron. How esle would we know if the sequence was correct or not but by the application of underlying principles and the application of logical, rational, logical coherent examiination so as to eliminate contradictions and

Yes you are standing outside looking at the sequence saying it's not logical when you have not entered into it to look at patterns it makes, patterns only just being discovered. What you say reminds me of someone looking at a bird and saying 'that's not logical or rational, that creature cannot fly it must be put together in a nonsensical way' and then the bird flies off and the fool stands there realising he doesn't know anything.
But I have entered into it, I have examined and explored it, and that is why I can see that it makes no rational or coherent sense. That is why I can see that it may just be any arbitrary way of arranging the Hexagrams, with no underlying structure at all.

In other words your limits, your limitations of vision do not define the nature of nature or the nature of Yi. Possibly a step forward might be for you to realise you have limited understanding and vision so rather than demand the things beyond you scale down to your size and proportion be aware it's you who has to expand his understanding not nature that has to shrink down to fit you, what makes 'sense' to you.
I think you miss the point of what underlying principles are and the difference that makes to any understanding of the Yi.
It is not about what makes "sense" to me, it is about what makes sense, in a rational, coherent way. The reason it being rational and coherent is that it is based on fundamental underlying principles and so makes sense, potentially, when one understands the principles, to everyone.
How course I realise that I have limited understanding, as we all do. If I didnt then I wouldnt be asking questions of others in the hope of some illumination, intended or not, that migh enhanece my understanding.


I think you're in a good position to learn.
And I hope that I remain in a position to "learn" all of my life.
But if you mean, to learn from someone in the Yi community, they would obviously have to demonstrate more than an academic knowedge and demonstrate knowledge of fundamental underlying principles as well.

"The wonderful patterns would appear even in a"constructed "sequence.
A genuine sequence would not have a multitude of contradictions an inconsistencies and woul be explainable by rational,coherent and logical means"
So we are back to your being the arbiter of what a 'genuine sequence' is even though you haven't yet read Hilary's book, studied patterns, reflections and the referrals in the text to the sequence.
Firstly I am not being an arbiter, that is provided by the knowledge of rational, coherent and logical fundamental underlying principles. All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistencies, the contradictions, the lack of coherence, rationality or logic.
Secondly you dont know that I havent read Hilarys book.
But I think you are missing the logic. It is only by reference to fundamentals, to underlying principles, to rational, coherent logic that something could begin to be demonstrated as accurate and relevant. Without the direction of the fundamentals it is possible to believe in almost anything and explain almost anything.


"but any "arrangement" would generate apparent "patterns" and "symmetries".
I appreciate that there is no rationality to the sequence, other than possibly a memory aid."
That's an incredibly arrogant position to take. You take something you don't even understand, haven't studied at all, something grand and beautiful and intricate and try to box it in to your tiny little rationality box to say it's just a memory aid. Whether your limitation does come from arrogance or from the brain damage you mentioned in another thread I don't know but practically, here, for purposes of forum discussion, this limitation simply doesn't serve a purpose in achieving greater understanding which is the ultimate goal of any discussion I guess.
The first part is simply a statement of fact. Mathematically is is possible to generate patteres from almost any sequence, especially if the sequence has some arbitrary patterns built in to it to start with.
Just because I raise questions does not indicate that I dont understand. In fact it takes a great deal of understanding to be able to even ask the questions and raise the points I have put forward.
I agree that the Yi is grand and beautiful, becuase it is based on fundamental underlying principles, though the contradictions, the inconsistencies, the lack of rationality, coherence and logic can make that difficult to see if one tries to apply some of the ideas been presented.
it would still appear to be grand and beatiful even if one didnt know the underlying principles.
So perhaps it is better to say that it is the fundamental underlying principles that are grand and beautiful.
It is hardly arrogant to point out a possibility or to examine other considerations. Such is the direction of progress, if there are no possibilities or other considerations it would be easy to dispel them, but there is a distinct possibility that Trigrams are just a memory aid. Firstly the history of the time makes it entirely possible. Secondly those that learn and remember through the mechanisms of imagery rather than sequential languange methods, those who do so having learnt memory techniques, those who do so naturally and those that use a highly image based language are all much more adept at memorisation based on symbolic imagery than most people who have learnt a western style language.

