C19-vaccinations - negative global impact?

[Trojina]

The idea of some pure Yi interpretation untouched by facts or situation is a fantasy pursued by fantasists.

 

[legume]

Being blocked on facebook is like being blocked from using someone elses megaphone. See it?

yes, i do. sure it's in their right to say no to certain content, especially as terms and conditions changed around the time trump became too popular (i do not support him btw). but the whole thing became a legal issue around then, since the "platform" (a place that holds no responsibility for the content published) changed to a "publisher" (a person or company that curates or distributes content).

the issue is much broader and far reaching than just facebook, and pertains to google as well.

in the same way, using a publisher (vs self-publishing) is using someone else's megaphone. in the 70s my parents worked in censorship (such thing existed), bringing home "books" (more like typescripts of e.g. orwell, solzhenitsyn) that couldn't make it to the public, as during communism they were considered dangerous ideas (opposing the ruling narrative).

so considering monopoly that the 5 giants hold in content distribution, the issue is very much about censorship, though i can't deny that in legal terms, they can censor (or should i say distribute) whatever they please. same as commie government could, back then in my country. see it?

 

[moss elk]

whatever they please. same as commie government could, back then in my country. see it?

Yes, thanks.
It explains your sensitivity around the subject matter of speech.

But, Social media is not the government,
it is all private property.

In the u.s., one may talk with friends, neighbors, strangers in cafes without fear of the governement silencing you or killing you.

What one can't do is be extremely stupid without reprecussions, as the "soveriegn citizens" here demonstrate daily:

This man can pronounce multi-syllabic words, strung together in senetences, but has zero self awareness of what he is doing. (being an obstinant outlaw, though some of them do know it's a con)

 

[dfreed]

if I saw solid scientific evidence and my initial reading of the hexagram contradicted it, my tendency would be to go back and review my reading to see where I got it wrong, rather than doubting the evidence.

You may be correct. My concern is that this can lead to lots of second-guessing and any number of slippery slopes that will land us in all sorts of different places. For example:

* That we start with an opinion about a subject we know very little about, and our interpretation (as if by magic) backs up the opinion we had in the first place. (I have my suspicion that this is what's happened in this case, as with many 'big picture' issues.)

* That we look at a reading and then go find 'evidence' to back up our interpretation. Or that we 'cherry-pick' the 'facts' to match our opinions (something I would never, ever do!).

* That we non-scientist actually believe that we can understand and full grasp complex medical and biological issues, based on a few articles we've read on the internet! (I know I can't; I avoided taking chemistry in college because it required too much math - I took botany instead.)

* That the experts whom are posting these 'facts' on the internet are themselves biased. I recall the charade of 'America's Frontline Doctors' who were paraded in front of us (but Trump and friends) as so-called 'experts' about COVID. One the main 'expert' doctors also believed in 'demon seed' babies being implanted in women by the devil, so I would consider her 'facts' highly suspect at best!

* My interpretation of this reading is that it's saying that COVID vaccines will not be harmful globally, ... but maybe it could be that the the COVID vaccine is very harmful - in that it is very effective at stopping or greatly reducing COVID cases and deaths - but then we're left with the same over-population, and greedy misuse of resources that we started with - instead of a pandemic that wipes out a quarter of the world's population, and which in turn then lets (or makes) us seriously rethink our priorities as a species.

Or then again, maybe all this is just the nano-robots talking; the ones which have been implanted in me by the 'Deep State' Cabal of the Democratic Party of BLM Communist Pedophiles who want to control my every thought!

Best, D

 

[legume]

He shut up.
It's been months.

orwell on his death bed said: "but always there will be the intoxication of power. always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on enemy who’s helpless. if you want the picture of the future imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. the moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one - don’t let it happen, it depends on you."

my mention of both chomsky and orwell here is not random, chomsky's been warning about "manufacturing consent" for ages, and the pavlovian training we received over the years thanks to gdpr (however i do see some bright side to its policies as well) in my view greatly contributes to people being happy to just say yes to whatever solution is being given to them by the experts, while current advancements in AI development and its usage across aforementioned, ekhm, platforms, is not far from the big brotherly idea and what i call censorship greatly contributing to so-called doublethink and newspeak becoming a very real issue.

all i tried to say here, is - considering that within the last 30 years the question of efficacy of flu vaccination is still being researched, it only makes sense to also question the certainty with which the novelty of RNA vax is being offered. and so i see danger in the ridicule and ostracism coming from people who are unwilling to question it (or the status quo in general for that matter) - the same danger i see in 21.5, if one eats too fast or is distracted while trying to bite through something one may choke on the arrow. people at the table might laugh at that person for being so careful and discerning, since finding it is considered good luck, but there is no blame in questioning the general belief of "good luck" of such superstition.

