Chris Lofting's System

[sooo]

No I Ching Journal?

I'm a delete-aholic. When a page is full of readings, I throw it away.

You got through the questionnaire three times, so you're three times ahead of me. I haven't been able to get through it once. How about asking another question and showing us how you make choices in filling out the questionnaire?

You're probably over thinking it. Maybe if you fearlessly answer straight from your belly, it will go much quicker.

No, I don't feel like twisting my brain through those questions at the moment. But if the spirit moves me, maybe later, assuming I have a question I wish to share publicly.

 

[pocossin]

For some reason, completely out of my control, the whole issue has been blown out of proportion and over-analyzed.

Your suggestion in the Kitchen got the train moving. I had never examined any of Lofting's material because of the manner in which he presented it. But since you recommend it, I gave it a go and was suprised to find that I could make sense of his questionnaire if not the terms that compose it. I just need example readings to work through -- the kind of thing that occurs every day in Shared Readings -- but I haven't found such readings using Lofting's method, and hope some will be posted here.

 

[pocossin]

if the spirit moves me, maybe later, assuming I have a question I wish to share publicly.

Dear Spirit, please move Sooo.

 

[Sparhawk]

Tom, I think the problem is that you are trying to figure out the logic of the system instead of using it. One doesn't need to be a mechanic to drive a car safely... The questions are in plain English. It is a tad more complicated than throwing coins only because it makes you think about yourself in the process. You ARE BOTH, the question and the coins.

 

[pocossin]

Tom, I think the problem is that you are trying to figure out the logic of the system instead of using it. One doesn't need to be a mechanic to drive a car safely... The questions are in plain English. It is a tad more complicated than throwing coins only because it makes you think about yourself in the process. You ARE BOTH, the question and the coins.

Luis, it isn't plain English. The language of the questionnaire is distractingly odd.

I am feeling that the situation is more about facts (issues of 'is')

Consider 'I am going to town'. This could mean 'I plan to go to town' (future action) or 'I am now on the way to town' (present moment). Instead of the momentariness of 'I am feeling', the expression should be 'I feel'. The comparison 'more about facts' is incomplete and requires the second sentence to complete its meaning: I feel that the situation is more about facts than about values. And we are still left with the puzzling terms "situation', 'facts', and 'values'. As Anemos says:

I asked about a cord that must be in a box still close after moving to another house. I though it was a easy question but I couldn't be sure if its about facts or values.

 

[Trojina]

Actually I am quite appreciating Toms attempts to 21 this since its never been properly 21ed by anyone here in practise as far as I know. I've never ever seen a reading with Chris's system done by a forum member here.

...surely the whole point of the system is to get people to think about themselves and their question yet when Tom tries that he's told hes thinking too much so his hands are tied ain't they

Personally I think people can think about their questions quite deeply without the use of the system at all....but maybe the system helps some people ?? I've yet to see it but meanwhile we have a very sturdy guineau pig known as 'Tom' trying to make sense of it and meeting obscurification. If he tries to use it and meets an obstacle which I suspect we all would its implied hes trying to think too much or something. Thinking is the whole pointof Chris system isn't it ? I doubt he was recommendingpeople just answer on gut feeling that would make the whole exersize pointless , he wanted people to reflect, to think.

I don't get it,


But I think I will cheerlead Tom here ompom:


Or maybe i will just hand Tom the line 39.2, I feel it fitting

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis, it isn't plain English. The language of the questionnaire is distractingly odd.

Ah, English speaking folks separated by a common language across oceans and whole hemispheres... Hey, remember that in this discussion I am the one that uses English as his second language. When I say it is plain English is because that's what it is to me. Let's try this

The trickiest question, IMO, is this one, but it isn't as complicated as it seems. When Chris uses the option "I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought')" "Values/Ought" should be understood in the context of those things related to feelings, notions, perception, belief, sentiment, views; further, I interpret the word "ought" as an assertive "should," as in "ought" is more of a "must" and "should" is sort of optional. Still they are closely related in value judgments.

 

[rodaki]

For discussion, please give examples of this method of casting in use. . . I am proposing a Shared Readings using Lofting's method of casting. In reporting results when using the "Emotional I Ching Questions Method" it is better to give all the choices on the left and then the choices on the right because that is the order of the lines of the hexagram.

hi Tom

apologies for the somewhat late reply . .

