Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
I didn't say it made little or no sense - on the contrary. Only that it can be bewildering.Hi Hilary
I agree that it is bewildering. But my question would be if the "sequence" makes little or no sense why do we "use " it to determine pairs and relationships.
The Sequence isn't based on swapping trigrams. (It does make a lot of patterns and arcs with trigrams, though.)If the Trigrams are just a memory aid, very possible, considering the lack of those that could read and write thousands of years ago, any sequence based on swapping Trigrams would just be an aide be memoire as well, so no real sequence at all.
I didn't say it made little or no sense - on the contrary. Only that it can be bewildering.
The Sequence isn't based on swapping trigrams. (It does make a lot of patterns and arcs with trigrams, though.)
One is an intrinsic quality of the Sequence; the other is a quality of our (lack of) understanding.Puzzled, I am, as to what the intrinsic difference between being "bewildered " and something making "little or no sense" might be.
Where do you get the idea that the Yi has anything to do with 5 Elements?...When it is apparently based on cyclical processes of 5E and Trigrams.
Much if the "sequence is clearly based on "swapping " Trigrams. 3 to 4, 5 to 6, and most of the 64 are " paired" in reversing the Trigrams, rather than swapping the lines as in 1 to 2, 27 to 28... which cannot be Trigram reversed, and so the lines, rather thatn the Trigrams, are swapped.
Pairs do help as a mnemonic - you have 32 items to remember instead of 64 - but they are also units of meaning. Also, the two principles used to generate pairs, inversion and complementarity, are also used to generate some bigger patterns in the Sequence.Arbirtrary rules, which wouldnt exist in a sequence that was rational and coherent, but would be a brilliant way to remember 64 Hexagrams.
Well done. Just in time for the migration to the new forum .I think I have just got the "quote" thing. Sorry it took so long.
One is an intrinsic quality of the Sequence; the other is a quality of our (lack of) understanding.
.
Where do you get the idea that the Yi has anything to do with 5 Elements?
.
I'm guessing that dyslexia makes it tricky for you to see hexagram patterns at a glance. It might help to draw hexagram 3, take a piece of paper and cover over one trigram to see what the other is. Then do the same for hexagram 4. You'll find that 3's lower trigram is different from 4's upper trigram.
.
(In fact, the hexagram created by swapping 3's trigrams is 40, and you can swap the trigrams of Hexagram 27 to get Hexagram 62.)
.
The Sequence is arranged in hexagram pairs, each odd-numbered hexagram paired with the even-numbered one that follows. 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 etc.
.
The main principle used to generate pairs is inversion: turning the hexagram upside-down. Again, this may be hard to see, but if you draw hexagram 3 on paper and then rotate the paper 180 degrees, you'll find you are looking at Hexagram 4.
The same is true for 5/6, 7/8, 9/10... all the hexagrams, except where turning the odd-numbered one upside-down would give the same hexagram. Then, as you say, the lines are all changed. There are 4 of these exceptional pairs, that punctuate the sequence at beginning, middle and (almost) end.
.
Pairs do help as a mnemonic - you have 32 items to remember instead of 64 - but they are also units of meaning. Also, the two principles used to generate pairs, inversion and complementarity, are also used to generate some bigger patterns in the Sequence.
.
You are standing outside looking in not seeing anything that's actually there because you haven't looked as Hilary has.
So you really aren't in any position to argue unless you actually have bothered to look for yourself at how the text itself reflects the sequence or looked to see the wonderful patterns within the sequence.
These patterns and symmetries can only arise because the sequence is as it is. But unless you look at it, which you clearly haven't, then you will not be able to appreciate that.
Obviously I havent looked in the same "way"as Hilary or we would be entirely agreeing.I am talking about underlying priniples and inner understanding, so not standing outside at all.
But I have "bothered". So am therfore in a position to discuss.
The wonderful patterns would appear even in a"constructed "sequence.
A genuine sequence would not have a multitude of contradictions an inconsistencies and woul be explainable by rational,coherent and logical means/
That is obvous but any "arrangement" would generate apparent "patterns" and "symmetries".
I appreciate that there is no rationality to the sequence, other than possibly a memory aid.
Dave
.They arent really principles, as they arent consistent. If the "principles" cannot be shown to be valid then any bigger "patterns" would just be the result of our imaginations and nothing to do with any underlying priniples of the Yi itself
jukkodave said:As I pointed out when I said swapping and reversing. But why do that for some and not for the others.
Puzzled, I am, as to what the intrinsic difference between being "bewildered " and something making "little or no sense" might be.
Oh we're back to underlying principles are we I thought this thread was about something else.
Yes you are standing outside looking at the sequence saying it's not logical when you have not entered into it to look at patterns it makes, patterns only just being discovered. What you say reminds me of someone looking at a bird and saying 'that's not logical or rational, that creature cannot fly it must be put together in a nonsensical way' and then the bird flies off and the fool stands there realising he doesn't know anything.
