...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Hexagram 3 and the very beginning

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
You would recognise it; because it is coherent, because it is rational, because it stands out in contrast to any beliefs.
He still doesn't realize he is operating on a hypothesis of his own devising,
a construct of his own mind.

...And is evasive when asked about the specific readings he got about being here and persisting with his line of argument, even feeling insulted that another person could possibly comprehend a reading, and he may not have comprehended it...
How dare they!

Unfortunately, divination does take faculties that not all posses. You'll notice that there have been many artists and musicians on this forum over time, and not many red baseball cap wearing neanderthals. This should tell you something.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
57
So no I am not going to play your game, and if you had read what I havebeen saying you would realize the pointlessenes of that and realize what the suggestion of that means.
There is no game I'm suggesting, only that its seems we keep talking and often disagreeing about theory and method and words, so - as Hilary said - how about letting the oracle into the conversation?

It's a sort of 'rubber-hits-the-road' kind of suggestion. It gets us away from anyone needing proof, or needing to provide proof, or evidence, or anything really. It seems to me that it would be getting us back to the basics.

After all, didn't you say that part of why you're here is because of what the Yi recommended (at least that's what I remember hearing), so maybe doing a shared reading would prove to be just as constructive.


d.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
99
Unfortunately, divination does take faculties that not all posses. You'll notice that there have been many artists and musicians on this forum over time, and not many red baseball cap wearing neanderthals. This should tell you something.
Well no, there's nothing special about artists and musicians is there ? :confused: I don't think so I don't think they are sort of in a realm above any one else.

There's a heck of a lot of factors in who gets to be an artist and a musician hardly a level playing field is it ! If you want to get paid for it that is.


There was someone asking about which job to do in SR and it was telling no one said anything working class like 'yi says be a road sweeper' or 'Yi says be a hairdresser' it was all arty stuff :rolleyes:
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
57
You'll notice ... and not many red baseball cap wearing neanderthals. This should tell you something.
And just what do you have against red baseball caps or neanderthals? I had my DNA done by 23andMe and I happen to be very proud of my oh-so-slight amount of neanderthal. You're just being a damn Homo sapiens-ist is all!

And I can only imagine what you'd say about my Seahawks T-shirt!

(As an aside, when my results came back I had about .03 % that was labeled Siberian, Mongolia, and 'broadly Asian; I did some quick back of the napkin figuring and decided this mean that one of my great, great, great, something-or-others was Mongolian from around the time of their 13th century conquest of parts of Europe - a part of my ancestry of which I was extremely proud! But a few months later they revised the figures and it now says the .03 is 'broadly European' which is a huge letdown!)

d.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
99
Freedda
There is no game I'm suggesting, only that its seems we keep talking and often disagreeing about theory and method and words, so - as Hilary said - how about letting the oracle into the conversation?
Why do that ? Why play with Yi, it's just quite a sickening thing to do IMO

Yuk !

Talk about playing games that would certainly be playing games - sickening ones.


Why would anyone think that was a good idea ?
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Dave, can you give us an example of the kind of thing you mean by 'underlying principle'?

Things I can imagine different people might describe as an 'underlying principle of the Yi:
  • synchronicity
  • probability and randomness
  • yin and yang
  • truth
  • compassion
  • change
And I'm sure other members could come up with a dozen more.

What's your idea of an underlying principle?
Things that have commonality, things that unite differing practices.
Rationality and coherence, that absense of contradiction, inconsitencies and confusions.

So yes to Yin and Yang, which includes the principles of change, although change in itself is a fundamental, the "manifiestation" of change, because it varies so considerably, is not.
Truth if it is really true no matter what, but not if it is only true to some degree, if it an "aquired" truth.
Anything that is discovered to be true rather than created by humans, so not very much in that sense.

But no to the others.
Probability is a human mathematical contrivance, useful of course, but limited to a rather smaller range of possibilities than might be realised.
Randomness obviously yes but as there is no way to determone any qualities of randomness, obviously no.
Compassion, yes in the sense that it is a fundamental attribute of humanity, no, because humans have perverted compassion by conditioning to be an emotion rather than a fundamental human attribute. Yes because it demonstrates human attributes which are part of a fundamental framework of how the brain works in realtionship to Chinese Medicine, no, because we dont have enough of that framework to make to much sense of it yet. Though the Medical Classics do allude to such things.

