PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Because firstly the Yi has advised me to continue.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?
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? 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?Because firstly the Yi has advised me to continue.
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.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.
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 ....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.
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 wonder if we already have a good reading to discuss? I started a thread about it.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?
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.I wonder if we already have a good reading to discuss? I started a thread about it ....
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.Oh dear. Okay. [MENTION=1138]rosada[/MENTION], will you please delete it, then? This thread:
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.)
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?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 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.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?
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.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.
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...But it could be that it shows up differently in different browsers?
Please dont think of yourself as a turnip, sorry I couldnt resist a joke.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? 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?
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.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.
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.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 ....
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.... 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.
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.
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.
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.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, 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 coherence comes from the correlation between the question, the toss, the read, and the real world results...
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.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...
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....beginning with the Zhou, who validated their mandate ~ and bet their Empire ~ on its prognostications.
Hi DavidJukkodave, 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.
Just a quick respone to a couple of points;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!
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?
Hi tinitonibearAs 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.
...............................I think my other posts, apologies for the repetitions and the length, may explain why the ramifications may be significant.......................................................................
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).