Why would you consider the asking of questions and the raising of obvious points a "limitation".
I have raised serious questons, perhaps you would care to "discuss" them in a rational and coherent manner instead of insinuating that perhaps a brain injury is causing some sort of mental deficit in being able to think clearly and not know what fundamentals are. It isnt. Just because I may have serious difficulties in some resepcts does not imply that I have difficulties when it comes to understanding or being rational and coherent in my thinking.


I think you should keep all your thoughts on principles in one thread of your own. Otherwise every single thread in this section is going to be swamped by your thoughts on principles. If you do start a new thread as was suggested earlier maybe you could explain what kind of answers you want so that other people don't waste time giving answers you reject.

It seems like you are asking me to say what I think, in a thread, "of my own", that no one wants to respond to, rathere than joining in general discussion on the Yi, which all lead backe to the question of the fundamantals, and if someone would care to address those fundamentals then that might change things considerabl.
I think you are missing the point. The question of fundamental underlying principles is applicable to every single question related to the Yi. Otherwise the Yi is an arbitary construction that has whatever rules and criteria any individual, that is not adherent to fundamentals, cares to present. And that means that interpetations, translations, any thoughts on what is right, or not, is entirely down to what ever any one wishes to believe.
I think that I have already made it clear that responses that demononstrate a knowing, an understanding, a knowledge of the fundamentals, the underlying principles, that demonstrate logical, rational and coherent thinking and elucidations would be a good place to begin.
Of course if others want to hide and run away from questions and points that may challenge a certain way of thinking or beliefs, then the suggestions of a different thread for something that is relevant and fundamental to virtuallly every question on and about the Yi would perhaps enable that.

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
An individual may be confused and bewildered, not able to comprehend something.
Standing next to that individual are ten other individuals who are not confused and bewildered.
See how that is possible?
Bewilderment is a state of being.

Just because one person does not comprehend something,
Does not mean that other people will share in the same confusion.
Bewliderment, unless you are using a dictionary of your own making, means confused, perplexed, mystifying.
Something that makes sense is not confusing, perplexing or mystifying.
Thereby if you are not confused and bewildered perhaps you would care to contribute something of a positive nature to dispel any ignorant persons confusions and bewilderment.

How would you know if the 10 persons were bewildered and perplexed or not - only if they were demonstrating clarity and understanding. Perhaps you would care to show that you are not confused, bewildered and perplexed, that you comprehend the points and would care to share that with us all, instead of criticizing someone that is trying to understand and ask and raise genuine questions and points.

Dave
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
The underlying principles that you drive every single conversation to....
How can I say this?

they exist in your head only
in your idios cosmos.

They do not exist as you believe they do in the shared world. You will take this as an insult I am certain. That is how I know that I will never be able to help you.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
55
Jukkodave, the bottom line for me is that I really have no idea what points you are trying to make - nor what your central idea is - or why you feel you need to continually disagree and argue with othes. And that is why I have stopped responding to most of your comments.

You are like an arsonist who has started a fire, and then runs around shouting 'fire, fire, 'we' all need to put it out! - why don't people see my fire, why don't you all agree with me about what to do about it?' - when in fact, you are the one who created the problem in the first place.

You seem to be saying something about 'underlying principles' as the core of your arguments and statements, but I've never heard those clearly explained. At one point, I asked you if you would help me understand what you are saying - and I asked that you do so using far less than your usual 1,500-2,000 word responses, and you just ignored me.

You may have some very good and profound point to make in all this, but instead of being clear and understandable, you come across as argumentative (with pretty much anything anyone says), extremely repetative, obsessive, and dogmatic - none of which really leads to clear understanding.

And then after confusing us all, you then say 'gee, 'we' seem to be just as confused as when we started' or 'we' still don't have a clear understading of the 'underlying principles.'

All of which is true to a point, but the larger point is, you are either creating or greatly adding to this confusion by how have interjected yourself into almost every thread here, how you keep repeating in extremely long posts things which I - and I suspect others - don't understand.

And what you fail to understand is that something that's confusing, even if it's repeated dozens or hundreds of times, doesn't make it any more understandable.

And what you also fail to understand ... in a really big way ... is that some of us may just not agree with you. In which case, do you really think that repeating yourself over, and over, and over .... is really going to change things? You've stated your case, so maybe it's just time to move on.