Direct experience beyond that of any belief.

But as I have said the questions and points i have put would still be arrived at without any consideration of any underlying principles but because they are the questions resulting from a lack of logical, rational, coherence and because Science informs us as to how the human brain is capable of the possiblity of so much self deception and delusion.
So even if I couldnt demonstrate or even describe any underlying principles and they were confined to my direct experiences only, the presence of the Science, the presence of logic would still require the questions to be raised, the points to be presented and the possibilities be examined.
It would still remain for clear, rational and coherent answers to dispel the question, points and possibilities that science and logic raise and if they cannot be answered by anyone with experience and apparent expertise of the Yi then the only remaining possibility is what Science tells us is the most likely outcome; that it is the product of normal self deception and delusion. As that is a normal human trait and the Yi would still benefit the user, even if it was only because the belief gave them something, that would be no ciriticism, but it would mean that the trappings that surround the Yi, the theories, that academics, the translation, the interpretations, the teachings, the learnings and so on would not be built on anything other than beliefs. And as it is possible to believe anything at all there would be no point of reference or measure with which to evaluate anything connected to the Yi.
So I think rather than asking me for examples, the simple fact that no one seems to have any idea what they might be is the relevant part of this aprticular part of the discussions. The fact that no one has been able to even address the various points and possibilities I have raised, let alone in a rational or coherent manner, and all the contradictions and inconsistencies remain, is the most relevant matter.

I have tried to respond and address some of what I understand to be fundamental underlying principles. How about someone does the same and responds to the questions I have asked instead of trying to turn it around to being something about me all the time.
That really seems like evading the point(s).


Dave
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
Well no, there's nothing special about artists and musicians is there ? :confused: I don't think so I don't think they are sort of in a realm above any one else.

There's a heck of a lot of factors in who gets to be an artist and a musician hardly a level playing field is it !
Yes, I wholeheartedly stand by that statement.

First of all it requires literacy in a native language, ability to think in analogies, pattern recognition (between subject matter and the read text), a certain level of memory recall...etc...etc)

I said posses the faculties.
Example: Hilary posseses the faculties to play the cello. But she did not posses those faculties when she was six months old.

Trojina, surely you recognize that you are smarter than the average bear. (crab)? There has to be a developed light within the dome.

Nothing special about artists and musicians? Remember how Yi called all those musicians and acrobats that I talked about Dragons (the 1.7 reading)
That says something too.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
99
Sorry I have no more respect for artists and musicians than I have for any other member of the population. I mean that.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
57
Sorry I have no more respect for artists and musicians than I have for any other member of the population. I mean that.
But no less I hope? (as he strums his air guitar - Power Chord!)
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
He still doesn't realize he is operating on a hypothesis of his own devising,
a construct of his own mind.

...And is evasive when asked about the specific readings he got about being here and persisting with his line of argument, even feeling insulted that another person could possibly comprehend a reading, and he may not have comprehended it...
How dare they!

Unfortunately, divination does take faculties that not all posses. You'll notice that there have been many artists and musicians on this forum over time, and not many red baseball cap wearing neanderthals. This should tell you something.
But I am not presenting a "hypothesis", I am presenting questions, raising points and presenting possibilities. I am referring to what Scientific research has shown. Hardly the presentation of a hypothesis.

I am "evasive" about my readings, because if you had read my posts you would realise that unless there is a demonstration that someone would know anythng of fundamentals and there would be aggreement even on the interpretations of the Yi, and because Neuroscience tells us that we have a really hard time seeing anything other than what we want to see.
I trust my understandin of my readings, I dont trust anyone elses interpretations. Nothing to do with "how dare they".
But you would realise that if you had read my posts.

Artist and musicians, those prone to excesses of imagination. Neanderthals, wearing baseball caps or not, rooted in practicality. Yes that might tell someone something that wanted to judge someone else, but as someone rooted in practicality, as someone that wears a baseball cap, as a musician, as an artist, I dont find it tells me anything much at all.
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
Sorry I have no more respect for artists and musicians than I have for any other member of the population. I mean that.

