...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Hexagram 3 and the very beginning

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Dave,

You have said that you don't trust anyone else's interpretation of the Yi, only your own. Okay, I get that (which you said in answer to my suggestion that we share our interpretations, based on a reading that you would select).

You have said that you don't trust what others are saying about the Yi, at least without evidence and proof. Okay, I get that as well.

You have repeatedly asked for this proof and you want people to explain how what they believe ties to the the underlying fundamentals of the Yi. Okay, again, I understand that.

But it seems that after posting hundreds of times, that no one has provided you with the answers to your questions; and I believe that there could be any number of reasons for that:

  • that someone may have the answer but doesn't feel like sharing (and there is nothing in the forum rules that would require that we do so), or ...

  • that we don't have the answers, and we're not willing to discuss this - possibly out of the fear that what you are saying is rattling our beliefs, or ....

  • we cant' answer you because we don't understand what you're asking, or ...

  • we can't answer you, because the Yi is just 'a random set of beliefs, originated by someone thousands of years ago', and we don't have anything to add that would change that, or ...

  • possibly dozens of other reasons as well ...

So, it seems you have really gotten an answer - even if it's a non-answer, and you have told us that you now have a clear direction to go in; as you have said:

... '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 method 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.

So, why, a rational person might ask, are you still here - continuing to ask more questions - when you obviously have a much bigger and more important task to achieve, which is to create a new divination method based on the underlying principles you've been talking about?

D.
 

jukkodave

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


So, why, a rational person might ask, are you still here - continuing to ask more questions - when you obviously have a much bigger and more important task to achieve, which is to create a new divination method based on the underlying principles you've been talking about?

D.
Because firstly the Yi has advised me to continue.
I dont have a bigger task, I know that the Yi is based on fundamentals, I just dont know enough to make enough sense of it properly.
Why would I want to create a divination method that has no underlying principles or ordinances of heaven as its base, when there is very good, but not yet properly understood method, called the Yi.

All of which I have detailed in my posts.

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Because firstly the Yi has advised me to continue.
Dave, there is the common saying that the definition of madness is doing something over and other, and then expecting (or hoping for, or asking for) a different result - which seems exactly what's happening here. So, are you mad? :cool: Or to put it more colloquially, what makes you think you can get blood from a turnip, even if you ask the turnip a hundred times to do so?

I dont have a bigger task, I know that the Yi is based on fundamentals, I just don't know enough to make enough sense of it properly.
But it was your words I was quoting, that since you weren't getting the answers here, that you'd need to create a new system - based on the underlying principles. I didn't suggest that or make it up, though I do think that would be a 'big task' to undertake - unless, as an alternative, you simply want to stay here and continue to not get the answers you seek .... that's your choice of course.

Why would I want to create a divination method that has no underlying principles or ordinances of heaven as its base, when there is very good, but not yet properly understood method, called the Yi.
I never suggested that your new method would not have these underlying principles. Not sure where you got that. But it seems to be true that you're not getting any further understanding about these principles here - especially, as you have said, that many of us here might only be 'paying a token gesture' to the Yi, so ....

... again, we are all free to ask or answer as we feel is right or what fits our understanding and skill - or to not answer at all if that's what we want to do ... but you seem to be getting way more of the latter (no answers and non-answers) than the former.

D.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,475
Reaction score
60
But I tell you what, I suggest we take this in a different direction .....

What if you pick a question to ask the Yi, and then you do the query with your two-card method, and then you and I and whomever else wants to can offer their 'readings' of what they understand the Yi to be telling us.
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?
I wonder if we already have a good reading to discuss? I started a thread about it.
https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?28172-quot-Letting-the-oracle-into-the-conversation-quot-11uc


(Um...I put it in Shared Readings since that's what Hilary said. But no sooner did I post it than I'm not sure. It is indeed a reading, but it was Hilary's, and she's not the one "sharing" it. The discussion thread for the blog article it's from was posted in Exploring Divination. So - help, please - where should this go?)
 
Last edited:

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
I wonder if we already have a good reading to discuss? I started a thread about it ....
Thanks Liselle. My idea is for Jukkodave to select the question and for him to do the 'coin toss' using his two-card-deck method - which were two main points of my proposal. And then whoever wanted would contribute their 'reading' of what was presented.

The idea being that we can learn from how each of us reads or interprets, and as Hilary said, we can let the Yi participate. But Jukkodave said he doesn't want to do this, which is fine, so sort of a moot point now.


Best, d.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,475
Reaction score
60
Oh dear. Okay. [MENTION=1138]rosada[/MENTION], will you please delete it, then? [Edited later - Rosada, people have posted in it, so I suppose it should stay for now, as long as we don't have flashover...] This thread:
https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?28172-quot-Letting-the-oracle-into-the-conversation-quot-11uc

I don't want it to re-start any arguments, heaven forbid, if things have blessedly quieted down.


(I don't see an option for deleting it myself, or I would have.)
 
Last edited:

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Oh dear. Okay. [MENTION=1138]rosada[/MENTION], will you please delete it, then? This thread:
https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?28172-quot-Letting-the-oracle-into-the-conversation-quot-11uc
I don't want it to re-start any arguments, heaven forbid, if things have blessedly quieted down. (I don't see an option for deleting it myself, or I would have.)
Oh, I think it's okay what you posted, as we all have the option in how or if we want to respond - but do what feels right - and it doesn't at all mess with what I was thinking of.

As to deleting, if you go to 'Edit Post,' you should have the option to delete, but there's a box you have to check to do it.

Best, D.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,475
Reaction score
60
As to deleting, if you go to 'Edit Post,' you should have the option to delete, but there's a box you have to check to do it.
I know what you're talking about, but I don't think it's there. I even used ctrl-f to let the computer search the page for "delete" instead of my unobservant eyeballs, but there are zero matches. And there's no delete option in Thread Tools or Administrative Tools. Maybe it's only in Reading Circle?
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
I know what you're talking about, but I don't think it's there. And there's no delete option in Thread Tools or Administrative Tools. Maybe it's only in Reading Circle?
I just looked in Edit Post for a post I did here and one I did in Reading Circle, and found the delete option in both. It is towards the top of the screen, not down near the actual post to be edited. But it could be that it shows up differently in different browsers? But as I said, I don't see any reason to worry that much, only that it's not getting to what my idea was about. Different is all.