 

[moss elk]

orwell on his death bed said: "but always there will be the intoxication of power. always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on enemy who’s helpless. if you want the picture of the future imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. the moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one - don’t let it happen, it depends on you."

Publicly shaming my hateful, racist, misogynistic, bigoted, wanna-be facsist uncle-were-he-given-the-chance,
and shining a light on his idiocy,
is doing my part for humanity as a whole.

We seem to be talking past each other completely. Happy Wednesday.

 

[Viru10]

so i doubt there's much interest (other than from people of genuine curiosity) in exploring the ideas of self-healing, or simply boosting immunity by so-called natural immune response modifiers, like: aloe, aronia, elderberry, garlic, ginger, raspberries, bee products, cereal products, citrus fruit and probiotics.

Homeopathy is a billion dollar a year industry. I would agree that allopathic medicine has plenty of problems, for example the pharmaceutical industry gradually lowering the threshold of healthy cholesterol to expand their patient population (i.e. if they lowered the bar for which a patient has 'bad' cholesterol, they can sell lipitor to more people).

That doesn't make homeopathy a 'good'. The industry tends to prey on vulnerable people. Most homeopathic remedies I've come across tend to be 'luxury' priced. Or fake gurus that try to sell you on some miracle cure only to get roped into their ponzi scheme.

The Belle Gibson example is a pretty standout one for this. She faked having cancer, claimed 'positive thinking' and various homeopathic remedies cured it, while western medicine failed badly. Then she made millions off of selling her brand from this, telling everyone she was a philanthropist. (She only donated $7000 of the $300,000 she claimed to donate.)

Of course it was all a scam.

The David Icke, Brian Rose thing was hilarious. Had a nutbrained conspiracy video on youtube about 5g, it gets taken down, Brian Rose proceeds to raise millions from his gullible followers about making a 'freedom platform' to be a champion for free speech. Said freedom platform never materializes. Then he runs for mayor of London (wtf?) continuing to raise money, telling his followers he was a close shot to win (he was dead last the whole time).

The whole Chomsky, Orwell route is a bit of a rhetorical distraction, nobody cancelled or banned you from here. I think leaning too much on the homeopathic industry (industry being a key word) can district from how much a cash grab that stuff is.

 

[legume]

I think leaning too much on the homeopathic industry (industry being a key word) can district from how much a cash grab that stuff is.

never mentioned homeopathy and i do agree it's quite a scammy business, so i do not wish to be affiliated with the industry. my mention of immune response modifiers has nothing to do with it but rather how healthy diet affects the immune system - it's scientifically proven how the foods i mentioned (or substances in those foods) take part in it. and that's not to say anyone should forget the advancements of modern medicine, sure it's easier to take aspirin than to bite into a birch tree, and thank goodness for that. but new findings seem to find value in those simple foods and since they've been used in boosting our immune systems forever, it's just nice that science catches up to the fact and can explain how it works. i still recommend Bruce Lipton though (that's my main source, though not only, on the ideas of self-healing and i find his discoveries on stem cells ground breaking).

The whole Chomsky, Orwell route is a bit of a rhetorical distraction, nobody cancelled or banned you from here.

no, the OP was about the dangers of global vaccination and both these guys have been quite outspoken about the dangers they foresee in being lead like sheep. if this was a thread about making a personal decision re the jab i'd restrain myself from sharing my personal views. but since this is more of a generic topic that i have opinion about, which in my view fits the cast, i let myself share those views. and no, they're not a distraction, they're quite crucial in fully explaining my interpretation to a shared reading. if anything your last post serves as a distraction here.