Oh really?
I beg to differ:

But would they have sung if it wasn't you playing the cello ?
I don't know. I tend to think not.
:bounce:

Nice power cord Freedda, it rattled my windows.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
57
There was someone asking about which job to do in SR and it was telling no one said anything working class like 'yi says be a road sweeper' or 'Yi says be a hairdresser' it was all arty stuff :rolleyes:
If I had to do it over, I'd maybe be - and not in any order of preference a) tug boat crew, b) musician, c) soil scientist, or d) - from my childhood - a combination viking/mayan-warrior/space-explorer/dinosaour-scientist/soldier! And there would be at least one or two maidens being held by a) dragons or b) evil emperors whom I could rescue.

And all I got out of the lousy deal was being on this website (while at work, but don't tell)!

d.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
There is no game I'm suggesting, only that its seems we keep talking and often disagreeing about theory and method and words, so - as Hilary said - how about letting the oracle into the conversation?

It's a sort of 'rubber-hits-the-road' kind of suggestion. It gets us away from anyone needing proof, or needing to provide proof, or evidence, or anything really. It seems to me that it would be getting us back to the basics.

After all, didn't you say that part of why you're here is because of what the Yi recommended (at least that's what I remember hearing), so maybe doing a shared reading would prove to be just as constructive.
Because for the simple and obvious reason that if we have no agreement on what we think the Yi is, and about and for, the why's and what's, how would we ever agree on an "interpretation" of any reading.
I trust my readings, but I certainly dont trust anyone elses interpreation. How would anyone ever know the whole person sifficiently to know what was resonanting with that person. How would anyone know if there was some subconscious aspect that the Yi was revealing for the first time that would not be known to anyone but the person doing the reading.

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
99
That doesn't have much to do with it Moss Elk. :confused: ( I mean post 71)

I really really don't respect musicians and artists any more than I would anyone else. My message was just to Hilary re her performance.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
In the interests of clarification...

Is the existence of synchronicity an underlying principle of the Yijing? Or the fact that the Yi answers people? If not, why don’t these qualify?

In what way is qi 'rational'? Compared to, for instance, electricity - which can be measured, controlled and understood in terms of underlying physical laws - it seems more like an article of belief.

@Freedda - I completely agree that discussing a reading and the process of interpreting it would be far more constructive. If this ever happens, though, I suggest putting it in Shared Readings anyway, because it would be a reading and we would be sharing it. And I agree with your suggested questions - definitely not anything personal. If you think people interpret political readings in a way calculated to support their own biases, you should see what we can do with interpersonal ones...

Jukkodave, over to you. How about letting the oracle into the conversation?
Synchronicity yes but not just the appearance of it.
As I have repeatedly pointed out Nueropsychology tells us very clearly that we cannot trust ourselves, that we lie and deceive ourselves constantly. So while the Yi will always give an "answer" unless there is a "measure" or "framework" with which to evaluate any answer from the Yi, and we can be confident that the translations and interpretations we are using are accurate, the "answers " we get are open to interpretation fromanyone dofferent perspective.

But Qi is not anything like electricity. Qi exists, and always has existed, even if we didnt know it, or called by life force, or any other name. Electricity is a construction, though the basics of electricity, positive and negative, and the requirement to flow from one part ot another would make that part of Yin and Yang and not Qi anyway.
You cannot "control" elemental Qi, though you can contorl the manifestations of Qi that we gove specific Qi names, such as Wei Qi, Gu Gi and the like, but they are not elemental Qi, they are something rather less fundamental, rather mor along the line than underlying principles, though they might serve as a guide to what and where more fundamental principles are, simply because they are coherent and they work.
The Yi is involved in my conversation.

Has everyone forgotten this is not about m, this is about whether the Yi has anything fundamental about it or if it is just what Neuroosychology would suggest might possibly be self lying and deceit.

How about actually addressing the specific points and questons I have raised instead of making it about me personally.
Those questions and point underlie the discussions and if they are not addressed it wouldnt matter if I shared my understanding, my readings or not.

I have already made it clear that my understanding is limited, or I wouldnt be asking questions and raising possibilities and points, so what use would my sharing of my limited knowledge and understanding be to anyone. I acknowledge the neuropsychological possibility in myself that I may be self deceiving and take everypossible step to eliminate that possibility. I use what experience I have as a guide, I use the knowledge of rationality and coherence to guide me. I dont take anything on assumption, if I am not able to comprehend then I dont fill in any gaps.

