Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
“It is not I who seek the young fool;
The young fool seeks me.
At the first oracle I inform him.
If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
If he importunes, I give him no information.”
(Wilhelm/Baynes translation)
‘Not lasting in your character,
Maybe accepting a shameful gift.
Constancy: shame’
‘Dispersing your self
Without regrets.’
The words and the magic
The Yi is an oracle; it speaks. (The word ‘oracle’ has its roots in the Latin orare, to speak, and oraculum, the name of the priest/ess who gave voice to the god.) Other oracles people use now, like tarot, have interpreters to speak their meanings, but Yi is unique: it has its own words and speaks in its own voice.
I think this is why we experience Yi as a person. We – humans and oracle alike – communicate in both body language, pictures and words. Our inner life, too, is woven from physical existence, mental imagery, and inner monologue. If you can think and hold a conversation, you can talk with Yi.
What should I do? Retreat.
How to move on? Release.
I once had a reading – I forget the question I asked – answered with Hexagram 5, Waiting, changing to Hexagram 20, Seeing. ‘Wait,’ said Yi, ‘and See’ – as clearly as any human interlocutor.
And more than one person has recorded their first experience with the Yijing – peppering it with questions, asking the same one again to test if they would get the same answer – and suddenly finding themselves in the middle of a real conversation as the words of Hexagram 4 leap off the page at them:
Of course we know that Hexagram 4 doesn’t always, only mean you’re asking the oracle too many questions, but…
The Yi’s words are what makes it so approachable; they’re how we first form a relationship with it. This is especially true for absolute beginners – I’ve found the oracle will often speak most directly and clearly to a complete novice, and then call for a bit more thought as you grow in experience.
For an experienced user, the words become important as a focal point, something that keeps you from getting lost in the depths of the reading. The nuclear story says this and the complement says that and the baoti trigrams say something else… and interpretation starts disappearing up its own analysis, with the whole thing looking more like a puzzle to solve than a reading. All this stuff is here to help deepen our understanding of the answer. And what’s the answer? What it says.
An example from a podcast episode – I asked about quitting a volunteer role and received Hexagram 32 line 3 –
And that was me cut down to size, by what Yi said.
In case it isn’t already obvious, this isn’t to say that the text is ‘better than’ the structure, or to be used instead of it. No-one ever suggested that. You do occasionally find people suggesting that the structure’s more important than the text, and you can do readings without the text. And you can receive something of value from the Yi without its text, just as you can receive something with no awareness of the structure, because the universe is alive and communicative – though I’m not sure that either counts as a Yijing reading.
But really, any kind of ‘text vs structure’ argument about the Yi is a straw man, a windmill to tilt at – poppycock, piffle, twaddle, nonsense of the first order. It makes about as much sense as saying that ‘body language is important, so we shouldn’t talk’ or ‘words are important, so we should only communicate by text message.’ And post-pandemic, we all know that being physically present matters. The hexagrams are the oracle’s physical presence. (And if this makes no sense to you, I strongly recommend using three coins, pencil and paper for your next reading.)
Reading the words alone reduces the Yi to a needlessly complicated kind of bibliomancy, making it strangely two-dimensional and disembodied – the ‘communication by text message only’ approach. It’s also how people get caught on single phrases of translation or – worse – commentary, which can be misleading, and how they get confused by apparent ‘contradictions’ within readings: it’s usually the reading’s structure that creates its ‘if… then…‘ logic.
You might think looking at structure without the original text – the ‘communication by interpretive dance only’ approach… – would just be analytical and dry, which it can be. Yet it can also be oddly vague and subjective, lacking the power the words have to compel you to see things differently. I don’t think I could be made to feel ashamed of myself, as I was by that 32.3 reading I mentioned – or seen and comforted, or shocked, or reassured, or disconcerted, or any of the myriad changes readings have created in me over the years – by a structural analysis of trigram relationships.
So yes… different shades of twaddle. The magic of Yi, the reason we’re all still talking with it now, lies in the ways its words and structures weave and work together.