D.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,475
Reaction score
60
I just looked in Edit Post for a post I did here and one I did in Reading Circle, and found the delete option in both. It is towards the top of the screen, not down near the actual post to be edited.
Yes, I can picture what you're saying, but it's not there. I checked to make sure I spelled "delete" correctly in the ctrl-f search box, and I did...thanks anyway for trying.


But it could be that it shows up differently in different browsers?
Maybe. If it's some browser setting or another, I can't even guess what that might be. Or maybe it's vBulletin bug no. 83647, which will be sent unceremoniously to the grave very soon now...
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,475
Reaction score
60
Well anyway, Moss has posted in it, and I answered him, so Rosada probably won't delete it now. As long as it doesn't start WWIII back up again...
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Dave, there is the common saying that the definition of madness is doing something over and other, and then expecting (or hoping for, or asking for) a different result - which seems exactly what's happening here. So, are you mad? :cool: Or to put it more colloquially, what makes you think you can get blood from a turnip, even if you ask the turnip a hundred times to do so?
Please dont think of yourself as a turnip, sorry I couldnt resist a joke.
I thinkk the anser that I gave that this is what the Yi advised me to do. I have no idea where this is going or what the result might be. I think that perhaps I habve realised that what I was hoping for, insigt into the fundamantals that might underly the Yis is not going to happen from those that have been posting to date, that doesnt mean that soemone wont come along at some point and go, think I can assist there. Perhaps the reason is that there is something that I need to understand, perhpas the Yi is connected to everyone and everything and someething will resonate with someone, and that needs to happen for some reason. All I know is that I am following the Yi's advice.
I dont think it is about arguing and convinving anyone, I learnt a long, long time ago that in general you cant convince anyone of anything unless they already want to know it.
I am approaching it in the same spirit that might happen in the scientific world, put forward an idea and see what comes back. The surprise was that I ddint expect such vociferous and anagonistic responses from so many. Knowing about what psychology tells us about the reasons why we, as humas react to things it does make me wonder if the questions, points and ideas I am putting forward are hittin some nerves. Perhaps not, perhaps there are other perfectly good reasons why so many are reacting so stronlgy to what I am posting.



But it was your words I was quoting, that since you weren't getting the answers here, that you'd need to create a new system - based on the underlying principles. I didn't suggest that or make it up, though I do think that would be a 'big task' to undertake - unless, as an alternative, you simply want to stay here and continue to not get the answers you seek .... that's your choice of course.
Not needed; I said that it was a possibility, but also that I had no need to as the Yi, despite its lack of clarity and confusions was still a very good tool, and much less effort anyway than having to create something from scratch.
I dont know what answers the Yi is advising that I might be getting. Perhaps it isnt about specific answers, perhaps that is only the format for what might be happening in some other consideration.
Perhaps it is about my having to learn skills of assertiveness without getting into arguments, perhaps it is about my having to learn how to let go and not respond to everything, perhaps it is about my having to learn to be persistent. Perhaps it is about semething else. Perhaps there is a person about to join the discussion that will know exactly what I am taking about and that will lead somewhere. At this point all I know is that the Yi has advised me to continue as I am. So I am sure that no one will have any problems with that.

I never suggested that your new method would not have these underlying principles. Not sure where you got that. But it seems to be true that you're not getting any further understanding about these principles here - especially, as you have said, that many of us here might only be 'paying a token gesture' to the Yi, so ....
Context really is important. Any reference to token geatures ahs to be taken in the context it was meant. The differentiation between using and understanding the Yi as a book of fundamentals or using it as a book of divination, just as one might any method of divination.
The context being that if one is using the Yi as a means of divination then the translations, the history,n the interpretations, which only become relevant if the Yi is something special that has been preserved for thousands of years, if it has a message of fundamental proncoples, even if they are well hidden, but if we dont actually know them, in some way or another, and are therefore using the Yi in that context, that the references to translations and intepretations are difficult to see as anything but a token gesture to the Yi of underlying principles.
The two are fundamentally different, the world of the Yi with underlying principles and all the academic, historical and scholarly situdies that go along with it is certainly far more interesting and appealing than using the Yi as a book of divination, because then we have to acknowledge that it is not special, that it doesnt matter how we intepret it, it may be accurate, we may be tapping into something in us that knows a lot more than we think, or we may just be believing that is the case, but it would nt be anything to do with anything fundamental, and so, because if it is not special and fundamental it could have just been all made up and would be just like something that we made up yesterday and no history matters, no translations matter, no interpretations matter.
That is a much better context than taking it out of context, even if the context was given a thousand words previously that is still the context and I have been very carefull not to say that the book of divination si rubbish and the book of wisdom is the only way to use the Yi. It isnt. However it benefits the recopient then it has value to that individual. The problems begin that, without the use and consideration of the fundamental underlying principles and the ordinances of heaven, which is as tedious for me to wrote as it probably is to read, because it is used as a book of divination and not as a book of fundamentals that there are no commaonalities that tie things together and one persons interpretation is then only valid for that person, which makes it impossible to "share" readings in any commonality other than what we believe to be the case.

I think that is just the presentation of logic and science. No discrimination or judgement just logic.
But as that possibility isnt banned on the Forum and discussing readings and their meaning is possible then the consideration of if it is even possible, or to what degree it is possible, what any limitations might be in relying in the interpretations of other s for what may only be possible for us to comprehend, must be considered of relevance.
Unless perhaps everyone only want to go along with the way things are, not ask any questions that might be a bit difficult, certainly not ones that might question the whole perspective of the Yi and how it is used. But as it isnt declared as a cult I dont think that can be the case.

... again, we are all free to ask or answer as we feel is right or what fits our understanding and skill - or to not answer at all if that's what we want to do ... but you seem to be getting way more of the latter (no answers and non-answers) than the former.
No answers, non answers, they are all revealing of something, slince tells as much as response, the type of response tells as much as the content. I am learning about people all the time, Learning baout myslef all the time, regardless of whether people answer or not or dont know how to answer or what.

All the best

Dave
 

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
Hi jukkodave,

Which came first, the beautiful, harmonious melodies of music or the tablature for it?

~ The music, of course.
~ And, sound is the original image of music.
~ Tablature, then, is an interpretive map that can be used to reliably reproduce the music as sound in time.​

Similarly;

What came first, change or the language of change?