And I believe that your response to my post here will be more of the same - which is the say more confusion, or evasion, or dismissiveness. And if this is what you've learned from your 'underlying principles' than it's no wonder we don't agree with you.

D.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Please tell me which hexagram pairs are not created by the principle of either inversion or complementarity.
Therein lies the clue, inversion or complementary.
Two different "principles" that have no rational connection or even a sense of order, arent principles at al,l they are just arbitrary methods.

It may "look" as though the Trigrams are being rotated through 180 degrees, but unless there is a rational explanation as to how and whyTrigrams change into the next in the sequence by rotating 180 degrees that makes no sesnse in terms of Hexagram sequence.
But the change from Hexagram 1 to 2 show that when a Trigram is not reversible then it it the lines that "move", so as to change. In the case of 1 to 2 the lines change from unbroken to broken. Which in itself creates a contradiction. If the Yi is balanced and not favouring a particular type of change one would expect to see an equal and opposite change from broken to unbroken, but that would be a change from Hex 2 in to Hex 1. Suggesting that even if a sequence of pairs is built solely on the changing of one type of line to the other, there would still have to be a way of "moving" the change from one pair to the next.
So there is no 180 degree reversal of Trigrams in equal Trigrams.
But, if Trigrams that are not reversible, changing the lines, as in Hex 1 to 2, would be the coherent and rational way to proceed.

Is it a "rotation" or moving the upper to the lower, and the lower to the upper. That is far more rational and coherent, as it least maintains the integrity of the previous Trigrams, just altering the upper and lower positions. But it is not even coherent in that principle as for most Hexagrams only one of the Trigrams is moved from upper to lower, or visa versa, the other is rotated.
Whereas "rotation" would be an entirely different construct, which would need to be coherent with other evidence in the Yi.
But inherent in either would have to be the evidence that Hexagrams were built on Trigrams, that Trigrams are the source of Hexagrams, in which case we should no more about Trigrams than we do and there should be no contradictions or discrepancies. It would be specific to Trigrams or we would have evidence of whole Hexagrams rotating. Where in the construct of lines is there any indication of the whole or just half rotating, what would the ratioinale behind such a transformation be.

A sequence has to be consistent or it is not a sequence at all. A rule for the changes from 1 to 2, 27 to 28, 29 to 30, 61 to 62 and 63 to 64 and then a different rule for the rest of the Hexagrams, is not a sequence at all. it is an arrangement, but it is not a sequence that has any rationality of coherence.

So there is no rational coherent and logical sequence of pair arrangement and there is no logical rational and coherent of why one pair moves and transforms to the next pair.
Even if it was possible to "create" pairs by different unconnected methods, the transform from one pair to the next still has to be part of a rational sequence. There is even less coherence in the way that 4 moves to 5, 6 to 7, 22 to 23 etc that there is in the way that the forst of a pair transforms to the second of a pair.

All the best
Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
Therein lies the clue, inversion or complementary.
Two different "principles" that have no rational connection or even a sense of order, arent principles at al,l they are just arbitrary methods.
There are two ways to approach something you can't understand:

1) Dismiss it as arbitrary and deficient in rationality.
2) Study it to try to understand the principles behind it.

It may "look" as though the Trigrams are being rotated through 180 degrees, but unless there is a rational explanation as to how and whyTrigrams change into the next in the sequence by rotating 180 degrees that makes no sesnse in terms of Hexagram sequence.
Trigram relationships are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs. You do not need ever to have heard of trigrams to understand the formation of hexagram pairs.

Forget all about trigrams for a moment and just look at hexagrams. Try turning each odd-numbered hexagram upside-down.
Is it a "rotation" or moving the upper to the lower, and the lower to the upper.
Have a look and find out which it is.

Note: it will be easier to see if you start at Hexagram 15.
That is far more rational and coherent, as it least maintains the integrity of the previous Trigrams, just altering the upper and lower positions. But it is not even coherent in that principle as for most Hexagrams only one of the Trigrams is moved from upper to lower, or visa versa, the other is rotated.
Whereas "rotation" would be an entirely different construct, which would need to be coherent with other evidence in the Yi.
Again, forget about trigrams, and have a look at the hexagrams.

