Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Trojina
There's been so many threads on these aspects over the years and so many experienced people saying the same kinds of things. So to call them 'notions' does seem to show a lack of experience on your own part.
jukkodave
The reasons that I referred to them as notions is that, despite your assertions that many experienced people are saying the same things, my experience and those that i know that have used the Yi for many years would not agree with him.
Thanks Liselle, I will look at how to format my posts more clearly over the weekend. Even the workarounds will be useful. I have to admit that understanding new technology and such things formatting is not my strong point. Sorry, I shall attempt to do better.
will look at the advice that have been given about how to format when I have more time over the weekend.
Trojina says "I've not read even one of your posts fully"
Fair enough but if you haven read everything I have been saying why are you even commentating on my posts. That would seem to be just taking a quote out of context as a means of disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. Correct me on my formatting by all means, I agree it is not good but if you havent even read the rest of the posts my are you just picking bits that you think you can have a go at.
But "oh well" is hardly a comment.
I agree that my use of formatting is very poor. It is not something that I am good at, that may mean that it is difficult to read my posts but that doesnt mean that they shouldnt be read just because the formatting in the same way as everyone else. I have at least been trying and will look at the advice that have been given about how to format when I have more time over the weekend.
For the record I make no attmpts to make it clear when I am quoting because I rarely do. But I think when I did quote (Legge) I made that clear. But that confuses me, if you have not read my posts how would you know if I am or am not quoting anyone.
I have made it clear in my posts that unless we have a way of measuring and evaluating whether what someone has said, is of value or not, or that they even have the authority of the understanding of knowing the Yi for themsleves, from the inside out and were not just perhaps scolars writing down what someone else had told them, that I consider that relying on the concepts and interpretations of others really is no validation of the Yi at all.
Especially when we seem completely unable to even make an attempt at rationlising what are considered to be the fundamental concepts of the Yi. I would be most unlikely then when I am asking where is the validation, other than the repetition of what someones opinion thousands of years ago was. And especially when history tells us that so many "ideas" have turned out to be wrong.
Perhaps we should all declare, before we post, whether we are more interested in the fundamental principles of the Yi or more interested in maintaining the world that we create with our beliefs.
Cake or Principles.
For myself I declare Principles.
All the best
Dave
Hi Harmon
But the point I am trying to get across is why should we consider that to be of any value when it is full of contradictions, when we cant even decide which version of the Trigrams is the definitive one.
if there is no validation, not even logical arguments, as to why 5E and 8 Trigrams might be relevant at describing the fundamental underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven then why are we so reliant on concepts which we can claim to have no understanding of if we are unable to explain them in a justfiable, rational and coherent matter.
As to the history, I would suggest that the history of the Yi and the relevance of what has survived can only be taken along with the rest of the history of the time. Which includes the hierachy of the rulers and the fact that most of the masses had no education. That confiines the knowledge of the Yi, at least the written part and so probably confined the knowledge of methids of divination to the Trigrams, which may be why they "appear to have importance, to those that had power and authority and as history clearly shows us the "purposes " of those in power are not necessarily without selfish motive and are often less than transparent and honest. We know that most knowledge in China was passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, and wouldnt have ever been written down.
We have to consider the possibility that the Trigrams were easy to memorise and were "given" to the masses just to keep them subdued.
Who in thier right mind which give real tools of power and knowledge to those that they were trying to keep in line anr rul. We do know that as far as the 5E are concerned that a major consideration as to how they came to be known as they are today was a political one, I think it was one of the translators of the Neijing that pointed out the historical situation of the time, that the masses believed in spirits, ghosts and such things as nature spiits and demons and the creation of the 5E as we know it today provided a very good way of placing the Ruler, and his hieracrchy at the centre of the universe, and that, by using a system that "explained" that the spirits and demons were really natural phenomona, that the Emporer was really in control of everything and placed him firmly back in control
How do we know that the fragments or anything else that survived, are ever accurate or relevant.
It is hard to see that the belief in something that cannot be rationaly justified or logically argued, that has no discernable coherence with itself or with any of the other methids that attempt to describe the universe, is much different than theories of flat earths or the Sun going around the Earth or of any of the weird and wonderful notions of medicine that have permeated throught the ages.