~ Change, of course.
~ And, hexagrams are the original image of change.
~ The Yi, then, is an interpretive map that can be used to reliably reproduce change as the movement of hexagram lines in time.​

So, do you need Tablature in order to play the beautiful, harmonious melodies that we call music?

No. But, it helps?​

Do you need the Yi in order to read the signs and omens of what we call change?

No. But it helps?​

The proof is in the pudding:

When you hear the notes, then you recognize the song, and you enjoy its unfoldment...

...and when you divine the lines, then you recognize the change, and you profit from the forecast.​

That's what happens, imho, here at Clarity every single day. Patterns of Change are recognized and correlated with the time-tested guidance of the Yi in order to help people 'see through' their real world problems ~ creatively and productively solving them to a surprisingly high degree?

The coherence comes from the correlation between the question, the toss, the read, and the real world results...

...just as musical delight comes from the correlation between the mood, the instrument, the song and the audience.

The fundamentals, the principles, of 'how' the Yi (or the tablature) are put together have long been overshadowed by the significance of thousands of years of people saying that it works...

...beginning with the Zhou, who validated their mandate ~ and bet their Empire ~ on its prognostications.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Jukkodave, I am going to bow out of these discussions with you. I still have very little understanding of the points you are trying to make, and the fact that you have repeated yourself hundreds of times - and that you always need to have the final word - only lessens my understanding and my desire to interact.

And it still feels that what you are doing here is arguing, not having a discussion, and regardless of what you want to call it, I am no longer interested in it, nor do I really think its going to do any good. There really is no point at all in me continuing. D.
 

jukkodave

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

Which came first, the beautiful, harmonious melodies of music or the tablature for it?
~ The music, of course.
~ And, sound is the original image of music.
~ Tablature, then, is an interpretive map that can be used to reliably reproduce the music as sound in time.​


Hi radiofreewill,

Neither, melodies and tablature are the result of the fundamental impulse in humans to express. Humans "construct" the artificail divisions of notes, there is nothing to say that the divisions have to be made in that particular way. There are many methods of tablature so there is no "the" tablature and one tablature for one instrument doesnt work well for another.

Similarly;

What came first, change or the language of change?
~ Change, of course.
~ And, hexagrams are the original image of change.
~ The Yi, then, is an interpretive map that can be used to reliably reproduce change as the movement of hexagram lines in time.​



I obviously agree. Change is one of the fundamental underlying principles. There would be no life without it. But change is only one part of it, Without knowing "what" is changing, "how" it is changing and "why " it is changing we only observe that change is occuring.
If for example, it is Yang changing, but substitute whatever you wish that also changes, we need to know if it becomeing more or less Yang, the extent of its Yangness to begin with, its relationship to its complementary pair, what is the causative factor, is it internal or external, and so on. We can see the change, but without the rest of the knowledge change in itself is a small part of the necessaru picture of understanding.

So, do you need Tablature in order to play the beautiful, harmonious melodies that we call music?
No. But, it helps?​




It only helps for organised music. Music originated without any written down references, and in many parts of the world still does.
At a time when I could barely play the guitar, a few chords at most I learnt to play the guitar using open tunings, where one person, in their open tuning would start to play, the rest would listen, tune their instrument to resonante with the first, and jam merrily and very beautifully for hours. Nothing written down, not even tuned to the same key, no consistent or set melody, harmony or rhythmn but very beatiful music because it came from a basic place.

Do you need the Yi in order to read the signs and omens of what we call change?
No. But it helps?​



I think if it really was "no" then there wouldnt be a Yi, or Astrology or the Tarot, or any of the myriad other ways of accesing whatever these methods access.
But "signs" and "omens" are not definitive and can be taken by different people in different ways, however that person wishes to believe, in alignment with whatever they do believe.
The apparent manifestation of change is only part of change. Given that it is now known some of the qualities of the Quantum world, it is known, for instance, that change is not fixed, importantly it is influenced by our involvement, and what we observe as change, in the Newtonian sense is not the change of the underlying world of Quantum or even particle physics.

The proof is in the pudding:
When you hear the notes, then you recognize the song, and you enjoy its unfoldment...
...and when you divine the lines, then you recognize the change, and you profit from the forecast.​



Music is a highly personal interpretation and the music that one find resonates with them is raucous to someone elses ears. Lots of people find Jazz dischordant and grates on them, some like Shoenberg, others cant stand it, some find the roamantic classists boring.
When you cast the lines, as the questin of if you are "divining" and in what sense divining is meant, depends on all sorts of factors, not least the methodology that is used, if the methodology is skewed the one most likely isnt divining at all, further if there is contradiction or desrepancy in the presentation then there may not even be much way of "knowing" what the divination is saying.
The question of if one "profits " is really a question of whether one really is or if one believes on is. Bith are entirely possible. This is just a question of science, which knows that we can "believe" almost anything we care to so that it will appear to make sense to us.

That's what happens, imho, here at Clarity every single day. Patterns of Change are recognized and correlated with the time-tested guidance of the Yi in order to help people 'see through' their real world problems ~ creatively and productively solving them to a surprisingly high degree?
As you will see I have raised questions about many of the so called "patterns". Are they valid or are they not. Unless we "know" they are we cannot be confident that we are not just believing in a particular system they might have nothing to substantiate it, or it might, but until we know and understand that and so can explain the patterns in logical, rational and coherent ways so that at least we can agree that a particular pattern is the right one to use rather than another pattern on the same point.
The question of "high degree" again can only be ascertained if one knows that one is dealing not with illusions and beliefs.
The surprise to those that know the Neuropsychology, is how adept the brain is at believing what ever it wants to believe in, the ability to see patterns in almost anything, only of we know and understand if the patterns we see and use, if the changes we see and use are based on something that is real and can be demonstrated in some rational and coherent way that they are real and consistent, so can be referenced as underlying principles, can we begin to have confidence that our interpretations are not the result of believe, illusion and self creation alone.
The structures of belief provide an important access to ourselves, but it is obvious when one knows what the processes of the human brain are in the actions of belief and self delusion, that they are personal to us alone, there is no commonality beyond what we believe is common.
A very valuable and powerful to indeed and still highly recommended but not the picture of patterns and reality that perhaps gets attached to it.
The apparent "reality" of belief is substantailly different from the reality of the findamental underlying principle of nature and the ordinances of heaven. In the simplest terms one is personal the other is universal and while what is universal is relevant to the personal individual, the personal is not relevant to the universal.