I think you've been confused by concentrating on the beginning of the Sequence (and by the fixation with trigrams). The dominant component trigrams here at the beginning are heaven, earth and water, and all three have rotational symmetry. When you invert them, you still have the same trigram.

That means that when you invert hexagram 5 - the whole hexagram - to get hexagram 6, this action is equivalent to swapping the trigrams. Ditto for 7/8.

But you can see that this is not the principle at work overall by looking at 3/4 and 9/10 - and then at almost every hexagram after 15.

A sequence has to be consistent or it is not a sequence at all. A rule for the changes from 1 to 2, 27 to 28, 29 to 30, 61 to 62 and 63 to 64 and then a different rule for the rest of the Hexagrams, is not a sequence at all. it is an arrangement, but it is not a sequence that has any rationality of coherence.
It's not a Sequence that uses the principle of complementarity to create all its pairs. Instead, it shows a preference for inversion, and only uses complementarity when inversion is impossible.

You think a sequence should be all the same, and all based on opposites. The original authors made different choices and created something more complex and less reducible. Don't you find that interesting?

here is no logical rational and coherent of why one pair moves and transforms to the next pair.
I agree it can't be described by logic. That is, it cannot be reduced to a formula. You can't write a computer program that could perform calculations on Hexagram 1 and generate the Sequence of 64 - at least, it's never been done, and I doubt it could be.

You also can't write a computer program to generate the works of Shakespeare from the dictionary, or the personality of a child from their DNA. And yet these things are generally regarded as coherent and worthy of study.

Maybe reducibility isn't the ultimate guide to the presence of meaning and value?
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,464
Reaction score
57
What Svenrus quoted out of Huang, about 1-2 and 63-64 being a "frame" and somewhat set aside from the others, plus [MENTION=1256]knot[/MENTION]'s "demons of before" and "demons of after," plus what Hilary says in WikiWing about the shadow pair 3 and 62, that they're two ways of being small - I wonder if that might be of any use at all with other shadows?

3 - being small at the beginning, before you know anything (4)?
62 - how to remain small (humble, down-to-earth, not over-reaching yourself), at the end, after you know a lot (61), so that you can effectively bring what you know into the world?

4 - knowing/learning at the beginning (when really you know nothing), from experience and exploration (3), before you've found out that knowing takes time and you might not have all you need (5)?
61 - knowing at the end, inwardly, after you've learned from a lot of measuring, comparing, and figuring out how to articulate things (60)?

5 - needing, waiting expectantly for what you need, rain-dancing - at the beginning, before you're aware this might not always work and there are things to fight over (6)?
60 - effectively apportioning and filling needs at the end, after learning there's not an endless supply of resources (if left formless, they'll peter out: 59)?

6 - "rightness" and "wrongness" at the beginning, arguing for its own sake, before figuring out there are organized and focussed ways to fight (7)?
59 - perhaps dispersing rigid ideas of "right" and "wrong," after learning to discuss and communicate (58)?


"At the beginning" and "at the end" probably lose all meaning the closer you get to the middle, though.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
There are two ways to approach something you can't understand:

1) Dismiss it as arbitrary and deficient in rationality.
2) Study it to try to understand the principles behind it.

Which is another, but rather negative way I think, of what I have been repeating regarding the differentiation between understanding the fundamental underlying principles and the ordinances of heaven, what I am referring to as the inner Wisdom, or the illusory creations of the human mind, what I have referred to a just divination as there wouldnt be any difference between one method or another.


Trigram relationships are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs. You do not need ever to have heard of trigrams to understand the formation of hexagram pairs.
But they are, the desriptions , the translations, the interpretations place the Trigrams centrally relevant to the Hexagrams.
Hexagram 15, though being no different in its rotational transform is no easier to start with than any other hexagram. "In the centre of the earth there is a mountain" "within the earth, mountain" yourself and Wilhelm. Earth, Mountain, two Trigrams, central to the concept of the Hexagram.
Forget all about trigrams for a moment and just look at hexagrams. Try turning each odd-numbered hexagram upside-down.