There is no reading that isn’t an example of this – and it’s something I try to point to on this blog as much as I can, for instance in this series about hidden gems, or this one about two-line changes, or this dive into the ditch of Hexagram 4.
Still… imagine for a moment you’d asked for advice and received Hexagram 59, Dispersing, with the third line changing:
‘Disperse your self’ – what a thought! And look at the trigram picture: line 3 is the upper surface of the inner trigram kan, the stream, where it’s touched by the upper trigram xun, wind – where the water, the inner emotional flow, begins to evaporate into open air.
Imagine for a moment the text had never been written. Do you think we would have heard of the structure? If so, what would it be to us?
Well, no, because whatever I would using, it would not be the I Ching. And nobody uses it without text. Some use it without the original text and replace that with, for instance, text describing trigram associations, or some more involved method. But we humans do our thinking, talking and exchanging of meanings in words.could you use the IC with a minimum of text or even without it?
Vague. I might think you don't want to address them because you can't . In any case you haven't actually read the Blog properly to start with or you wouldn't be making out it's an anti- structure piece.Hilary:
Your post has some inaccuracies I don't want to address, at least for me it's not necessary now, it's your opinion, I understand, I respect that.
Your 'message to the younger people' ? What are you saviour of youth from corruption by Hilary ? Who are you addressing ? Do you have a host of young people ready to sit at your feet in this thread ? You say 'share if possible' ? Well the Blog has been shared, the thread is for people to share that's why it was posted. It's like you're intervening really to sayMy message to the younger people who are interested in IC: Embrace structural analysis and if you can, get yourself to learn more about logic and mathematics, especially trigonometry and group theory, to deepen your knowledge of the sage´s wisdom. It is really impressive once you start to see how it works.
Good luck. Share if possible. Thank you.
H.
But really, any kind of ‘text vs structure’ argument about the Yi is a straw man, a windmill to tilt at – poppycock, piffle, twaddle, nonsense of the first order. It makes about as much sense as saying that ‘body language is important, so we shouldn’t talk’ or ‘words are important, so we should only communicate by text message.’ And post-pandemic, we all know that being physically present matters. The hexagrams are the oracle’s physical presence. (And if this makes no sense to you, I strongly recommend using three coins, pencil and paper for your next reading.)
Reading the words alone reduces the Yi to a needlessly complicated kind of bibliomancy, making it strangely two-dimensional and disembodied – the ‘communication by text message only’ approach. It’s also how people get caught on single phrases of translation or – worse – commentary, which can be misleading, and how they get confused by apparent ‘contradictions’ within readings: it’s usually the reading’s structure that creates its ‘if… then…‘ logi
Vague. I might think you don't want to address them because you can't . In any case you haven't actually read the Blog properly to start with or you wouldn't be making out it's an anti- structure piece.
Where exactly does she say "merely" (or "only")?She says humans convey meaning and thoughts merely through words.
We – humans and oracle alike – communicate in both body language, pictures and words. Our inner life, too, is woven from physical existence, mental imagery, and inner monologue.
Where exactly does she say "merely" (or "only")?
Answer: nowhere. Here's another actual quote:
Alright, at least I see where you got it from, thanks.Well, no, because whatever I would using, it would not be the I Ching. And nobody uses it without text. Some use it without the original text and replace that with, for instance, text describing trigram associations, or some more involved method. But we humans do our thinking, talking and exchanging of meanings in words.
Fair point. I was simplifying and concentrating on the kinds of meaning that we are talking about here, the ones involved in divinatory answers. As Trojina pointed out, I put things more clearly in the original post. Elsewhere, I've actually encouraged people to approach hexagrams as rhythm.She says humans convey meaning and thoughts merely through words. Music and Math are two examples of sound and also symbols doing that part, creating thoughful expressions with profound meanings without talk or use of words. So, that is an in-accuracy.
The thing is, I have neither the time nor the brain to become a mathemetician, which is probably what I'd need to understand Leibniz, for heaven's sake. (Obviously this is not meant as disrespect to Leibniz.)