It isnt about me, or what I know, I am not putting anything forward other than questions and observatons. How about addressing the detail of those questions and observations.

All the best

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
57
... how would we ever agree on an "interpretation" of any reading.
I trust my readings, but I certainly don't trust anyone else's interpretation.
Dave, as I said, we don't have to agree or disagree on anything. And we would not have to trust anything.

You would pose a question that we'd all agree on, and then you could do the reading with your two-deck method, and then each of us - if we want - would do our own interpretation - but there is no competition or any trust involved.

We'd simply see what we could learn from what others were saying and from how they did their interpretation. It could be that I'd end up thinking, 'gee Dave's really onto something here' - or whatever, but that wouldn't really matter since it would not be based on competing and or comparing.

And as I said, you could offer up the question and you could do the 'reading' with your decks. So, that's what I'm proposing.

D.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Behold, the root of this all.

Hilary, please close the thread?
I am sure you would like that Moss Elk. But where do you not get that this is a discussion about the Yi and not about shared readings and seeing as we dont probsbly agree even on what the translations mean it hardly seems likely that I am going to share my readings so that someone can come up with an intepretation of their own making.
I know what my readings mean to me. That is all that is relevant. I am not new to the Yi, and I dont need anyone judging my understanding of what they mean to me, which no one can understand anyway.

How about getting back to the point.
Is the sequence presented in the book a valid sequence so as to consider that Hexagrams which come at the "beginning " of a constructed sequence are actually representations of beginnings or possibly a misinterpretation based upon appearances only.
I have no idea, but the lack of coherence in the way the "pairs" are arranged, and all the other contradictions and discrepancies I have pointed out would suggest that it is just a sequence like any other that might be constructed and nothing special. Which would mean that the interpretations of the Hexagrams may be less than accurate and any "patterns" that we see may be imaginary.

What would you say if I tell you that I dont focus my questions specifically into words, for some questions anyway. How would you know what the question was. What would you say if I got Hexagram 32.2-62.

See what you can make of that.
That would be interesting.

Dave
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
"You would recognise it; because it is coherent, because it is rational, because it stands out in contrast to any beliefs, because it is seen to endure, because it resonates with other things that make sense, because there is direct experience of it. Because it "fits" with other things that work like Astrology and Chinese Medicine.

Qi, Complimentary opposites, call them Yin and Yang or anything else you want to. Those at least I can stated that I have direct experience.

They are pretty fundamental and basic."


So what - that doesn't mean anything at all. Good Bye.
If you dont consider those things mean anything then that does clarify things. But why bother posting if those things mean nothing to you.

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
99
Yi means something to me and why do you bother to post, you aren't making any progress just repeating yourself.

Also can you please learn how to quote as you have just quoted yourself under my name so it looks like I said your words.

I second Moss Elk's proposal to close the thread.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
No, try to be honest with yourself, you really cannot afford yourself the conceit that you are 'shaking up a few old beliefs'. This is a common enough conceit possibly because all it takes to support itself is the assertion of 'I am shaking up their beliefs so they are resisting me'. You want to be in that role of a belief shaker but the drawback is you don't know what your beliefs actually are so you have come royally unstuck.
Think you are missing the point, as I have no belief structures that I am not trying at least to pull down, I am addressing this just as much to myself as to anyone else. I have pointed out that I am aware, because I have gone through such shake ups myself, that they can be traumatic. It is obvious why that would be. So no cenceit because I take no higher ground in siggesting that I "know" anything more that any one else.
If no one comes up with any answers all that will mean is that what I though about the Yi must be completed fabricated in my imagiantin and that despite my best attempts to do otherwise that I have been self deceiving myslef for more thatn 30 years, along with everyone else. Because if there are NO underlying principles, then the whole thing about the Yi being special in any way at all evaporates. And if no one comes up with any rational, coherent explanations that dispel the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies then I shall likely be setting the Yi to one side and creating a methid of divination that will give me just as much access to whatever it is that I think the Yi does, except that there wont be any contradictions or discrepancies because I will know exactly what everything means.
That is going to be just as traumatic to me as it might be to anyone else, perhaps even more so because I will have recognised the reality that Neuropsychology says is the most likely possibility.