But why would turning them upside down be a rational or coherent thing to do. What sort of logic is there ot suggest that there is a progression of any sort by turning a Hexagram upside down. And even if there was it doesnt explain the next transform from the even numbered Hexagram to the next Hexagram.
I understand fully the ideas behind the pairs. But the ideas have no sense to them. They are certainly not a sequence. They do not allow for "change" beyond the "sequence". It starts with 1 and ends with 64 with no way of transforming back to 1 and so the sequence could continue.


Again, forget about trigrams, and have a look at the hexagrams.
But you have referenced the importance of Trigrams. The Hexagrams are, apparently, composed of two Trigrams.

I think you've been confused by concentrating on the beginning of the Sequence (and by the fixation with trigrams). The dominant component trigrams here at the beginning are heaven, earth and water, and all three have rotational symmetry. When you invert them, you still have the same trigram.
That means that when you invert hexagram 5 - the whole hexagram - to get hexagram 6, this action is equivalent to swapping the trigrams. Ditto for 7/8.
But you can see that this is not the principle at work overall by looking at 3/4 and 9/10 - and then at almost every hexagram after 15.
But what "principle" is it then. Is it a rotation, even thought there is no reasons or explanations why a 180 degree transform should be undertaken, or is it a swapping of Trigrams, which only works some of the time and again has no reason sor explanations to support such a "change" from one Hexagram to the next. It is only a "principle" if it is relevant in all cases.


It's not a Sequence that uses the principle of complementarity to create all its pairs. Instead, it shows a preference for inversion, and only uses complementarity when inversion is impossible.
Then it is not a sequence at all but an arbitrary method or ordering, based on who knows what rationality or logic.
It is only one possible sequence. We have the Hou Tian, the Xian Tian just for two known possible arrangements. At least the primal heaven sequence has a small degree of coherence about it, but as there is no rationality as to how one would get from the end of the sequence, back to the beginning, and maintin the cycles of change it rather shows that it was a key for memorisation puproses rather a sequence of change in its own right.

You think a sequence should be all the same, and all based on opposites. The original authors made different choices and created something more complex and less reducible. Don't you find that interesting?
Yes I find that most interesting. But given that it probably wasnt the original authors at all the thing that I find most interesting is why we consider a sequence which has no rationality about it, and is even a poor memory aid should be considered of relevance and value.
The reason that it may have been changed from the Primal Heaven sequence ot the Later Heaven sequence we now use in the book of the Yi is that the former was much easier to remember, that would have nmade it accessible to more people. The latter, being based on arbitrary rules, with no clear connection how one moves from one pair to the next would have then reserved the knowledge of the Yi to those that had positions that meant they had ways of writing things down.

I dont think the sequence should be based on "opposites" that would make a sequence impossible as one could never move beyond the opposite pair. But a sequence, in order to be a sequence and not just an arbitrary ordering, has to have consitent and rational "rules".
Not ones that work for some Hexagrams and then one has to use another rule beciasue the first one doesnt work, rules that explain how the move from one pair to the next happens and why.


I agree it can't be described by logic. That is, it cannot be reduced to a formula. You can't write a computer program that could perform calculations on Hexagram 1 and generate the Sequence of 64 - at least, it's never been done, and I doubt it could be.
As a computer program is a construction of the human brain and not the representation of fundamental underlying principles of nature or the ordinances of heaven, so not really connected with any "principles". But then if sequence then perhaps it could be worked out by a computer. One would have to know the rules of underlying principles to set the parameters of the program and it would have to be a sequence that was cyclical or it would have to run to infinity and as there are only 64 Hexagrams that would be tricky. Perhaps the reason no one has written an program is because none understand the underlying principles.
But goven that there are only 64 Hexagrams one wouldnt need a computer, one should be able to work it out. I did once but there was no connection with Trigrams at all. It was some 30 odd years ago and I dont recall how we did it, it did take a while, but the end result made rational coherent sense. But it didnt correspond with the order now in the books and wasnt particularly easy to remember. No key, no pairs, no nothing of any use in memorising the order, but a rather beautiful arrangement that flowed. Interestingly, while most of the Hexagrams made sense in terms of a progression, there were some that stood out like sore thumbs, perhaps those are the ones that the translations/interpretations are a bit iffy. Shame I never kept a copy. But it is possible, it is completely different to any cirrent arrangementor any key that might aid memorisation.