I too don't remember anymore my questions or the results I got back when but i did try out your key question when you first posted it . . I can reconstruct that here:

box 1: I am feeling that the situation is more about facts (issues of 'is')
(this is a straightforward question about objective reality, it doesn't concern my emotional or psychological state or my beliefs, hence not determined by values

box 2:I am feeling that the Situation is about what could have been/is not/could be
(that was for me the most difficult box to fill in but I gathered that its talking about my inner situation where I am examining possibilities -could the keys have been in that place?/they weren't where I have looked so far/could they be lost for good?

box 3: I am feeling that, in some way, I am being Proactive (instigating)
(I see the question on Lofting's 'being Proactive' but I tend to see this as a way to incorporate more of the meanings that go with Yang elements. In this case, I don't have a 'how can I handle' question which could be seen as reactive to a situation, or a contemplative 'what do I need to know', it's more straight than these: I am looking for my keys, where are they? hence Yang)

box 4:The surroundings are more about facts
(this one is very clear, the surroundings are objective reality, they don't include per se any changes of states -unless someone finds or moves my keys changing the value of their state(meaning their coordinates) their position is a given fact I am trying to discover

box 5:The surroundings are about what was/is/will be
(again, as above, I'm taking for granted that the surroundings of my keys are stable and I need to retrace them, not a matter of possibilities but of certainties remembering where I saw them last time (was),bring that to the present (is) to find out where I will find them.

box 6:The surroundings are being Reactive (responding)
(unless someone has stolen them, the surroundings are objects and yield to my searching attempts -I can move furniture to look or tidy up the place to see if they have fallen somewhere etc)

the result was hx49 unchanging which I could interpret as that the keys are under some surface I haven't yet checked or that I need to start thinking in a very different way to find them or -the more sardonic one- 'in their own day they will be believed- they are where they are and when I'll find them I'll know . .

Of course the question that first comes up for me in this is ; Does that mean that I have in my hands the standard answer for everytime I loose my keys -I guess so, unless I'm suspicious of someone stealing them or I'm having some other 'emotional button' pushed, which doesn't make much sense in finding them, albeit it makes sense as a standard advice I can give myself when I am simply looking for my keys

That makes me wonder whether Lofting, in trying to streamline someone's experience in that way was also -unknowingly?- trying to explain people's emotional reactions . . admittedly a quite mechanical approach to use in delving in the depths of human reality. In defense to his system though (and just to keep an even keel here), he does make it clear that the system works better when we are examining our emotional landscape and not the practical objective reality that I took as the core of the keys question . .

To wrap this up, I am not a de facto proponent of Chris' method but I can see how it could work. I'm also not a big fan of questionnaires in general but their use has been helpful to me in a number of occasions. What I'm saying is, obviously this system works well under certain circumstances but we don't need to throw out the baby with the water . .

hope that helps some . .

 

[anemos]

ok, here we go... as promised

Disclaimer : haven’t study in debth the PDF ( tsk tsk tsk to me)

assumptions :
1. Dichotomies are real ! ( i need 3 PHDs to prove it , no time for that ) The reason they serve is to create the two extremes so I can find my “place”
values...................0...........................facts


2.The ‘correct” answer is what I’m aware of Now. Tommorow is another day. and its nit meant to be a joke because trying to reconstruct my initial reading I answered different in one of the 6 questions.

3.I don’t look what I answered to relevant questions ( look Q3 and Q6) to match anything

Situation : An ongoing unresolved matter between me ( left column ) and them (surrounding) them are 2 people but I take it as a team.

Q.1 I am feeling that the Situation was about facts, but now I am not sure
it about facts, the things they do but they are opposite to my values and that is the main reason there is a conflict. But looking at my feelings I see that what disturbs me it that. I thing the key words here is “I am feeling” . its subjective, not objective. My subjective reality IS the reality for me. Calling it subjective its like I diminish it , ignore it as wrong and loosing the useful information i need to correct thing need to be corrected I think that's one of the main reason we repress feelings and maybe this is what this questions ask you , to express your feelings .

Q.2 I am feeling that the Situation is about what could have been/is not/could be
Although to me was clear before filling that questioner, I check again my thoughts on that, as an exercise.
‘was/is/will be”, to my understanding is more about facts, How things are. While could have been/isnot/could be is closer to the values/Ougth side of the line. Could have been, maybe includes unfulfilled expectations/ lack/incompetence of the Surrounding to provide what I believe they Should/Ought to provide etc. How thing we wish they were are will be.