Except that I know there are fundamental underlying principles in life and all that will mean, if no one is capable of demonstrating even the vaguest underlying principles connected to the Yi, is that the Yi isnt one of those things that wasnt built on any fundamentals and that would explain why no one is able to even begin discussing any of the questions and points I have raised and why there are no clear correlations between the Yi and Chinese Medicine or other methids such as Astrology, which have at least received some scientific validation and are known to be pratical and work.

The only thing that anyone is proving by ignoring the questions and points I am raising is that most likely the Yi has nothing fundamntal about it, or there would be someone that would be able to at least point in the right direction and explain something in a rational and coherent manner that might explain or dispel some of the contradictions and discrepancies.

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Yi means something to me and why do you bother to post, you aren't making any progress just repeating yourself.

Also can you please learn how to quote as you have just quoted yourself under my name so it looks like I said your words.

I second Moss Elk's proposal to close the thread.
Waiting for the new site. Put my quote in explanations marks to tey to make it clear. Sorry for my formatting ignorance. Tired, with an injured brain that struggles with alnguage. I think I am doing remarkably well considering. So a little mistake here and there is hardly a major crime.

The thread is about the Hexagram 3 and the very beginning.
If the sequence is not correct and you dont want to consider that possibility, then that would mean just going along with an accepted assumption without question.
So it is all part of the thread, though it is others that seem to have dragged it off in various directions not focussed on the question of Hexagram 3 and beginnings.

So if we are proposing, how about not getting distracted by personal views or imaginatioins about whoand what I am and why I am posting.

Dave
 

svenrus

Senior member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
16
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
Hi, Just to notice that I've been wondering about that aspect too (without being able to figure it finally out): PDF
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,075
Reaction score
87
If I had to do it over, I'd maybe be - and not in any order of preference a) tug boat crew, b) musician, c) soil scientist, or d) - from my childhood - a combination viking/mayan-warrior/space-explorer/dinosaour-scientist/soldier! And there would be at least one or two maidens being held by a) dragons or b) evil emperors whom I could rescue.

And all I got out of the lousy deal was being on this website (while at work, but don't tell)!

d.
But I'm sure we have some dragons round here for you somewhere.

At 4, I was quite convinced I would be an opera singer, but by 8, I was going to run away and live in the jungle. Grand opera or jungle? Or I could just start a forum and get both.

It isnt about me, or what I know, I am not putting anything forward other than questions and observatons. How about addressing the detail of those questions and observations.

All the best

Dave
I'd be happy to, if I could get any clarity on what you're asking. I appreciate that in your most recent replies you've made some effort to point to what you're looking for, but it's still not remotely clear what could correspond to those things in the world of the Yi.

Perhaps Yi just doesn’t have anything you would recognise as an underlying principle, or perhaps my mind just doesn't work that way. I'm interested in how Yi helps people; that’s how it reveals its true nature every day.

Hilary, please close the thread?
I don't think I need to do that, but I do need to stop posting here. (I'm planning on taking a holiday in a couple of weeks' time, and before then I have to complete forum migration, technical set-up for the Foundations Class, lesson planning and extra content for said class, and also queue up some emails and blog posts. :eek:) If anything catches fire, let me know and I'll come back with the extinguisher.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Originally Posted by jukkodave It isnt about me, or what I know, I am not putting anything forward other than questions and observatons. How about addressing the detail of those questions and observations.

I'd be happy to, if I could get any clarity on what you're asking. I appreciate that in your most recent replies you've made some effort to point to what you're looking for, but it's still not remotely clear what could correspond to those things in the world of the Yi.
I thought that I had been clear, but in order to provide the clarity I will take it back to the logical basics. As there seems to be much confusion for most that might be a good idea anyway.

The puzzle then is if anyone is not getting any clarity from my posts how are they able to post anything in response and know that it is particulary connected or relevant to what I have posted.