The coherence comes from the correlation between the question, the toss, the read, and the real world results...
The coherence, which has to be taken with its pair of rationality, is most certainly not about the pattern of matching the question to the answer. The methodology is open to so many manipulations and influences that coherence easily disappears and the real world result can only be evaluated when we know and understand whether they are part of the manifiestation of underlying principles or the manifestation of our beliefs, or the access to our subconscious and so the manifestation of what we "knew" already, albeit not in a conscious way, and so would be expected to match the "real" world. If one of course consider the external world to be real in the "real" sense.

The fundamentals, the principles, of 'how' the Yi (or the tablature) are put together have long been overshadowed by the significance of thousands of years of people saying that it works...
It has to be the other way around or there would be no way of knowing if what people have been saying for thousands of years was the basis of underlying principles or the basis of belief structures.

For many years, perhaps thousands and many more thousands, it was believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, because that is the way that the change "appeareed" to happen. It all made perfect sense to the observer, how else could it be. We are the centre of our "universe" and everything revolves around us. Neuropsychology recognises that the manifestation of that is that we have to alter the very way that we see the world, everything in it has to be adapred to fit our picture that maintains our centrality. But there is another part of us that is able to see differently and beyond the psychological constructs that we create that keeps os central in our personal world, where we can believe whatever we wish to beleive. whther that is about the Yi or anything else, we all have "opinions" on just about anything and everything, but seeing as we couldnt possibly know about everything the logic alone tells us that we must be deciving ourselves. Neuropsychology has shown this to be the case. The world we create around us, the world of our beliefs is personal to us and not the only way to see the world. Even when we come together in agreement, we have no way of knowing if we are sharing a "belief structure" or it is in some way more real. In the external world we have science to minimise beliefs in the internal world we have fundamental underlying principles. Even if we dont know and understand the sciences, I know very little about Chemistry, but there are those that do, and even the ignorant in that area can point to sources that can explain and demonstrate the reality that the science reveals, well more real than the appearances are. In the internal world we have many books, the Dao de Jung, Buddha, and so on to point us in the direction of underlying, underlying principles, then we have such things as Astrology, Chinese Medicine, Tarot, all of which reference fundamentals. If they are "fundamental underlying principles" they resonate and one can see the coherence and ratonality that ties them all together in commonality. It is difficult to see the same resonance, rationality and coherence in the Yi. The "patterns" are contradictory and discrepant, there appears to be no rational and coherent way to explain how , why and what the Yi is or might be. That doesnt diminish its value for the individual of course but it changes what the Yi is presented as and directs the intretations and the understandings to the individual and not to the universal.
The consequences are that if there are no rattional and coherence explanations possible, if there is no way to describe and demonstrate the existence of underlying principles within the Yi, remebering that regardless of if we can find then in the Yi they exist in the universe anyway, then what the history, what the translations, what the intepreations, what the teachings and learning mean, is just a figment of our belief structures.
I agree that the "appearance" of real world results to a surprisingly high degree is a powerful argument. Astrology and the Tarot would make similar powerful claims of course.
But that could be down to access to our subconscious, it could be something else, it may not be anything inherent in the Yi that makes it special. It may not be because there are any findamentals at work. It may be just because the power of belief is so powerful. The only "measure" that we have are those that are beyond our belief framework, the ones that are universal, that have commonality. If we know and understand them then we would be able to describe and demonstrate in a rational and coherent manner and be able to resolve the contradictions and discrepancies that are so obvious.


...beginning with the Zhou, who validated their mandate ~ and bet their Empire ~ on its prognostications.
The tools of divination in themselves do not validate the existence of fundamentals or underlying principles. As humans we have a connection with parts of the universal, we can predict the future, thogh most of that is more to do with common sense and sound logic.
In the UK there was situation many years ago where house prices had risen in such a way that the only logical, common sense conclusion was that the market had to crash to a point where it could function again. Those of us that "predicted" that might have been seen as prognosticators of great skill, but it was just common sense and logic.
Having specific tools dedicated to the art of war on which to bet ones empire is hardly the same as tools dedicated to individual self understanding and furtherance.

As we really have no idea if what has survived is a coherent represenation of a single method of the times, there may have been hundreds, all dedicted to particular things, all slightly or hugely differernt, all may have been based on the "principles" of the complementary pair that we now refer to as Yin and Yang, but that may have been the only similarity.
All we know is that we have one method available to us today, we call it the Yi. It s what we know and understand of it now that is relevant, not what we believe someone might have thought about it thousands of years ago.
Does it not seem rather bizarre that in any other field we tend to overturn the knowledge and understanding of what was known in acient times, but for some reason we do the opposite with ancient Chinese texts and elevate them to standings that we know nothing and the ancient ones knew everything. That hardly sems likely. Though the original originator, the ones that discovered the principles of Yin and Yang, of Chinese Medicine, of the power of divination, must have known and understood explicitly from their own direct experience what those principles were. Why should we not aspire to know and understand the very same things that they did.

We have a huge adavantage that was not avilable previously, we can easily share information, so that we can readinly see if it rational, coherent and logical, we can see if the patterns make sense, we can see if there are discrepancies and contradictions pointing out that the system is most likely flawed, we can compare the history to what we know and understnd now to see if the history is coorect, we can examine other possibilities that might explain some of the things we believe in to see if they are correct or not, we have access to the many books that those that have gone before us have left to guide us, the Dao, Buddha, the many spritual teachers all saying the same thing, the many descriptions of fundamental underlying principles that resonate from such sources as Chines Medicine, Astrology, the Tarot, we can use our knowledge of science to reveal the functions of the brain so as to eliminate possibilities of self deception, we can use science methodologies to document and ensure that we are not self deceiving.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Jukkodave, I am going to bow out of these discussions with you. I still have very little understanding of the points you are trying to make, and the fact that you have repeated yourself hundreds of times - and that you always need to have the final word - only lessens my understanding and my desire to interact.