I know two women that need to deal with the death of a beloved person. The one lost her brother , for her the right answer could be “was/is/willbe. For the other one is “could have been” because her father didn’t do what he should do ie take care of his health so he would be able to be present in her life.

anyway, this question has the same difficulties as the first one, the ways i see it.

Q.3 I am feeling that I was being reactive but now I am not sure.
Reactive meant to me as if I won’t play any role on how things are. IIts mostly reactive but there is a part in me that sustain the situation and if i consider this as a Proactive the answer I choose is closer to the truth.

Q.4 : The surroundings are more about values
Same rational as in Q1 yet the values are prevailing


Q.5 : The surroundings are about what could have been/is not/could be
again , same rational as Q 2. its a my wishes Vs their wishes thing

Q.6 :The surroundings are being Reactive (responding)
comparing this answer with Q3 seems to be a conflict yet its how i see it. I didn’t choose proactive ( maybe I should) but a passive attitude the exhibit made me choose this answer. Looking again at my answer here , not very sure .

 

[anemos]

These three dichotomies are the independent variables of his system:

1. facts/values
2. actual/potential (my terms)
3. proactive/reactive

If they cannot be determined, then nothing that follows from them is meaningful.

Are these dichotomies real? Are they like A and not-A or like hot and cold. Hot and cold are relative positions on a scale. Facts and values admit of degree (intensity), involved different parts of the nervous system, and are typically concurrent. Lofting evades this complexity by the phrase "I am feeling that the situation is more about":

Tom, It occurs to me that this is what confuses you.

tom : Consider 'I am going to town'. This could mean 'I plan to go to town' (future action) or 'I am now on the way to town' (present moment). Instead of the momentariness of 'I am feeling', the expression should be 'I feel'. The comparison 'more about facts' is incomplete and requires the second sentence to complete its meaning: I feel that the situation is more about facts than about values. And we are still left with the puzzling terms "situation', 'facts', and 'values'.

maybe Chris meant that a situation is either about facts or values. You weight the data or emotions and decide which is more close to your feelings.

its like you have a container with a specific volume and you throw inside two liquids and then you analyze the mix. The total volume remains the same always. what is change is the percentage or the one or the other in the mix.

think of two glasses of gin and tonic. if filled to the same lever they appear identical but maybe the one has more gin and the other more tonic. the more gin you pour in , the less tonic you can add and vv

 

[Sparhawk]

think of two glasses of gin and tonic. if filled to the same lever they appear identical but maybe the one has more gin and the other more tonic. the more gin you pour in , the less tonic you can add and vv

A little early in the US East Coast but I'm sure in Greece is about mid-afternoon. ζήτω! (I like the way Maria thinks... )

 

[Sparhawk]

That makes me wonder whether Lofting, in trying to streamline someone's experience in that way was also -unknowingly?- trying to explain people's emotional reactions . . admittedly a quite mechanical approach to use in delving in the depths of human reality. In defense to his system though (and just to keep an even keel here), he does make it clear that the system works better when we are examining our emotional landscape and not the practical objective reality that I took as the core of the keys question . .

Not unknowingly at all, IMO! Remember that he incorporated and applied a lot of MBTI material into his research, to the point that he was asked to cease and desist by those with its copyright. (something I've always felt was misappropriated by the Myers-Briggs duo from the Jungian crowd.)

 

[chingching]

For what its worth the emotional I ching is the way I found clarity (the website, not the state of mind ) and I came across the emotional I ching because I had used a website which mystified me, not in a good way. When I do use his meanings or method for readings I understand in the same way I can understand 35 as a babies head or 27 as the eye of the tiger, the images of Tom and totlis, but not saying these are the same thing at all.

I often cannot form the question I want to ask and have found CL's system really helpful. I especially found meaning in his interpretation of 27. In the end I see all these contributors who are widely read here, bradford, lise, chris lofting, wilhelm, alfred H etc etc. as guides, not one interpretation(method) is better than the other. (Although I would rather just read one, I tend to feel I have to read everything in order to arrive at the meaning, memorizing threads and all).

But I never include what I get from Chris's stuff in my posts here because have always thought (from reading archives) that people would get too defensive. And he recently passed so maybe it wasnt appropriate.