I'm pretty happy with the ways we already have to interpret. Goodness knows I haven't exhausted them.
I can attest to this, now that Hilary reminds me. As proof, here is something I posted about it during the Imagery class it was part of. (It's in Change Circle, so the link won't work unless you're a member, but maybe it's okay if I post it here since it's my own post - ? - I'll remove it if not.)Elsewhere, I've actually encouraged people to approach hexagrams as rhythm.
Wonder if I'm getting somewhere with the drumming / sounding-out?
Same reading as last week, 21.4.5.6 to 3 about getting myself out of the house.
Ridiculously mundane subject, trying to get out of the house on time.
(Background: have terrible trouble being neither late nor (rarely) way too early to places like the vet, and without it becoming a stressful nightmare. This is partly because there are always 57 things that have to be done before I can actually walk out the door. Trying to estimate how long it'll all take, and therefore when I should start, is a mess. (I do not expect normal people to understand this.) Question was, "What if I start getting ready tomorrow at 12:45 p.m.?")
21....3
"Dum-taka-taka dum-taka-dum" (21) seems to flow better rhythmically than hexagram 3's "dum-taka-taka taka-dum-taka." 3's rhythm takes more time and practice for me to get comfortable with than 21's, and I can lose the feel of it pretty quickly if I go away and come back.
I think that might be because 21 repeats the same basic sequence, "dum-taka," in each trigram, just with one less "taka" in li. 3 seems more stuttery - you have to switch from "dum-taka" to "taka-dum." That seems 3-like: difficulties sprouting.
And "dum" on top seems more conclusive, more like a statement or an ending, than "taka" on top. It almost sounds like a call and response to me: zhen does something, the action hangs there, then li comes along and assesses it (appropriately enough for "bringing light to punishments").
[...edited out some stuff talking about someone else's thread...]
Does the sounding-out shed light on my reading? Well... getting out of the house certainly feels stuttery and fraught and 3-like to me. Trying things and then assessing them (21) might help. Finding a flow-y rhythm would also help [...]
There's a central illusion here, a cleaving to the notion that only structure and maths are 'pure' and that the realm of human meaning represented in words is tricky, shifting, not to be trusted, polluted. The problem you have is that divination is for humans, done by humans who use language.The structure is universal, objective and allows testing and knowing about the real properties of the three sets, bigrams, trigrams and hexagrams. The text is dependent on the native language (culture) and politically subjective, since it has been constantly intervened and adapted by modifiers (interpreters and scholars) to fit state and personal objectives.
H.
By fixating on conflict to find something to argue, i think we tend to become blind with opposition. I said it was an in-accuracy, not a mistake by Hilary and I also think younger people, less biased by traditional thinking, have more chances to use advanced scientific methods of analyzing IC. If they are prepared in abstract thinking and pattern recognition, that´s even better. If these youngsters find new stuff, it would be great to know about it, so, that’s why I ask them to share.
Divining only by free association to trigram structure may not be anything like what Yi is saying in the text and therefore it becomes another animal altogether.In case it isn’t already obvious, this isn’t to say that the text is ‘better than’ the structure, or to be used instead of it. No-one ever suggested that. You do occasionally find people suggesting that the structure’s more important than the text, and you can do readings without the text. And you can receive something of value from the Yi without its text, just as you can receive something with no awareness of the structure, because the universe is alive and communicative – though I’m not sure that either counts as a Yijing reading.
Reading the words alone reduces the Yi to a needlessly complicated kind of bibliomancy, making it strangely two-dimensional and disembodied – the ‘communication by text message only’ approach. It’s also how people get caught on single phrases of translation or – worse – commentary, which can be misleading, and how they get confused by apparent ‘contradictions’ within readings: it’s usually the reading’s structure that creates its ‘if… then…‘ logic.
This is divination, an interpretative art or skill it is not science and therefore trying to prove this or that would seem to me a rather foolish and irrelevant enterprise. It's like asking a poet to 'prove' their poem. In divination one is concerned with discerning meaning, human subjective meaning, so from what perspective would you be looking for proof from ?You have deep understanding of IC. Can you prove why changing pattern method is relevant and not just a mental delusion of the interpreter?