And it still feels that what you are doing here is arguing, not having a discussion, and regardless of what you want to call it, I am no longer interested in it, nor do I really think its going to do any good. There really is no point at all in me continuing. D.
Hi David

Fair enough.
Someone always has to have the final word.
Cant quite see how that or repeitition would "lessen" any understanding. But if that is how you feel.

I really am not arguing. Discussions can be very intense, confronting, and people can be very adamant, the are all part of such things as Oxford University debates and the discussion in the world of Physics. Things get very heated indeed. But there is a requirement that any argument are sunstantiated by at least a logical,rational and coherent argument. The need for me to repeat myself repeatedly as you put it, is because I am not getting logical, rational and coherent responses. The contradictions and discrepancies remain unaddressed, the specific points I am raising remain unaddressed. That is of course everyone right but then why would anyone bother to post at all.

You at least have tried to engage in discussion and I will take my share of any responsibility in acknowledging that the length of my posts may not make then easy to read. But the fact that we are discussing inter realted and connected factors, that we are discussing those qualities that permeate the very fabric of existence,( in respect to you I managed to avoid the term you so dislike), all make it very dofficult to be concise. Even such books as the Dao, which could have ended with the Dao cannot be named, was felt to need more elaboration. I am not suggesting I am doing a similar thing only referencing that even somehing as fudamnetal as the Dao was felt to require lots of verses, how much more so is it going to be when we are referring to many iterations later of that essence.

I have learned things from our communications, so even if they are not directly connected with the subjects of any threads thank you for your input to date.

All the best

Dave
 

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
Thank-you, jukkodave,

While I type-up a reply ~ which may take a bit ~ let me leave with you this example of a man at-play with his principles, as you say:

"Soothsayer" ~ Buckethead​

Also, a question: Are you possibly being anachronistic in your approach to the Yi?

Check-out this summary of the differences between the Western and Eastern worldviews:


Because, your puzzlements might not actually be a case of the Yi 'lacking' the principles that you say it *must* have in order to be coherent...

...but rather your doubts might be a result of your insistence that the Yi be the product of an intelligent design outside the realm of our felt-sense experience?

I could be wrong, but I think you're going to have a hard time finding Two Worlds in a book built on One?

I'll be back ~ all best!
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Thank-you, jukkodave,

While I type-up a reply ~ which may take a bit ~ let me leave with you this example of a man at-play with his principles, as you say:
"Soothsayer" ~ Buckethead

Also, a question: Are you possibly being anachronistic in your approach to the Yi?

Check-out this summary of the differences between the Western and Eastern worldviews:

Because, your puzzlements might not actually be a case of the Yi 'lacking' the principles that you say it *must* have in order to be coherent...

...but rather your doubts might be a result of your insistence that the Yi be the product of an intelligent design outside the realm of our felt-sense experience?

I could be wrong, but I think you're going to have a hard time finding Two Worlds in a book built on One?

I'll be back ~ all best!
Just a quick respone to a couple of points;

If you mean anachronistic in that I dont necessarily believe in what the interpretations of history are, then possibly yes, but as I dont align myself with any particular period of time, fundamentals dont change in tier essence over time or they wouldnt be fundamentals and "underlying"

As regards two worlds vs this world. I dont ascribe to any "theories", being thoeries that are only someones beliefs.
I dont concur with the assumptions and concepts that the author presents in that link. Making statements that the "classical" chinese view is a particular way, as thouhg there ever was a single Chines viewpoint on such things, the Han would not have tried to unify the various thinkings of the time if there was a classical view.

My "puzzlements" as you put them are not really puzzlements at all. It is the contradictioins presented by the lack of logical, rational and coherence inthe current "presentation" of the Yi that are the sources of confusion. If they made sense then there would be no puzzlement. I am no puzzled by the findamental underlying principles only that the Yi odesnt amke sense of them.

Of course a book is never going to be a representation of the "one". But if that is what I was referring to I wouldnt be considering the purpose of the Yi at all. The Dao refers to the Dao, then the 1 , then the 2, then the 3 and then the ten thousand or myriad things. The one you are referring to is the Dao an not the 1 that the Dao refers to.
Perhaps there are other fundamental underlying principles within the myriad ten thousand things, but the knowing and understanding the 1,2 and 3 would be a good place to start. The refers to "heaven", that is pretty fundamental.
The myriad ten thousand things may or may not have patterns in them but they will be apparent if one holds them up against the measures of the 1, 2 and 3.
If the Yi has fundamentals then it will resonate with the 1,2 and 3. That may be the case with the uses of 8 bbut it does not explain the uses of 5, which started of as 4 anyway with something different at the centre. So one could see the rationality and coherence of how one iterates from 2 to 4 and then the nexte oteration form 4 to 8, but the Yi does not resonate with any rational or coherent iteration that migh run 2,4, 8.
One could then see how there is an iteration from 8 to 64, thought the pattern of iteration is not visible in the Yi, if it is an iteration it must be in there somewhere. It makes sense that the two lines are representations of the 2, but it makes no sense how the rest of the Yi was derived from those representations of "2".
So I am not looking for the one in the Yi, either in terms of the Dao as the fundamental one, or even the 1 that the Dao refers to as coming from the Dao. As you say a book that might describe that is most unlikely, but 2 and 3 and what immediately derives and iterates from the 2 and 3. 8, 12, 22, 64, 81, whatever the number on the tenthousand nyriad things if the resonance is there , if the rational and coherence logic can show how the derivation and iterations makes sense, if there are therefore no contradictions and discrepancies then those things would all be fundamental or very clear demonstrations of fundamentals. It may be difficult for most to directly experience the more basic fundamentals, the 1,2 and 3 may be a mystery to us all our lives, but the coherent, rational and logical presentation and demonstration of those fundamentals in whatever form that is will certainly help and remove the contradictions and discrepancies that cloud and hide our perception of the more fundamental factors.

All the best

Dave
 

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
If you're really serious and sincere about this, jukkodave ~ and I believe you are ~ and you don't mind investing in learning a type of modelling called "Classical Chinese Combinatorics" ~ then here is an elegant and flawless derivation of the King Wen Sequence:

Classical Chinese Combinatorics by Richard S. Cook

All the rationality and coherence that you suspect is in there ~ really is in there ~ just not the way that you are currently thinking about it?