Its easy for me as I was never involved in whatever happened between users etc. In any case reading this thread I can see that there is no bad feelings. (except for russell perhaps)

 

[anemos]

A little early in the US East Coast but I'm sure in Greece is about mid-afternoon. ζήτω! (I like the way Maria thinks... )

forgot the time difference. I should have said Ouzo . Never "too early" for Ouzo

 

[rodaki]

hey chingching, welcome to the discussion!

it's great to have someone more versed to Chris' method join here, maybe you could post a reading of yours too (?) -if you feel comfortable with that of course . . the more examples we have the clearer its function will become.
(btw that's an intriguing reading you have linked in your post . .)

Not unknowingly at all, IMO! Remember that he incorporated and applied a lot of MBTI material into his research, to the point that he was asked to cease and desist by those with its copyright. (something I've always felt was misappropriated by the Myers-Briggs duo from the Jungian crowd.)

yup, not unknowingly at all! Thanks for the info on the MBTI, I hadn't actually made the connection (or if I had read it it got buried under the weight of other information and soon forgotten) but it makes a lot of sense reading about it now . . The MBTI was actually one of those questionnaires that would make me bite my lips every time I filled it in, revolting against the need to stabilize experiences that seem very shifting and context-dependent to me --the joke being that everytime I do it I get the exact same results!

 

[heylise]

Well, let's hope you are brighter now. In answering the question 'Is it worthwhile to really discuss this?' when you chose 'I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought')' do you remember which values you had in mind? Did you wish to pay respect to the memory of Chris Lofting? Or did you have in mind the right of everyone to have their say? Or something else? Such clarification is why I think Sparhawk recommended Lofting's system.

This was my question:

We are discussing how to read an answer. Does the relating mean anything, and if so, what? The fanyao, Many lines a way to just give two hexagrams – which form a story. Everyone has her own way of solving those things. One likes the overview, another the details, one the feeling, another goes with literal words.
My question is: is it worthwhile to really discuss this? (As opposed to "is it only a question of everyone telling the rest how he/she happens to do it")
With 'worthwhile' I mean if it makes your relation with Yi richer.

The value was what everyone could learn or express or share and so on. A rich (valuable) exchange, which might bring worthwhile (valuable) knowledge or insight and such.

 

[anemos]

yes, and I find it still difficult to choose the right answer.

I asked about a cord that must be in a box still close after moving to another house. I though it was a easy question but I couldn't be sure if its about facts or values.

I don't need that cord at the moment but on the other hand I'm frustrated because I guess i didn't put it in the box with other cords or some people offered my some help put it in an irrelevant box ( grmph)

.

there is an interesting twist in that Situation.

as it was I would choose values or facts but not sure anymore.

But, I have to send my computer to the service store and maybe I have to format the disk, so now I need that cord to re-install a device.

the situation , imo, is not the same anymore. Now I need that cord so its more about facts.

 

[pocossin]

I too don't remember anymore my questions or the results I got back when but i did try out your key question when you first posted it . . I can reconstruct that here

Thanks for this helpful example.

Where is the key?
49 unchanging

The result was hx49 unchanging which I could interpret as that the keys are under some surface I haven't yet checked

Lise (as I remember) lost some papers, cast 49, and found the papers behind a leather covered chair.

box 1: I am feeling that the situation is more about facts (issues of 'is')
(this is a straightforward question about objective reality, it doesn't concern my emotional or psychological state or my beliefs, hence not determined by values

Wouldn't you be concerned that you had losted the key? Maybe you don't have a replacement -- like Bamboo's emotional (I think) loss of her car key -- or it's an emergency situation: you are locked out of your home in the middle of the night during a storm or are unable to start your car in a remote and isolated area. That would get me emotional, but emotions aren't values. I value peace and quiet but don't usually get emotional about it, so I don't consider values to be the opposite of facts and would be unable to answer this question.

box 2:I am feeling that the Situation is about what could have been/is not/could be
(that was for me the most difficult box to fill in but I gathered that its talking about my inner situation where I am examining possibilities -could the keys have been in that place?/they weren't where I have looked so far/could they be lost for good?