Maybe reducibility isn't the ultimate guide to the presence of meaning and value?
Perhaps not as an "ultimate" guide, one wouldnt expect there to be a single ultimate other that the reason for life itself, the Dao, et al, but in terms of underlying principles it is certainly a good place to check that rationality and coherence are present. It is not the only criteria of rationality and logic but it is one that is easy for us simple humans to grasp.

All the best

Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
[MENTION=921]Liselle[/MENTION] - an interesting question to play with, thank you!

Jukkodave - OK, I did my best; don't want to repeat myself.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Jukkodave - OK, I did my best; don't want to repeat myself.
Hi Hilary but you havent actually answered or addressed the specifics of the points that I have raised.

Why and how is is possible to "transform" a Hexagram into its "pair" by rotating through 180 degrees. Why is it possible to use a method of transform for some Hexagrams and then completely different methods for others. And, all the other points I have raised.

I dont think that discussion is about being expected to "believe" someones position, if there is no evidence, argument, or any logic of any sort to back it up. I would expect some sort of detailed response to the specifics of what I have raised.
I understand the "mechanics" of How Hexagrams are transformed. But there is no rational, coherent or logical reason for why they are transformed in that particular way, why rotation through 180 degrees, why swapping hexagrams, why changing lines. That is evidence that it has no consistency, just using various rules to suit. There is no coherence as to why one pair should follow on from the previous, and there is no coherence as to why a book of "change" should be set out in a manner that has a beginning and and end and only permits change within a particular frame, when life goes on, regardless of our individual "moments", and any "sequence that was rational and coherent would represent that, and it isnt even a sequence but a collection of seemingly random orderded pairs that bear little consistent connections with themselves or with any other pairs.

Seems like there is a Lot of just trying to ignore what I am raising, rather than address, answer and respond to the specific questions and points.

Seems like everyone is ducking out of the issues and the possible consequences if, heaven forbids, that I may perhaps be hitting a raw nerve, that most, if not all of the contributors to the Forum are understanding and using the Yi just as they would any other method of divination,and so, despite all the rhetoric and the academic scholarlyness there is little of anything but belief structures and little or no understanding of any fundamental underlying principles of nature or the ordinances of heaven, with the conclusion that it may possible be nothing more than a fabrication of our own personal illusion, which when we find someone that "agrees" sufficiently we consider it real and when someone comes along that doesnt "agree" and raise perfectly valid questions and points, either gets insulted or ignored, as one might be inclined to do if there was no knowing, understanding or knowledge of any fundamental underlying principles or ordinances of heaven.

Certainly looks that way to me.
The points, the questions, the contradictions, the descrepancies, the logic that I have presented are all valid. I would have thought if there was any understanding that there would be a welcomed and detailed discussion on those points, questions, discrepancies, contradictions, I would have expected, if anyone knew anything about any underlying principles, to have been met with coherent, rational and logical responses to the spcific details of what I have raised.

Perhaps the lack of response is the most illuminating of all.

All the best

Dave
 

hmesker

Senior member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
13
Trigram relationships are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs. You do not need ever to have heard of trigrams to understand the formation of hexagram pairs.
True. However (as an off-topic sidenote) you do remind me of Gert Gritter's article in which he suggests that trigrams do have their influence on the sequence of the hexagrams: https://www.yijing.nl/structures/Gritter.html

A similar pattern has been noted by Wu Deng 吳澄 (1249-1333) in which he called the 16 hexagrams that are made of the same trigrams and of opposing trigrams the jinggua 經卦, the 'warp hexagrams', while the remaining hexagrams are the weigua 緯卦, the 'weft hexagrams'. The warp hexagrams control the weft hexagrams according to Wu Deng. See Bent Nielsen, A Companion the Yijing Numerology and Cosmolgy, p. 132.

Trigrams are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs but they might be used for the sequence of the hexagrams.

End of off-topic sidenote.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,464
Reaction score
57
A similar pattern has been noted by Wu Deng �澄 (1249-1333) in which he called the 16 hexagrams that are made of the same trigrams and of opposing trigrams the jinggua 經�, the 'warp hexagrams', while the remaining hexagrams are the weigua 緯�, the 'weft hexagrams'. The warp hexagrams control the weft hexagrams according to Wu Deng. See Bent Nielsen, A Companion the Yijing Numerology and Cosmolgy, p. 132.
Same warp and weft as in 3's Image?