But, but, but, I'm warning you *upfront* that going through this book is not easy reading ~ it intends to be rigorously correct with an economy of verbiage ~ but it resolutely delivers the goods for those who persevere? Just be sure to eat your Wheaties before you tackle this one?

I hope this helps! :)
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
Radiofreewill, is Richard Smith's book accessible to a non-mathematician? (I've been wondering for years whether I should bite the bullet and read it.)

Jukkodave, please check your private messages.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi radiofreewill
Thanks for the suggestion, I know the book but havent read it for a while so will have to dig it out of the archive.

I dont remember anything that struck me as significant from reading it previously apart from the fact that there are inherent problems with the applications of combinatorics. But it was few years ago so might be worth another read.

One could, for example, lay out the numbers 1 to 100 and find an enormous number of "patterns " that might seem suggestive of something. But the construction of the number line is exactly that, a construction. There is nothing natural about the division into regular parts, dont see much of that in nature at all, it just serves to be able to classify into discrete parts so as to be able to manipulate the world around us. Because numbers, as we know and use them are a construct of human intlligence and dont actually appear in nature, Combinatorics is rather limited. Although it may have uses in areas of Computers and other such human contrived modalities, I dont recall comming across it in Physics at all, just in Pure Maths and my Professor at Uni had no time for it at all and called it false Mathematics, just playing with numbers.

It is well known in mathematics that if one lays out a sequence of almost any arrangement that one can "find " patterns. Even a simple random 3 numbers can generate a rational sequence, it is one test in those prganisations that try to work out if you have a high IQ, like Mensa, how many rational patterns can you find from a particular 3 number selection. Many so called aptitude tests fail because the setter failed to realise there were othere patterns that they hadnt seen.

Similar to a lot of Statistics. Being derived from the probabilities of the odds of one or the other, it has become so much more than that, but although intersting in a theoretical sense very little can be applied to the real world. Slightly off track but just ot demostrate how onece goes beyonf the factoe of 2 the Maths cant keep up with reality and has to "fudge" it, though often very succesfully.
The laws of gravitation are well known and am aorbit around a star can be predicted with incredible accuracy, but throw a 3rd factor in to the mix and there are no solutions, it known as the 3 body problem, it has to be basically ignored and worked around as though there are only sets of independent 2 body solutions. fine when ot is relatively stable like the solar sytem but in more dynamic situations, statistics is only really inspred guesswork and the best one can do is give a range of probablities.

Combinatorics, Statistics, both trying to find patterns that dont really exists apart from a theoretical perspective.

But I will try to find the book to see if there is anything of interest, that I missed.

I doubt it for all the reasons given above. There would have to be something other than an apparent patterns which could have arisen because there was already a pattern in the King Wen sequence to start with.
Not dismissing Combinatorics completely, it has derived some rather interesting things, but it really is more of a pure mathematics field and not applied Mathematics and trying to fit it into something that has real world application as the Yi may be stretching the bounds just a little to far. Very difficult not to be cherry picking patterns that "fit" when there are so many possibilities available.
Have you come across Gert Gritter or the Drasny's Yi Globe to mention a couple of the more coherent ones as ways of analysing the sequences. There are plenty more. The fact there are plenty of variations on possible sequences reveals that it may be just the mathematics of probabliities that gives all those patterns to be possible. But withoout some srt of measure to know if they are based on some kind of reality from within the Yi itsef perhaps, then it is hard to know what might be considered relevant.
Should we take the Gritter or the Drasny verson to be accurate, can they be used in a real sense.

Thanks again for the reminder of Cooks book.

All the best

Dave
 

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
Hi hilary,

Cook's book "Classical Chinese Combinatorics" is not so much a mathematical challenge, as it is a very detailed study in the logic of combining n-grams (digrams, trigrams, tetragrams and hexagrams) together according to their own inherent qualities ~ such as gender, purity and invertibility ~ to produce the King Wen Sequence.

It's all very technical and tedious in its exhaustive review of n-gram dynamics, and truthfully it needs a commentary in order to be readable by a non-logician...but, imho, it is a masterpiece as brilliant as the Yi, itself?

All that being said, I think there are only a handful of people in the world with the time and motivation needed to go through the book from cover to cover?

Basically, my impression of the author's work is that the Yi is the product of one person's mind ~ trigrams, hexagrams and lines. That person had mathematical knowledge that enabled him to build a machine ~ an analog computer ~ using the qualities of n-grams as his components...

...and only *after* the machine was logically assembled...

...were the hexagrams then distributed over the top of the design...

...in the Only way possible for them to fit...

...and still reflect the underlying dynamics?

The designer of the Yi used the Fibonacci Sequence (0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13...) to model an ideal population growth rate equal to the Golden Section, or Phi, which is an irrational number (0.6180339...) If you take the 384 lines of the Yi, then Phi ~ the Golden Arrow ~ is found between the upper and lower trigrams of Hexagram 40:

40.3 = 237/384 = 0.6171875
Phi = 0.6180339
40.4 = 238/384 = 0.6197916

And, just to be certain that nobody would miss the designer's mathematical chops, he stuck another Golden Arrow in the 4th line of Hexagram 21 to show that he 'knew' Pi, also ~ which, at that time, he took to be 384/124 = 3.0967741.

I would describe the overall design as a Mobius Strip of Yin/Yang unfolding in dynamic balance ~ originating from and returning to ~ an irrational (indescribable) source (at Phi).

The 'goal' of the machine's design appears (to me) to equate "flowing with Tao" ~ following the sequence step-by-step ~ with maximum efficiency and longevity...

...while deviations from Tao ~ high and low ~ result in lesser fortunes?

The designer's use of gender is brilliant:

Gender based on minority line-type reveals three genders in the Yi ~ male, female and neuter. Neuter hexagrams have 3 lines yang and 3 lines yin. So, he mapped the Tao, using the Fibonacci Sequence, as the straight and level path through the Neuter gender hexagrams, and then he used the male (Sun) and female (Moon) hexagrams to show deviations from Phi, high and low?

I have only been through the book one time, casually, so far, and the impressions I'm relaying above are really only my best intuition about the work, at this point?

It would be great, imho, if more people would wade into Cook's work and help re-render it into terms more digestible by the average Yi user?

So, long story short ~ you don't have to be a mathematician to read "Classical Chinese Combinatorics" but you do have to be good with logic and highly concentrated in your study in order to encompass Cook's magnum opus?