I agree with this decision -- if 'the situation' can be limited to consideration of possibilities within your mind.

box 3: I am feeling that, in some way, I am being Proactive (instigating)
(I see the question on Lofting's 'being Proactive' but I tend to see this as a way to incorporate more of the meanings that go with Yang elements. In this case, I don't have a 'how can I handle' question which could be seen as reactive to a situation, or a contemplative 'what do I need to know', it's more straight than these: I am looking for my keys, where are they? hence Yang)

Yes, you are being active by searching for the key or by trying to devise a plan to seach for it. But you are also being active by filling out the questionnaire, so why wouldn't you always be active?

box 4:The surroundings are more about facts
(this one is very clear, the surroundings are objective reality, they don't include per se any changes of states -unless someone finds or moves my keys changing the value of their state(meaning their coordinates) their position is a given fact I am trying to discover

'Surroundings' is vague. How does 'surroundings' differ from 'situation'? Is it the not-self (the situation with the self not considered), the physical surroundings of the lost key, or something else? When I lose a key I usually ask others if they have seen it, and these others are my surroundings, I suppose. They are neither facts nor values.

box 5:The surroundings are about what was/is/will be
(again, as above, I'm taking for granted that the surroundings of my keys are stable and I need to retrace them, not a matter of possibilities but of certainties remembering where I saw them last time (was),bring that to the present (is) to find out where I will find them.

But since you are supposing where the key could be, why not 'what could be'?

box 6:The surroundings are being Reactive (responding)
(unless someone has stolen them, the surroundings are objects and yield to my searching attempts -I can move furniture to look or tidy up the place to see if they have fallen somewhere etc)

But what if you had dropped your key on a bus, and the bus was moving? Physical environments typically have dynamic elements. Things flow, settle, and shift. Leaves might have covered your key.


Thanks very much for this example. It has given me the opportunity to show why I find this questionnaire so difficult.

 

[pocossin]

The trickiest question, IMO, is this one, but it isn't as complicated as it seems. When Chris uses the option "I am feeling that the situation is more about values (issues of 'ought')" "Values/Ought" should be understood in the context of those things related to feelings, notions, perception, belief, sentiment, views; further, I interpret the word "ought" as an assertive "should," as in "ought" is more of a "must" and "should" is sort of optional. Still they are closely related in value judgments.

When used with an ethical tinge, 'ought' implies a benefit. 'You ought to put air in you tires' means that the tires will last longer and give better gas-milage if properly inflated -- an economic and safety benefit. So 'You ought to put air in you tires' may be rephrased, It is to your benefit to put air in your tires. Or as the philosophers say, it is to your good, and whether or not something is to your good is a matter of fact, so there is no fact/value dichotomy -- as I see it.

 

[heylise]

To answer left-right-left-right is easier than first answering the left column and then the right. Horizontally the cells are similar, two earth, two man and two heaven, side by side.

The LEFT three questions deal with LOCAL context, i.e. YOUR perspective or 'THEIR' perspective of a situation etc.
The RIGHT three questions reflects what or who is working within the context.

Facts – values (row of reality).
If I ask where are my keys, that is about facts.
Am I a dummy that I lost them?, that is about values.
what was/is/will be - what could have been/is not/could be (row of man).
Will I find my keys?: what was/is/will be.
What will happen now I lost them?: could have been.
Proactive (instigating) - Reactive (responding) (row of mind)
Where shall I search?: proactive.
How shall I search?: reactive.

From your answer to Rodaki:
"Wouldn't you be concerned that you had losted the key? Maybe you don't have a replacement -- like Bamboo's emotional (I think) loss of her car key -- or it's an emergency situation: you are locked out of your home in the middle of the night during a storm or are unable to start your car in a remote and isolated area. That would get me emotional, but emotions aren't values. I value peace and quiet but don't usually get emotional about it, so I don't consider values to be the opposite of facts and would be unable to answer this question."
The question is not about being concerned, even though she might be. It is about the fact that they are lost and have to be found.
"But you are also being active by filling out the questionnaire, so why wouldn't you always be active?"
Filling out the questionnaire is not part of the question itself. Like throwing coins is not the question itself. It's just the means to get an answer.
" 'Surroundings' is vague. How does 'surroundings' differ from 'situation'? Is it the not-self (the situation with the self not considered), the physical surroundings of the lost key, or something else? When I lose a key I usually ask others if they have seen it, and these others are my surroundings, I suppose. They are neither facts nor values."
The situation and the people are physically present, hence: facts.
But since you are supposing where the key could be, why not 'what could be'?
The surroundings are not how things 'might' be, they are the house, the garage, the drawer, anything where the key might be. But "Where the key might be" is not part of the surroundings.
But what if you had dropped your key on a bus, and the bus was moving? Physical environments typically have dynamic elements. Things flow, settle, and shift. Leaves might have covered your key.
The surroundings are not proactive, they are not running away with the keys when they see you coming. Things happen to be the way they are, standing still, moving, and you have to find your keys reckoning with how the surroundings are, or doing something about them: retrace which bus it was, go to the company.