In other words your limits, your limitations of vision do not define the nature of nature or the nature of Yi. Possibly a step forward might be for you to realise you have limited understanding and vision so rather than demand the things beyond you scale down to your size and proportion be aware it's you who has to expand his understanding not nature that has to shrink down to fit you, what makes 'sense' to you.
I think you're in a good position to learn.
So we are back to your being the arbiter of what a 'genuine sequence' is even though you haven't yet read Hilary's book, studied patterns, reflections and the referrals in the text to the sequence.
That's an incredibly arrogant position to take. You take something you don't even understand, haven't studied at all, something grand and beautiful and intricate and try to box it in to your tiny little rationality box to say it's just a memory aid. Whether your limitation does come from arrogance or from the brain damage you mentioned in another thread I don't know but practically, here, for purposes of forum discussion, this limitation simply doesn't serve a purpose in achieving greater understanding which is the ultimate goal of any discussion I guess.
I think you should keep all your thoughts on principles in one thread of your own. Otherwise every single thread in this section is going to be swamped by your thoughts on principles. If you do start a new thread as was suggested earlier maybe you could explain what kind of answers you want so that other people don't waste time giving answers you reject.
An individual may be confused and bewildered, not able to comprehend something.
Standing next to that individual are ten other individuals who are not confused and bewildered.
See how that is possible?
Bewilderment is a state of being.
Just because one person does not comprehend something,
Does not mean that other people will share in the same confusion.
Please tell me which hexagram pairs are not created by the principle of either inversion or complementarity.
Therein lies the clue, inversion or complementary.
Two different "principles" that have no rational connection or even a sense of order, arent principles at al,l they are just arbitrary methods.
It may "look" as though the Trigrams are being rotated through 180 degrees, but unless there is a rational explanation as to how and whyTrigrams change into the next in the sequence by rotating 180 degrees that makes no sesnse in terms of Hexagram sequence.
Have a look and find out which it is.Is it a "rotation" or moving the upper to the lower, and the lower to the upper.
That is far more rational and coherent, as it least maintains the integrity of the previous Trigrams, just altering the upper and lower positions. But it is not even coherent in that principle as for most Hexagrams only one of the Trigrams is moved from upper to lower, or visa versa, the other is rotated.
Whereas "rotation" would be an entirely different construct, which would need to be coherent with other evidence in the Yi.
It's not a Sequence that uses the principle of complementarity to create all its pairs. Instead, it shows a preference for inversion, and only uses complementarity when inversion is impossible.A sequence has to be consistent or it is not a sequence at all. A rule for the changes from 1 to 2, 27 to 28, 29 to 30, 61 to 62 and 63 to 64 and then a different rule for the rest of the Hexagrams, is not a sequence at all. it is an arrangement, but it is not a sequence that has any rationality of coherence.
here is no logical rational and coherent of why one pair moves and transforms to the next pair.
There are two ways to approach something you can't understand:
1) Dismiss it as arbitrary and deficient in rationality.
2) Study it to try to understand the principles behind it.
Trigram relationships are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs. You do not need ever to have heard of trigrams to understand the formation of hexagram pairs.
Forget all about trigrams for a moment and just look at hexagrams. Try turning each odd-numbered hexagram upside-down.
But why would turning them upside down be a rational or coherent thing to do. What sort of logic is there ot suggest that there is a progression of any sort by turning a Hexagram upside down. And even if there was it doesnt explain the next transform from the even numbered Hexagram to the next Hexagram.
I understand fully the ideas behind the pairs. But the ideas have no sense to them. They are certainly not a sequence. They do not allow for "change" beyond the "sequence". It starts with 1 and ends with 64 with no way of transforming back to 1 and so the sequence could continue.
Again, forget about trigrams, and have a look at the hexagrams.
But you have referenced the importance of Trigrams. The Hexagrams are, apparently, composed of two Trigrams.
I think you've been confused by concentrating on the beginning of the Sequence (and by the fixation with trigrams). The dominant component trigrams here at the beginning are heaven, earth and water, and all three have rotational symmetry. When you invert them, you still have the same trigram.
That means that when you invert hexagram 5 - the whole hexagram - to get hexagram 6, this action is equivalent to swapping the trigrams. Ditto for 7/8.
But you can see that this is not the principle at work overall by looking at 3/4 and 9/10 - and then at almost every hexagram after 15.
But what "principle" is it then. Is it a rotation, even thought there is no reasons or explanations why a 180 degree transform should be undertaken, or is it a swapping of Trigrams, which only works some of the time and again has no reason sor explanations to support such a "change" from one Hexagram to the next. It is only a "principle" if it is relevant in all cases.
It's not a Sequence that uses the principle of complementarity to create all its pairs. Instead, it shows a preference for inversion, and only uses complementarity when inversion is impossible.
Then it is not a sequence at all but an arbitrary method or ordering, based on who knows what rationality or logic.
It is only one possible sequence. We have the Hou Tian, the Xian Tian just for two known possible arrangements. At least the primal heaven sequence has a small degree of coherence about it, but as there is no rationality as to how one would get from the end of the sequence, back to the beginning, and maintin the cycles of change it rather shows that it was a key for memorisation puproses rather a sequence of change in its own right.