I hope this helps?

All Best
 

jukkodave

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

Cook's book "Classical Chinese Combinatorics" is not so much a mathematical challenge, as it is a very detailed study in the logic of combining n-grams (digrams, trigrams, tetragrams and hexagrams) together according to their own inherent qualities ~ such as gender, purity and invertibility ~ to produce the King Wen Sequence.

It's all very technical and tedious in its exhaustive review of n-gram dynamics, and truthfully it needs a commentary in order to be readable by a non-logician...but, imho, it is a masterpiece as brilliant as the Yi, itself?

All that being said, I think there are only a handful of people in the world with the time and motivation needed to go through the book from cover to cover?

Basically, my impression of the author's work is that the Yi is the product of one person's mind ~ trigrams, hexagrams and lines. That person had mathematical knowledge that enabled him to build a machine ~ an analog computer ~ using the qualities of n-grams as his components...

...and only *after* the machine was logically assembled...

...were the hexagrams then distributed over the top of the design...

...in the Only way possible for them to fit...

...and still reflect the underlying dynamics?

The designer of the Yi used the Fibonacci Sequence (0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13...) to model an ideal population growth rate equal to the Golden Section, or Phi, which is an irrational number (0.6180339...) If you take the 384 lines of the Yi, then Phi ~ the Golden Arrow ~ is found between the upper and lower trigrams of Hexagram 40:

40.3 = 237/384 = 0.6171875
Phi = 0.6180339
40.4 = 238/384 = 0.6197916

And, just to be certain that nobody would miss the designer's mathematical chops, he stuck another Golden Arrow in the 4th line of Hexagram 21 to show that he 'knew' Pi, also ~ which, at that time, he took to be 384/124 = 3.0967741.

I would describe the overall design as a Mobius Strip of Yin/Yang unfolding in dynamic balance ~ originating from and returning to ~ an irrational (indescribable) source (at Phi).

The 'goal' of the machine's design appears (to me) to equate "flowing with Tao" ~ following the sequence step-by-step ~ with maximum efficiency and longevity...

...while deviations from Tao ~ high and low ~ result in lesser fortunes?

The designer's use of gender is brilliant:

Gender based on minority line-type reveals three genders in the Yi ~ male, female and neuter. Neuter hexagrams have 3 lines yang and 3 lines yin. So, he mapped the Tao, using the Fibonacci Sequence, as the straight and level path through the Neuter gender hexagrams, and then he used the male (Sun) and female (Moon) hexagrams to show deviations from Phi, high and low?

I have only been through the book one time, casually, so far, and the impressions I'm relaying above are really only my best intuition about the work, at this point?

It would be great, imho, if more people would wade into Cook's work and help re-render it into terms more digestible by the average Yi user?

So, long story short ~ you don't have to be a mathematician to read "Classical Chinese Combinatorics" but you do have to be good with logic and highly concentrated in your study in order to encompass Cook's magnum opus?

I hope this helps?

All Best

Hi radiofreewill

Just a couple of quick points before I sign off for a couple of weeks well earned r and r.

I havent been able to find my copy of the book , I may have possibly donated it when I had a clear out a few years ago.

Remember that he has only used one of the many possible combinations of patterns available from the Wen sequence, without reference to the others that not only diminish the work but reveals that he may be unaware or ignoring the fact that patterns appear wherever we care to look, are generated constantly by any sequence or system, that the "application" makes it a real world example, that multiple possible combinations and patterns do not a theory make unless there is some rational and coherent argument to support one pattern over another.

Your reference to Phi as being found "between" two Hexagrams of no more note than any others doesnt have much to validate it. One could pick all sorts of possibilities to generate something of "significance". How about dividing 64 by Pi, would you then be saying that Hexagrams 20 and 21 are significant. And so on.

The references to "gender" are just the derivations of what occurs as the patterns resulting from the original pattern. Only if there was the rational, coherent explanations of why they exist like that in the first place as representations of underlying principles would the "resultant" patterns be of any sgnificance.
As I pointed out one can lay out the numbers 1- 100 and "find all sorts of patterns, but non if them are significant in themsleves beyond the fact that we use a base 10. Most of the "uses" on the internet, of Phi as an indicator of pattern, are similarly only pertinent if one uses Base 10, disappear when one uses a different base and it becomes quickly apparent that the an alternative base generates as many "patterns" as occur in Base 10. We are seeing the "patterns" set up by the original constructed human parameters. Nothing in the patterns themselves other than the patterns of numbers, no underlying principles, no real application. I didnt go into alot of detail to explain why my Professor thought that such brancles of Mathematics was just playing with numbers and there are of course applications, in the fields where it relates to things "constructed" by human intelligence, but as a representation of anything fundamantal there is no real connections.

It demonstrates just how suseptible we are as human being of reading something from nothing.


All the best


Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
As a Mathematician I can see that you are mixing your mathematical concepts and picking bits of theory.
Juckodave in the preceding post highlighted some of the limitations present in Classical Chinese Combinatorics.
Although he is completely wrong that it is false Mathematics, he is partly right that without an appropriate application, such as binary computational theory, it can be grossly misused to represent patterns that only exist as an extension of the first principles set out in the initial parameters.

He is correct in applications to real events that if a pattern is indicative of some integral principium then there will not be other combinations that exhibit as possibilities.

Good to know that there are others interested in what I always though was a fringe aspect of the I Ching and searching for more than a superficial use of our fantastic gift.

T
Hi tinitonibear
Glad to know that someone at least doesnt take umbrage with what I am saying and agrees with me in some degree. Though I think if I had clarified myself in more detail you might have agreed with me to a greater extent.

Could I just oint out that it is Jukko and not Jucko, though it doesnt really matter to me, there are some that seem particular about such things.

Could I ask what you mean by mathematician. I would want to be pitching any responses to you either to high or insultingly low.

I dodnt go into any detail to explain "false" mathematics, I thought the references to "patterns" in the numer line form 1 -100 and rhe reference to Mensa would suffice. But you do validate what I meant by referring to Computational Theory.

Could I ask what you mean by "integral principium". That does sound very similar to what I have been trying to get across about fundamental underlying principles. It is not a term that I am familiar with in the terms of mathematics, is it mathematically related, or just a way of description of something else.