 

[IrfanK]

You may be correct. My concern is that this can lead to lots of second-guessing and any number of slippery slopes that will land us in all sorts of different places. For example:

* That we start with an opinion about a subject we know very little about, and our interpretation (as if by magic) backs up the opinion we had in the first place. (I have my suspicion that this is what's happened in this case, as with many 'big picture' issues.)

* That we look at a reading and then go find 'evidence' to back up our interpretation. Or that we 'cherry-pick' the 'facts' to match our opinions (something I would never, ever do!).

* That we non-scientist actually believe that we can understand and full grasp complex medical and biological issues, based on a few articles we've read on the internet! (I know I can't; I avoided taking chemistry in college because it required too much math - I took botany instead.)

* That the experts whom are posting these 'facts' on the internet are themselves biased. I recall the charade of 'America's Frontline Doctors' who were paraded in front of us (but Trump and friends) as so-called 'experts' about COVID. One the main 'expert' doctors also believed in 'demon seed' babies being implanted in women by the devil, so I would consider her 'facts' highly suspect at best!

* My interpretation of this reading is that it's saying that COVID vaccines will not be harmful globally, ... but maybe it could be that the the COVID vaccine is very harmful - in that it is very effective at stopping or greatly reducing COVID cases and deaths - but then we're left with the same over-population, and greedy misuse of resources that we started with - instead of a pandemic that wipes out a quarter of the world's population, and which in turn then lets (or makes) us seriously rethink our priorities as a species.

Or then again, maybe all this is just the nano-robots talking; the ones which have been implanted in me by the 'Deep State' Cabal of the Democratic Party of BLM Communist Pedophiles who want to control my every thought!

Best, D

Ya, well. I think Trojina said it all:

The idea of some pure Yi interpretation untouched by facts or situation is a fantasy pursued by fantasists.

Once or twice, I've considered doing a reading on one of these hot-button topics that always start these time-wasting threads that it's better to stay well away from, really, and to role play how I'd read it if I believed the exact opposite of what I do. For example, start with the assumption that Trump is a great savior or whatever, so if there's any mention of any great man or anything like that, that's obviously him, and so on. But for some reason, I can never bring myself to do it.

 

[dfreed]

Ya, well. I think Trojina said it all:

And are you implying that I’m a fanatic? I think what this thread has devolved into is more than enough proof of the point I was trying to make.

 

[IrfanK]

And are you implying that I’m a fanatic? I think what this thread has devolved into is more than enough proof of the point I was trying to make.

I don't think anyone used the word fanatic, so I don't know where you get that. Trojina mentioned fantasist. There really is no way to see the text objectively. You always bring your assumptions with you.

["You" in this case is the second person impersonal, "one." It doesn't refer to you specifically.]

 

[dfreed]

I don't think anyone used the word fanatic, so I don't know where you get that. Trojina mentioned fantasist. There really is no way to see the text objectively. You always bring your assumptions with you.

["You" in this case is the second person impersonal, "one." It doesn't refer to you specifically.]

I misread and misunderstood the word, and thought it implied a kind of fanaticism - a simple error. Instead Trojina and you are talking about "a person who imagines or dreams about something desired" - so perhaps more fantasy than fanatic.

In either case, a) I don't know if Trojina was referring to me - or just to me - since she did not quote me; and b) I might have my ideas of what I think this thread - or this world - should be, but that doesn't mean I'm devoid of, nor divorced from reality, nor from facts.

The fact is, (as I see the facts) this thread has veered wildly away from any sort of Yi interpretation. This seems to be just fine for most people here, but it also might mean it gets moved to the Open Space forum, where political discussions / arguments often end up.

And I wonder ... if you didn't mean for "You always bring your assumptions with you" to be personal, why didn't you just say, "WE always bring OUR assumptions with US"? Regardless, ... what you're saying is that you, I and every one else here bring our assumptions with us - just as we all bring our own set of 'facts' with us. [And 'here' in this case means this forum, and the internet, and the entire planet.]

D

 

[IrfanK]

And I wonder ... if you didn't mean for "You always bring your assumptions with you" to be personal, why didn't you just say, "WE always bring OUR assumptions with US"? Regardless, ... what you're saying is that you, I and every one else here bring our assumptions with us - just as we all bring our own set of 'facts' with us. [And 'here' in this case means this forum, and the internet, and the entire planet.]