Having quite a lot on at the moment and want ing make sure that I get it right I wont rush it.
But the essence is really rather simple.
If there are fundamental underlying principles for the Yi then that sets the measures and framework for how, why and what the Yi is.
If there are no underlying principles, then anything that we care to believe is possible and that sets the Yi as no differerent to any other form of human created divination, and includes what Neuropsychology tells us how the human brain works, which is mostly that we "create" our own picture of the world based on self deception, and the world we think is real is nothing other than the most fantastic and complicated illusion. Noyhing wrong with that, the lack of conscious awareness and the world of the subconscious , is a central part of being an adult human.
But if we are considering the Yi as anything other than just an elaborate illusion then the knowing, the understanding and knowedge of underlying principles becomes imperative.
Otherwise all the academic, scholastic, translations, interpretations, the purpose of Trigrams and everything else about the Yi would be revealed as just something that could have been made up by someone and becomes irrelevant. There would be nothing to teach and nothing to learn other than a randome set of beliefs, originated by someone thousands of years ago and added to as we have gone along. The fact that one can make up a form of divination, without any concepts of any underlying principles, and it works just as well as the Yi does for day to day questions, reveals, that unless the Yi has something more than just a set of divinatory tools, that it would help us no more than a made up method of our own devising, with the adavantage in that there would be no doubt what the one devised by ourselves meant.

It comes down to that basic question. Is the Yi something that has a reality to it, that links it to common principles, energies, wahtever one cares to call them, or is it a manufactured entity of the human mind that wouldnt matter if it was manufactured 5000 years ago or yesterday.

The use of such tools as logical, rational and coherent examination are ways of revealing if there are any common aspects at play, if there might be fundamentalsm underlying principles or ordinances.
If there exist the presence of contradictions and discrepancies, if there has to be cherry picking to pick the parts we like and agree with and ignoring the parts that we dont, they all suggest that either there are no underlying factors present in the Yi or we dont know them. Which amount to the same thing and limits our use of the Yi to that of just any other method of divination, whether that has existed for thousand of years or just days, we would only be able to get out of the method whatever it is that any form of divination allows us to access. Without the presence of something that is "beyond" us as individuals, which would then be a fundamental underlying factor, then all we are doing is accessing a part of ourselves, whether that is the subconscious or something else, it is still constrained to just us, and unless we have the potential to access any underlying qualities in oursleves then we are only going to get, in any response from any divination, what we already know, even if we dont know it consciously. And if that is the sole domain of the Yi then the access to things that are usually hidden from us would be a fantastic tool and set all forms of divination as rather precious. But it wouldnt be anything to do with the Yi specifically and it wouldnt matter if the translations or the interpretations were correct, it wouldnt matter if there were Trigrams or anything else, because there would be no foundations to the Yi, there would be nothing fundamental, it wouldnt have been constructed on any underlying principles of commonality. That would make all the teaching and learnings, the rights and the wrongs, pretty much everything that seems to be presented as part of the Yi, as being reevealed as the imaginations of the human mind, and no different to anything ekse that might give us access to the parts of ourselves that we dont know how to access.

There is one ohter important consideration. Without the measures and frameworks of fundamentals we have no way of knowing if the interpretation of the reading we get is accurate or if we have distorted it in our minds just to make it seem as though it fits.
That is certainly a distinct possibility from the perspective of what Neurology and Pyschology knows about how the brain works. It is a distinct possibility, as some rudimentary tests done nearly 40 years ago, by the people that I knew then that used the Yi extensively, revealed. Amongst other things we were puzzled as to how one person could get a reading and someone else would get an identical reading and still have a different understanding, we were puzzled as to how it seemed that we could ask the same question, get the same answer and yet still manage to consider it meant something fundamentally different, we were puzzled as to why there were some that used the Yi for almost all of their lives and their lives were a complete mess, just to give a few of the observations that were considered. So we did a little test. We got a load of questions, randomised the possibilites of the Yi, and the outcome was that it was completley possible to take any random question, match it to any random answer, and still make sense of the reading the majority of the time. When it was difficult to match random questions to random answers, which wasnt that often, we knew that it was because the answer was perhaps to "specific ", you cant beat a method of divination that can be interpreted in many ways to get an "answer" that fits.
For myself, having witnessed the Yi's potential to transform lives in a very profound way, Irealised that there must be fundamentals contained in the Yi, which the clarity of understanding how and why to ask questions and a better understanding of what the Yi was trying to say, beyond its cryptic messages, might possibly reveal. I realised that because the method that one uses to cast affected the range of Hexagrams available, that it was important to use methododology that contained no possibility of any artificial skewing.
As part of my journey I learnt Chinese Medicine to add to the knoweldge base, which included Maths and Physics, Neurology and Psychology, lots of beyond the physical realms, what we might terms Metaphysics, lots of direct personal experiences of the fundamentals of life, including those of Qi and Yin and Yang, including brain damage which, because of how the brain compensates when it is damaged in some way. allows one to get to see the way the various parts of the brain function independently from each other and then as they begin to come slowly back "online" again, how they function together. Which is revealing and illuminating in ways that I cant even begin to explain, but oh so relevant to what might be considered the fundamentals, the underlying principles and to how the brain self deceives itself so much of the time.