I see that this is your first post. Have you seen the thread on the prabablities of getting unchanging vs changing lines. Perhaps as a mathematician you will be able to shed some light on that subject.
I am confident that I am correct but there seems to be a different form of statistics in oters view.
Perhaps I am being to literal and missing the point, it would be interesting to get another mathematically qualified opinion. I am aware of the inherent problems in evaluating the initial parameters in any probabalistic determination, but as the logical appraoch also converges with the mathematical one you input would be welcomed.

I appreciate that if I am correct in some of the things I have raised that there are enormous ramifications for how, why and what the Yi is and used for. You may not wish to get embroiled in such matters. But if you do your mathematical input alone would be welcome.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

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

Thank for the information.
As my degrees were in Maths and Physics I think we will have similar frame of reference, though I will obviousl defer to your greate knoweldge in the specifics of Computational maths, and you will know just how heated "discussions" in the world of Theoretical Physics can get, that they are always attempted at least to be substatntiate by references and logical ratonal though.

First principles: An obvious term, I dont know why I didnt think of that as a way of decribing fundamental underlying principles.
I think my other posts, apologies for the repetitions and the length, may explain why the ramifications may be significant. It comes down to the dofferentiation between the Yi having and manifesting fundamental underlying principles, those that can be derived from first principles, or the Yi not having and fundamental underlying principles and being the product of human creation.
Do you know anything about the human condition os self deception. I would suggest Cordelia Fines; A mind of its own, how your brain distorts and decieves, as a good, erudite and well referenced, book on the subject.
The brains tendency to self decieve, the lack of rational coherent argument, the possibility of other alternatives that history suggests are more likely than the ones currently use, the existence of contradictions and descrepancies, which as a scientist you will know impact on the viability of any theory, tha lack of anyone in the Foru being able to explain how the Yi is used in context of underlying principles, though I do acknowledge that those that do know have perhaps not yet read the threads, and my own direct experience of underlying principles, as well as the obvious scientific conclusions of what we know about Physics having fundamentals which drive theories, even if the concept of fundamntal is somewhat differeent in science than in the Yi, all poin to the possibility that the way the Yi is understood, interpreted and used is not connected with any fundamentals and may just be the work of the human mind.
There is nothing wrong with that of cous=rse and that doesnt detract fom the use the Yi has in individual lives, but if no one has any knowledge or understanding of that and is using the Yi in that way of what I call divination rather than wisdom, though I recognise that is a really bad and clumsy differentiation, then, the references to history, to translations and interpretations and much of the rest that accompanies the world of the Yi would have little relevance.
No wish to repeat myself and get banned for doing that. It is all in my posts.
If you havent come across the Neuropsychology that Cordelia Fine references it amy come as a bit of a shock. I certainly did for me. But for myself my confidence in the underlying principles got me thorugh that and perhaps if I had used the Yi at that time the process wouldnt have been traumatic at all.
But it all, I think bears a rather large significance on what the Yi is and how we can comprehend what any individual says on the Yi as a single statement will mean something completely different if they are coming from a point of fundamentals than if they are coming from a point of the Yi being a human construct and belief.

All the best

Dave
 

svenrus

Senior member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
16
...............................
I think my other posts, apologies for the repetitions and the length, may explain why the ramifications may be significant.......................................................................

Dave

ANSWER.jpg
 

Attachments

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
Thank-you jukkodave and tinitonibear,

I are a systems engineer, myself, with some geek love for the Maths, to.

There are two aspects of this thread's exploration of divination that are of particular interest to me ~ and those are the 'physics' and the metaphysics of the Yi ~ to which I hope you guys will give some additional consideration during your breaks?

On the physics:​

I put up Dr. Cook's book as an elegant and flawless derivation of the KWS ~ here's the abstract ~ and now my hope is that both of you will see enough of interest in there to purchase the book ~ and give it your thorough critical reviews?

And, and, and, if you both agree, can we invoke the balanced criticism rule: it is not enough to criticize alone ~ you must concurrently propose a better alternative? Ex: "I don't like Cook's use of Disjunctive Invertibility classification, because that's just his idea of a pattern, and it's only one of many? I'd rather see some clearly defined first principles at work here...such as x, y, and z?"

In my experience, that's the best way to keep the discussion moving forward ~ with everyone either contributing, or following along ~ towards a solution, or an impasse...like a Socratic dialogue?

On the metaphysics:​

We might very well be saying the same thing, but let's clarify?

The Yi, and Chinese Cosmology, as I understand it are traditionally considered Ab Initio ("organized along first principles") ~ whereas, the Western tradition is Ex Nihlio ("something out of nothing")?

Here's Jonathan Star's translation of Tao Te Ching verse 42:

Tao gives life to the one
The one gives life to the two
The two give life to the three
The three give life to ten thousand things

All beings support yin and embrace yang
and the interplay of these two forces
fills the universe​
Yet only at the still-point,
between the breathing in and the breathing out,
can one capture these two in perfect harmony​

People suffer at the thought of being
without parents, without food, or without worth​
Yet this is the very way that
kings and lords once described themselves​

Who knows what fate may bring -
one day your loss may be your fortune
one day your fortune may be your loss​

The age-old lesson that others teach, I also teach -
"As you plant, so you reap"
"As you live, so you die"​
Know this to be the foundation of my teachings​

What, may I ask, is your position on ab initio versus ex nihlio?

I don't know if you guys have the time and/or energy to put towards this inquiry, or not? However, I do feel the ingredients for some potent conclusions are on the table here, and I hope you ~ and interested others ~ will take up the challenge of understanding just what, or who, this Oracle really is?

I send a deep bow of gratitude and respect for your knowledge and efforts,

All Best
 

svenrus

Senior member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
16
But to turn back to the subject. Here is my take on the underlying principle:
"..... In this way the holy sages purified their hearts, withdrew, and hid themselves in the secret. They concerned themselves with good fortune and misfortune in common with other men. They were divine, hence they knew the future; they were wise, hence they stored up the past. Who is it that can do all this ? Only the reason and clear-mindedness of the ancients, their knowledge and wisdom, their unremitting divine power." 1)
And: to have faith in that IS the underlying principle concerning the I - as I see it.

1) Wilhelm/Baynes. Ta Chuan. ch. XI excerpt from § 2 p. 316 in the 1968 ed.
 
Last edited:

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