In linguistics, we refer to the "generic you." Here's the definition from the Wiki:

In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person, as opposed to its standard use as the second-person pronoun. Generic you can often be used in the place of one, the third-person singular impersonal pronoun, in colloquial speech.

 

[moss elk]

I don't know if...was referring to me -

The word in question definitely wasn't directed at you.

This was a day of many miscommunications and misperceptions all over this forum, by myself and many others.
It's happening in PM's also.

@Rosada , @Trojina ,
did the stars have something
to say about today? :]

 

[IrfanK]

Just to clarify more simply: I was just talking about the impossibility of interpreting a reading "objectively." Not casting nasturtiums at anyone in particular. I think Trojina was doing the same.

 

[dfreed]

In linguistics, we refer to the "generic you." Here's the definition from the Wiki: In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you ....

Hmm, and if you have to quote a Wiki page to explain linguistics to me (and by 'me' I mean us), wouldn't it be much easier and much clearer if you (meaning you, and not anyone else) had simply said "We ...."?

Regardless, my (meaning mine, personal) point about where this thread has gone and veered off is still valid. Which perhaps means that 'we are not amused".

['We' here can mean either 'all of us'; or, 'we' as in me, the royal one, a.k.a the Yi's Superior Man, Noble Young One, or Mature Human Being - they all work equally well, regardless of which translation is used.]

 

[dfreed]

I was just talking about the impossibility of interpreting a reading "objectively." Not casting nasturtiums at anyone in particular.

Well, that's good to know you weren't tossing flowers in my direction (though I don't know why that would be such a bad thing?). It's true that this reading may not have been interpreted objectively. But I don't think a war of facts - or spinning off into unrelated subject matter - brings any more objectivity to it either.

 

[IrfanK]

Well, that's good to know you weren't tossing flowers in my direction (though I don't know why that would be such a bad thing?). It's true that this reading may not have been interpreted objectively. But I don't think a war of facts - or spinning off into unrelated subject matter - brings any more objectivity to it either.

No, of course not. It just afforded me momentary cathartic release to express my opinions. That seems to be the main motivation for quite a few posts on this thread. I think I'll just unfollow the thread and spend the rest of the day earning some money.

 

[Trojina]

I misread and misunderstood the word, and thought it implied a kind of fanaticism - a simple error. Instead Trojina and you are talking about "a person who imagines or dreams about something desired" - so perhaps more fantasy than fanatic.

This is what I said. There is no 'perhaps' I used the word fantasist, that is the word I used.

The idea of some pure Yi interpretation untouched by facts or situation is a fantasy pursued by fantasists.

Here's another misreading

In either case, a) I don't know if Trojina was referring to me - or just to me - since she did quote me; and b) I might have my ideas of what I think this thread - or this world - should be, but that doesn't mean I'm devoid of, nor divorced from reality, nor from facts.

Actually no I did not quote you. Look back at my post please, it's post 31. You write 'since she did quote me' when I didn't.

As it goes I wasn't referring to you only and specifically, there are many people, Hilary included at times. who have this idea that there can be readings that can stand alone objectively with no connection to the actual truth of a matter. There was a row about it in Open Space where Fof posted a question that had no factual basis and Rosada interpreted as if the thing had happened. This whole idea you can 'just interpret the answer' without looking left or right to the situation is a fantasy and a dangerous one at that !

You often point out that people make answers mean what they want them to mean when posting these global/political questions. My point is yes they do but all interpretations are subjective, as they should be and there really is no 'objective' Yi interpretation you seem to quest for.



I will say in personal readings this subjectivity is useful as it's a conversation, an intimate thing. I don't think subjectivity is to be avoided at all costs in personal readings. In global questions like this the problem is where the querent imagines they have an objective answer on behalf of all of us. Of course it won't be. Doesn't stop people asking these things, I guess it's understandable if it's a matter that is important to them but no their interpretations will never be objective so there is no point chasing something that doesn't exist and that is where the word 'fantasist' comes in.

 

[Trojina]

The word in question definitely wasn't directed at you.

This was a day of many miscommunications and misperceptions all over this forum, by myself and many others.
It's happening in PM's also.

@Rosada , @Trojina ,
did the stars have something
to say about today? :]

I don't think this has anything to do with 'stars' and besides I loathe generalised astrological readings.