Personally I'm not sure it is true that nuclear hexagrams are the root situation. I don't tend to even look at nuclears in my readings. But it's such a bizarre question 'can you prove...' it seems irrelevant, misses the point..and it's way off at a tangent from the blog post.Can you prove nuclear hexagrams are the root situation and why?
I use it and often understand it. I personally believe Yi is a live intelligence, or rather it was made by a Wisdom that is lively now, that goes on, that cannot be put on a table to be dissected the way you'd like to satisfy you. I don't care what it's 'modelling' I just ask it for help and try to interpret for others. I generally don't care at all about any of your questions, they just aren't relevant to me. But I think it's fine if they are relevant to you and you find people who would like to discuss these with.What is the true proven nature of the relation between original and related hexagram? Is IC associative? Is it a group? Is it closed under certain operation? Is it a semi group? A ring? What is the function of IC? Is it a cycle, many cycles, a circle, an ellipse, a convex function? Where is future, where is past, can you prove its position? What does unchanging mean for a hexagram, not poetically but as axiom? Why does hexagram 1 and hexagram 2 have the maximum allowed disposition of changing lines and no other hexagram pair does? What is the IC modelling conceptually, what is it modelling as algebra? Does the set has an Identity element? Is substraction allowed? Is adding allowed? Are other operations allowed and what are those? What importance do Prime numbers have as a group within the IC set? What is the function of square and cubic exponents in the IC set? Why 8 by 8 and not 16 by 16 as Ifa (Yoruba) Oracle or 22/56 as used in Tarot? And there are many many more questions waiting for us, and the answers are not in the text, thats for sure.
....I think in being so terrified of the uncertainty of words it is you who is the hidebound one here rather than Hilary.My message to the younger people who are interested in IC: Embrace structural analysis and if you can, get yourself to learn more about logic and mathematics, especially trigonometry and group theory, to deepen your knowledge of the sage´s wisdom. It is really impressive once you start to see how it works.
I have not said you were fishing for clients or had vested interests etc etc. It does however strike me that you aren't interested in real communication you are interested in devaluing this blog post. I might be wrong but given you have done this repeatedly under the last 3 or 4 incarnations at least, it's true to your usual pattern. I haven't seen that you are keen to learn under any of these incarnations but I have seen that you are keen to teach ! I think if you want to exhort youth to follow your ways then your own thread would be appropriate and then see how many of said youth show up.Say whatever you want about me, I don´t care. I don´t have a reputation to defend nor do I have vested interests in this site. I am not after followers, nor do I need validation, or attention. I am not fishing for clients, I am here to find answers for me and better questions for others, and of course because I want to keep learning about the fascinating nature of the IC set. Have a good day.
You have deep understanding of IC. Can you prove why changing pattern method is relevant and not just a mental delusion of the interpreter? Can you prove nuclear hexagrams are the root situation and why? How many elements does the IC set really have? How do the lines work? What is the true proven nature of the relation between original and related hexagram? Is IC associative? Is it a group? Is it closed under certain operation? Is it a semi group? A ring? What is the function of IC? Is it a cycle, many cycles, a circle, an ellipse, a convex function? Where is future, where is past, can you prove its position? What does unchanging mean for a hexagram, not poetically but as axiom? Why does hexagram 1 and hexagram 2 have the maximum allowed disposition of changing lines and no other hexagram pair does? What is the IC modelling conceptually, what is it modelling as algebra? Does the set has an Identity element? Is substraction allowed? Is adding allowed? Are other operations allowed and what are those? What importance do Prime numbers have as a group within the IC set? What is the function of square and cubic exponents in the IC set? Why 8 by 8 and not 16 by 16 as Ifa (Yoruba) Oracle or 22/56 as used in Tarot? And there are many many more questions waiting for us, and the answers are not in the text, thats for sure.
Just remembered Hilary speculated about that onceIs adding allowed?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).