Perhaps Yi just doesn’t have anything you would recognise as an underlying principle, or perhaps my mind just doesn't work that way. I'm interested in how Yi helps people; that’s how it reveals its true nature every day.
But the Yi does have underlying principles, what would anyone be teaching if they werent findamental. If it doesnt then it is no different from any other method of accessing whatever other forms of divination access and non of the translations matter if they are correct or not, there is nothing to teach, because it would all be arbitrary.

Without knowing if the Yi is helping people in a fundamental way or only appearing to help poeple because that is what they want to believe how would one know if it help at all.
Would it be consiered to be "helpful" to maintain someones delusion or would it be helpful to help someone know the inner realities for themselves.
What is the saying about giving a man a fish and you feed him for a day but teach a man how to fish and he is fed for life.



I do need to stop posting here. (I'm planning on taking a holiday in a couple of weeks' time, and before then I have to complete forum migration, technical set-up for the Foundations Class, lesson planning and extra content for said class, and also queue up some emails and blog posts. :eek:)
I will send you a comprehensive explanation so that there can be no lack of clarity on yours, or anyones part. The I will look forward to your postings on the matter.

All the best

Dave
 

tacrab

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
96
Reaction score
1
It sounds like you are asking the questions that philosophers have always asked about the meaning of life, perception of universe and self, subjectivity of understanding, nature of belief, origins of the universe, what is thinking, what is emotion, perception, and so on.
Much about these questions can never be fully answered, so then, the question becomes, how to make peace with knowing that there are no clear answers, and how to live with ambiguity.
By the way, you may find Eric Kandel's writings of interest (medicine, history of medicine, perception, brain, etc).
Barbara
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
It sounds like you are asking the questions that philosophers have always asked about the meaning of life, perception of universe and self, subjectivity of understanding, nature of belief, origins of the universe, what is thinking, what is emotion, perception, and so on.
Much about these questions can never be fully answered, so then, the question becomes, how to make peace with knowing that there are no clear answers, and how to live with ambiguity.
By the way, you may find Eric Kandel's writings of interest (medicine, history of medicine, perception, brain, etc).
Barbara
But if they cant then they have no place in anything to do with the Yi and we should remove all references to such things.
Goodbye to "heaven", "water" great man", goodbye to anything that falls into the realm of of all the things you so eruditely detail above.
If they cannot be deomnstrated to have validity then the other possibility that the whole thing is just a construct of human imagination and is nothing other than an illusion would be all that remains.

That wouldnt be the Yi as we know it and so unless we can explain, justify and validate such things, we shouldnt be referring to them in any way at all. Wouldnt be much left of any readings mind. The Yo contains many reference to things that are the realm of what you detail above, why is it then that we seem to ahve no idea what they mean and rely on those very things to make sense of the Yi.

Dave
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
I am sure you would like that Moss Elk. But where do you not get that this is a discussion about the Yi
What I would really like is to be able to help you, that is the honest truth,
but you'll have to drop the obstinance you protect yourself with.

As I have been saying for a while now,
this is not about Yi. This is about jukkodave.
And all the people here see this.
Except for jukkodave.

It is about your hangups:
You do not trust Yi.
You do not trust translators.
You do not trust yourself.
The rest of us do not share your delimna,
are not inhibited as you are.

You will never convince us to share your fear based limited viewpoint, that is exacerbated by your dyselxia and the polysemous nature of the ancient chinese that is the source of most translators mix ups. (which adds to your personal confusion) So, in your incomprehension of the text, you look for meaning in the structure that may not be there. The rest of us use multiple translations, look at the original chinese, and can point out errors in different translations.
Most importantly, the rest us identify the things in our real lives that Yi refers to, thereby gaining comprehension and understanding.You have not done this. What you did was see differring translations and decided: well, they do not all agree, so it is illogical, irrational.
 

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