Some of them have contained pearls of wisdom but it is noly when we have the perspective, the framework and the measures of actual knowledge and understanding that we can make sense of any of those ancient theories and evaluate what is of value and what isnt. If we "believed " in things just because they were ancient then we would still be living on a flat earth and would never be able to fly to the moon, it is only because we use the logic of rationality and the demands of evidence that we can ever move forwards.
But the questions I am putting forward are not how we might use the Yi for such trivialities but how we might use the Yi as the mirror of the self, how we might use the Yi to guide us to become the sages that the Yi reminds us as so important, to know what the sages knew.
It is all very well to know the history but that does nothing to explain how and why the 5E and the Trigrams work, how they relate, interconnect, what their purpose and function is.
So where are the rational, coherent arguments that might begin to explain the contradictions, that might begin to explain the fundamental principles and the ordinances.
What indded are the findamental principles of nature, what are te ordinances of heaven, what indeed is "actually " meant by earth and heaven in that context govin by the commentators.
Where is the rationality of why the Trigrams were assigned such attributes as water, fire, mountain, wind, lake and thunder, which are distinct physical phenomena and then we also have heaven and earthe which are clearly far more "substantial" than mere physical attributes.
You keep talking about 'rationality'. That might be important to you but it isn't to me and it might also not have been relevant for the development of the Zhouyi and its parts. Rationality is not the only way to arrive at meaningful structures.How can we not know how the Trigrams "flow" from one into the other, and so which should be adjacent and opposite ot one another. How can we not have a rational explanation of why there are different theories of the directions the Trigrams should be assigned.
If it not arbitrary imagery the what are the fundamental underlying principles and ordinances that led to the 6 attributes of nature and the 2 attributes of heaven and earth.
If cant explain that then perhps the "theories" of 5E and 8 Trigrams has no justification at all
and despite the fact that the Yi provides such a wonderful insight into ourselves we should be completely honest, decare that we dont have a clue as to why and go and eat some cake.
I shall have closer look at you videos whn I have a bit more time, though I think my first priority should be to learn the rules of formatting, as that does seem to be annoying so many people.
Will post when I have viewed all your videos. Regardless of whether one would agree or disagree I have to compliment you on you presentation of how to not use the Yi. It was thoroughly enjoyable.
I do not want to get involved in a 'discussion about the wisdom side of the Yi', nor do I see this thread as a discussion of it. Someone referenced my video, trigrams were mentioned, and I wanted to make a few points about that. You replied to that, and I replied back. I don't have anything more to add to what I already said, and I'm not looking for a discussion on this matter. I leave that to others.You have declared what you use the Yi for. Fine, but then why not make that clar and why get involved with discussions that are about the other side of the Yi, its use as a Book of Wisdom. If you choose not to use that side of it or you dont find that side of it has any meaning or interest for you, fine, but why would you then want to get involved in discussion about the Wisdom side of the Yi.
...Of course it is Hairily's blog...
Hi Trojina
I think that a detailed response to your post may be useful in all sorts of ways.
You consider that why is an "unanswerable question". Everything is answerable if one has the correct perspective.
jukkodave
It should be obvious to anyone that if there is no consistency, no coherence and not rationality in the placing of the Trigrams that the method cannot be correct.
Hilary
Generally speaking, when something in the Yi seems to have no consistency, coherence or rationality, it's obvious to me that I have more to learn.
Hi Harmon
Could you explain the contradiction of why you would state,
"I'm not interested in commentaries"
and then link to Adam Schwartz's article as a possible answer when he states, at the very beginning of his article,
"with a focus on images in the shuoguo 說卦 commentary."
It hardly seems coherent to use as an argument the very measures that you decalre you are not interested in.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning. Could you clarify, I wouldnt want to respond inaccurately.
I will let you have my full response when I have read the article.
All the best
Dave
If I think certain articles are useful to someone it doesn't matter if I personally find it relevant or not. When someone wants to try apple pie I can give him a recipe for it but that doesn't have to mean that I like apple pie.Hi Harmon
But this does not address why you have staed taht you have no interest in Commentaries and link to an article by Adam that makes it clear in the very beginning that he is basing is presentation on Commentaries. I dont see why you would consider anything that he says as relevant if you arent interested in commentaries.
Dave
Did someone say cake?Perhaps we should all declare, before we post, whether we are more interested in the fundamental principles of the Yi or more interested in maintaining the world that we create with our beliefs.
Cake or Principles.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).