Here's a section of that book (Neilsen's) on Google Books.
 

hmesker

Senior member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
13
Same warp and weft as in 3's Image?
In my book there is strictly speaking no mention of 'warp & weft' although a related concept is mentioned. The text says 君子以經綸 - 'the Junzi uses 經綸'. Jing 經 does refer to the warp threads, but lun 綸 is most often a verb that means 'to put in order, to arrange (silk threads.)' As a complete phrase it means 'put the threads in order to make a rope' (整理絲縷、理出絲緒和編絲成繩,統稱經綸.) This in turn is an analogy for governing the state, to put all the affairs in good order.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Trigrams are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs but they might be used for the sequence of the hexagrams.
Are you referencing historical possibilities?
As we dont actually "know" which came first, Hexagrams, Trigrams or single lines. It does seem rather far fetched to say so adamantly that Trigrams are not involved in the creation of pairs. As plenty of Hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees, the transform of a Hexagram "pair" requires the manipulation of a "trigram", so it looks like even on a practical level that Trigrams are involved in the creation of Hexagram pairs.
It seems rather bizarre to suggest, as there is no validation or attempt to justify that statement, that Hexagrams, whether they are in pairs or not, are not possibly deriving from the creation of anything connected so fundamentaly with hexagrams as Trigrams.
Is seems rather contradictory to , on one hand rely on reference to the qualities of Trigrams in the interpretations and translations and then to say there is no connection in how Hexagram Pairs came about.

Of course if Trigrams, which are central to the Hexagrams themselves, have no place in the creation of pairs, then I think that would validate my point that what we use today is not a sequence based on anything fundamental, that it is a completely contrived sequence with no consistent rules, which to be a sequence rather than an order, would be required to be coherent, and so may be nothing more than either a memory aid, or even an adaptation designed to be more obscure than a Primal Heaven sequence, with its rather simple key, to keep the precious secrets of the Yi exclusive.

All the best, Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,062
Reaction score
82
True. However (as an off-topic sidenote) you do remind me of Gert Gritter's article in which he suggests that trigrams do have their influence on the sequence of the hexagrams: https://www.yijing.nl/structures/Gritter.html

A similar pattern has been noted by Wu Deng �澄 (1249-1333) in which he called the 16 hexagrams that are made of the same trigrams and of opposing trigrams the jinggua 經�, the 'warp hexagrams', while the remaining hexagrams are the weigua 緯�, the 'weft hexagrams'. The warp hexagrams control the weft hexagrams according to Wu Deng. See Bent Nielsen, A Companion the Yijing Numerology and Cosmolgy, p. 132.

Trigrams are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs but they might be used for the sequence of the hexagrams.

End of off-topic sidenote.
Indeed they are! Interesting things to look at include the sequence in which they're 'introduced', the first appearance of li, thunder/mountain in the 20s, the parallels between 30s and 40s, and also a bunch of lovely reflective 'decade' patterns.

I know this isn't particularly your thing, but would you like a copy of my 'Exploring the Sequence' book? It goes into all the patterns I could find (no doubt there are others).

It does seem rather far fetched to say so adamantly that Trigrams are not involved in the creation of pairs.
Not at all. This is something you can learn by looking at pairs.

I understand you don't want to take my word for it. That's reasonable. This is why I keep suggesting you look at what's there to find out for yourself.
As plenty of Hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees, the transform of a Hexagram "pair" requires the manipulation of a "trigram", so it looks like even on a practical level that Trigrams are involved in the creation of Hexagram pairs.
I expect what you mean is that some hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees to form a different hexagram. True.

Now, I won't tell you anything. Instead I will suggest you go and look through the Yijing to check your own statements.

As plenty of Hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees,
Which hexagrams are these, that don't form a different hexagram when rotated?

How are these 'non-rotating' hexagrams formed into pairs?

...the transform of a Hexagram "pair" requires the manipulation of a "trigram", so it looks like even on a practical level that Trigrams are involved in the creation of Hexagram pairs.
It would follow from this that some if not all of those non-rotating hexagrams you just identified are related to their pairs through the manipulation of trigrams. Can you find an example to demonstrate this?
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top