No idea if it makes sense? I think you include too much in your evaluation, not just the question itself. The question is about keys and 'where are they', not the feelings involved with their being lost, not the time you lose with searching, not the bus which moves away.

I think that is a big difference of this kind of 'casting', compared with the coins and such. The coins include the moving-away bus. They will give a different answer than if they are in your own cupboard. But this questionnaire cannot make that distinction. It reckons purely with only-you. No universe or Indra's Web involved.

(My answer for the lost papers was 33.2, between pillow and lattice in a yellow- leather-looking chair)

 

[pocossin]

(My answer for the lost papers was 33.2, between pillow and lattice in a yellow- leather-looking chair)

Here it is:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=2647&page=3
#26

I lost some important papers once. Searched through the whole house for 2 weeks, and finally asked the Yi: "Tied with yellow ox-hide".

I had one thing, a piece of furniture, which looked a bit like yellow ox-hide, a big polished yellow-wooden chair. It had strips of wood as back, and a big cushion against that. I looked behind those 'bars', and there they were. Found them in a few minutes, after these weeks of searching.

LiSe

 

[pocossin]

Horizontally the cells are similar, two earth, two man and two heaven, side by side.

Facts – values (row of reality).
what was/is/will be - what could have been/is not/could be (row of man).
Proactive (instigating) - Reactive (responding) (row of mind)

Did Lofting know about this? Or would he dismiss it as 10BC thinking?

The question is not about being concerned, even though she might be. It is about the fact that they are lost and have to be found.

If there is no concern, no question will be asked.

Filling out the questionnaire is not part of the question itself.

Lofting calls it self-reference and recursion.

The surroundings are not proactive, they are not running away with the keys when they see you coming.

If keys respond to the force of gravity, they move downhill.

I think you include too much in your evaluation, not just the question itself.

Yes, I include the self and its feelings and situation and surroundings

 

[anemos]

if the question is about a lost object and we assume it always a fact then our answer would be

1. I am certain that the situation is more about facts: young yang.

that means that we eliminate all those hex that have a young yang line in the 1st position. from both sides. so an answer to the question "where is X thing" uses certain hex. That doesn't sounds right.

Tom has a right to be confused with the first question. ( values/facts)

 

[sooo]

Love what LiSe wrote. But I'm pretty sure it would launch Chris into a lengthy discourse of what she got wrong, or else expanding upon it or rephrasing it, giving names and links to resources, etc. There was nothing brief about Chris. chortle..

What I got from LiSe's description was a fluid weaving of thinking and feeling, and I think that was precisely Chris' point. That interplay, back and forth communication, which time has no relation with, sympathetic instantaneous neurological connections.

I'd often be tempted to roll with that idea, incorporating into my layman's understanding of the quantum theory. That's considered a no no among PhD's and such, but I'd make the connection anyway, and Chris' ideas seemed to fit that paradigm more than it did the classical view of science or logic.

 

[rodaki]

Thanks very much for this example. It has given me the opportunity to show why I find this questionnaire so difficult.

Your welcome Tom!! I will comment in detail to your post tomorrow, glad it was of some help . .

 

[pocossin]

assumptions :
1. Dichotomies are real ! ( i need 3 PHDs to prove it , no time for that ) The reason they serve is to create the two extremes so I can find my “place”
values...................0........................ ...facts


Q.1 I am feeling that the Situation was about facts, but now I am not sure
it about facts, the things they do but they are opposite to my values and that is the main reason there is a conflict. But looking at my feelings I see that what disturbs me it that. I thing the key words here is “I am feeling” . its subjective, not objective. My subjective reality IS the reality for me. Calling it subjective its like I diminish it , ignore it as wrong and loosing the useful information i need to correct thing need to be corrected I think that's one of the main reason we repress feelings and maybe this is what this questions ask you , to express your feelings .