I don't think this is all about miscommunications either. I do think this conversation is a waste of time though.

 

[Trojina]

Oh and actually political type questions are generally posted in Open Space now since it would be utterly daft not to expect people to voice their opinions on matters like this.

Indeed one would be a fantasist to imagine there would be this clean little discussion just about the reading with no recourse to the facts at all. Indeed I would class the entire forum as a fantasist forum if that were it's goal and ideal.

We can't expect to start threads about the global effects of vaccine or whatever it was and not expect other people to look at the facts or to have opinions about it. That would just be unrealistic.

And this is a particularly emotive topic given promoting fear of the vaccine costs lives. Not that the original poster was doing any such thing, their question was much broader.

 

[dfreed]

Actually no I did not quote you. Look back at my post please, it's post 31. You write 'since she did quote me' when I didn't.

Ah, what a difference a three letter word can make! I meant to say that I didn’t know if you were referring to me since you did NOT quote me. Now corrected. Glad that’s been so easily resolved.

 

[rosada]

Perhaps it would be helpful to restate the question and the reply:

Will global vaccination in the end turn out to be a world wide danger?

21.5
Bites on dried lean meat.
Receives yellow gold.
Perseveringly aware of danger.
No blame.

Now without trying to impose my personal ideas about the vaccine, but just as an attempt to learn the I Ching, this is my suggestion for interpretation:

"Bites on dried lean meat." - A vaccine biting into a healthy body.

Interesting how 21 describes different types of meat from "tender" (line 21.2) to "old" (21.3) to "gristly"(21.4) to our line 2.5 which is "dried lean meat." Given this dried lean meat is the best of the choices, I see the IC's reference to it here is describing a healthy body.

"Receives yellow gold." - I Ching seems to be describing the body receiving something of value.

"Perseveringly aware of danger" - IC seems to acknowledge there are risks involved, perhaps because by vaccinating people they are softening the consequences of bad habits. The one who has been vaccinated mustn't ignore he still needs to take care of his health.

"No blame." - "It is only by remaining conscious of the dangers growing out of the responsibility we have assumed that we can avoid making mistakes," Wilhelm.

25. Innocence.
Perhaps 25 as the second hexagram is pointing to the wish for the vaccine to take us to our original state of "innocence", that is, good health? I think the Image for 25 is appropriate here as it seems to describe the governmental efforts to make the vaccine available to all:

Thus the kings of old,
Rich in virtue, and in harmony with the time,
Fostered and nourished all beings.
--
All together it seems to me the I Ching is saying that even though there are risks involved, the vaccine is a good thing. It doesn't seem to explain just what the risks might be. Mutations of the virus could be a danger but I think in this instance the danger the IC refers to are more about the person who receives the vaccine. Like the vaccine might protect one's 25.Innocence - Good Health - but if as 25. says "One is not as he should be then he has misfortune." So the vaccine might protect a person for a moment but if that person is not taking care of their health than no vaccine can protect them forever.

 

[martinus]

Thank you, Rosada -
this sounds very reasonable - and convincing.
(That question meant quite a lot to me - I wouldn't have thought there could be so many responses.
Well, the greater part was mainly concerned with problems of communication etc - but those responses, too, were quite interesting... i.e. more or lesss... )

 

[dfreed]

there really is no 'objective' Yi interpretation you seem to quest for.

I looked back at my post, and I said

​

"For me, the idea here is that we interpret this person's casting of the Yi; it's not really about us posting 'stuff' - regardless what it is. Along those lines, I am pretty darn sure that my (otherwise perfect and correct ) interpretations would never pass scientific scrutiny but I'm okay with that." ​

It's a rather benign comment (though maybe a bit naive?), and I was thinking that it would be good to get back to what Rosada did in Post 53, above. If you look at some of my other posts, you'll see I also touched on the subjective nature of interpretations. I am, therefore, both a bit surprised and pleased that my comments seem to have generated so many varied responses.

But no, you are not correct in saying I was on a quest for an 'objective' Yi interpretation. Call me a dreamer, but I was perhaps suggesting that we get beyond the cathartic pissing match the post devolved into. (I have also suggested that this get moved to the Open Space forum.)