You think a sequence should be all the same, and all based on opposites. The original authors made different choices and created something more complex and less reducible. Don't you find that interesting?
Yes I find that most interesting. But given that it probably wasnt the original authors at all the thing that I find most interesting is why we consider a sequence which has no rationality about it, and is even a poor memory aid should be considered of relevance and value.
The reason that it may have been changed from the Primal Heaven sequence ot the Later Heaven sequence we now use in the book of the Yi is that the former was much easier to remember, that would have nmade it accessible to more people. The latter, being based on arbitrary rules, with no clear connection how one moves from one pair to the next would have then reserved the knowledge of the Yi to those that had positions that meant they had ways of writing things down.
I dont think the sequence should be based on "opposites" that would make a sequence impossible as one could never move beyond the opposite pair. But a sequence, in order to be a sequence and not just an arbitrary ordering, has to have consitent and rational "rules".
Not ones that work for some Hexagrams and then one has to use another rule beciasue the first one doesnt work, rules that explain how the move from one pair to the next happens and why.
I agree it can't be described by logic. That is, it cannot be reduced to a formula. You can't write a computer program that could perform calculations on Hexagram 1 and generate the Sequence of 64 - at least, it's never been done, and I doubt it could be.
As a computer program is a construction of the human brain and not the representation of fundamental underlying principles of nature or the ordinances of heaven, so not really connected with any "principles". But then if sequence then perhaps it could be worked out by a computer. One would have to know the rules of underlying principles to set the parameters of the program and it would have to be a sequence that was cyclical or it would have to run to infinity and as there are only 64 Hexagrams that would be tricky. Perhaps the reason no one has written an program is because none understand the underlying principles.
But goven that there are only 64 Hexagrams one wouldnt need a computer, one should be able to work it out. I did once but there was no connection with Trigrams at all. It was some 30 odd years ago and I dont recall how we did it, it did take a while, but the end result made rational coherent sense. But it didnt correspond with the order now in the books and wasnt particularly easy to remember. No key, no pairs, no nothing of any use in memorising the order, but a rather beautiful arrangement that flowed. Interestingly, while most of the Hexagrams made sense in terms of a progression, there were some that stood out like sore thumbs, perhaps those are the ones that the translations/interpretations are a bit iffy. Shame I never kept a copy. But it is possible, it is completely different to any cirrent arrangementor any key that might aid memorisation.
Maybe reducibility isn't the ultimate guide to the presence of meaning and value?
Perhaps not as an "ultimate" guide, one wouldnt expect there to be a single ultimate other that the reason for life itself, the Dao, et al, but in terms of underlying principles it is certainly a good place to check that rationality and coherence are present. It is not the only criteria of rationality and logic but it is one that is easy for us simple humans to grasp.
All the best
Dave
Jukkodave - OK, I did my best; don't want to repeat myself.
Trigram relationships are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs. You do not need ever to have heard of trigrams to understand the formation of hexagram pairs.
A similar pattern has been noted by Wu Deng �澄 (1249-1333) in which he called the 16 hexagrams that are made of the same trigrams and of opposing trigrams the jinggua 經�, the 'warp hexagrams', while the remaining hexagrams are the weigua 緯�, the 'weft hexagrams'. The warp hexagrams control the weft hexagrams according to Wu Deng. See Bent Nielsen, A Companion the Yijing Numerology and Cosmolgy, p. 132.
Same warp and weft as in 3's Image?
Trigrams are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs but they might be used for the sequence of the hexagrams.
Indeed they are! Interesting things to look at include the sequence in which they're 'introduced', the first appearance of li, thunder/mountain in the 20s, the parallels between 30s and 40s, and also a bunch of lovely reflective 'decade' patterns.True. However (as an off-topic sidenote) you do remind me of Gert Gritter's article in which he suggests that trigrams do have their influence on the sequence of the hexagrams: https://www.yijing.nl/structures/Gritter.html
A similar pattern has been noted by Wu Deng �澄 (1249-1333) in which he called the 16 hexagrams that are made of the same trigrams and of opposing trigrams the jinggua 經�, the 'warp hexagrams', while the remaining hexagrams are the weigua 緯�, the 'weft hexagrams'. The warp hexagrams control the weft hexagrams according to Wu Deng. See Bent Nielsen, A Companion the Yijing Numerology and Cosmolgy, p. 132.
Trigrams are not involved in the creation of hexagram pairs but they might be used for the sequence of the hexagrams.
End of off-topic sidenote.
Not at all. This is something you can learn by looking at pairs.It does seem rather far fetched to say so adamantly that Trigrams are not involved in the creation of pairs.
As plenty of Hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees, the transform of a Hexagram "pair" requires the manipulation of a "trigram", so it looks like even on a practical level that Trigrams are involved in the creation of Hexagram pairs.
As plenty of Hexagrams cannot be rotated through 180 degrees,
...the transform of a Hexagram "pair" requires the manipulation of a "trigram", so it looks like even on a practical level that Trigrams are involved in the creation of Hexagram pairs.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).