This is a very good statement of the problem I have with Chris's questionnaire. Except in popular psychology, values and facts aren't opposite. Facts concern what is true. The opposite of true is untrue (falsity,fiction). Values concern what is good. The opposite of good is evil, with indifference being at the center of the scale. If values were the opposite of facts, then they would be in the realm of fictions -- merely subjective notions, different for each person, similar to dreams, but we want our values to be true just as we want our ideas to be true. I would say there is a conflict between you and the others over what is good in this situation.

This casting gives 24.1.3 > 15. Chris describes the left hexagram as the cause and the right hexagram as the effect. He doesn't seem to use line text. For 24 he has "In a context of enlightenment, a new beginning, we utilise trust" and for 15, "In a context of self-restraint we utilise trust-in-others". Using these suggestings, I'd guess that the problem will be resolved in the long run by continued mutual trust.

 

[chingching]

hey chingching, welcome to the discussion!

it's great to have someone more versed to Chris' method join here, maybe you could post a reading of yours too (?) -if you feel comfortable with that of course . . the more examples we have the clearer its function will become.
(btw that's an intriguing reading you have linked in your post . .)

Thank you for being kind and hospitable! I dont think I'm more versed, did i give that impression? The link was me being cheeky, I thought I'd link the site and then thought why not ask cheeky question to link to, and I got a great answer hey?!

Here is a recent reading using emotional I Ching method of casting:

7 > 25

Its a work related question.

I'll tell you about it if you are still interested, but not now with the lunar eclipse constellating my moon/neptune I feel a bit..... i dont know.... also the canucks play the final match for the stanley cup tomorrow and if they win it will be their first win in 40 years and because I know a lot of canadians I'm a bit on edge. Also i have to go to bed soon, long day at work.....blah. happy sag full moon.

 

[rodaki]

sure, why not? I think it would be helpful to read more readings (pun not intended)
But I know what you mean, take your time by all means, I barely have time to breathe these days too . . my lunch break ends soonish and I'm thinking about finding a way to stretch time -now where is Borges when we need him?

 

[anemos]

This is a very good statement of the problem I have with Chris's questionnaire. Except in popular psychology, values and facts aren't opposite. Facts concern what is true. The opposite of true is untrue (falsity,fiction). Values concern what is good. The opposite of good is evil, with indifference being at the center of the scale. If values were the opposite of facts, then they would be in the realm of fictions -- merely subjective notions, different for each person, similar to dreams, but we want our values to be true just as we want our ideas to be true. I would say there is a conflict between you and the others over what is good in this situation.

.

thanks for the interpretation

Just realized that had made a mistake in the reconstruction. actually was 24>52.


I see your point , but i try to see it in a more simple way.

facts and values are both about truth
A "fact" simply is. It can't be affected by who believes it , introduce it etc.
Today's temperature is 32C. Thats it. In US is another number but we know how to convert it and we can agree that this is it.

Values seem like facts. it an objective reality / truth . its an individuals "IS" . but its a personal truth, a group truth , etc. Its my sense of what Is .

A day with 32C its a hot day. This is not a fact, its a "value" in a broader sense. To me might be "not really hot" to you might be " very hot" . We could say that each statement is a fact for both or us but its not a fact. its our objective realty.

to my understanding this is what examines that question.

You are against smoking and your house is a no-smoking house because you said so. I come and light a cigaret and you get upset.
what upsets you ? That I smoke ( i light a cig) or that I don't respect you no-smoking rule ( your value) ?

 

[Sparhawk]

When used with an ethical tinge, 'ought' implies a benefit. 'You ought to put air in you tires' means that the tires will last longer and give better gas-milage if properly inflated -- an economic and safety benefit. So 'You ought to put air in you tires' may be rephrased, It is to your benefit to put air in your tires. Or as the philosophers say, it is to your good, and whether or not something is to your good is a matter of fact, so there is no fact/value dichotomy -- as I see it.

That's a truism wrapped in a tautology and tied with a red bow shibboleth... But I think what's obvious is what's hardest to see, sometimes. The "fact" that something is good or bad, for you or anybody, doesn't mean the subject will either take the course shown or avoid it as the Pest. That's where "value judgments" come in. Religions, new and old, have tried to set "standard facts" for millennia. Alas, the world is up to the gills with sinners (raising my hand in confession!!)...