Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
No I Ching Journal?
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?
For some reason, completely out of my control, the whole issue has been blown out of proportion and over-analyzed.
if the spirit moves me, maybe later, assuming I have a question I wish to share publicly.
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.
I am feeling that the situation is more about facts (issues of 'is')
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.
Luis, it isn't plain English. The language of the questionnaire is distractingly odd.
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.
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 : 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'.
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
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 . .
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... )
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.)
This was my question: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.
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.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.
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)
.
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
The result was hx49 unchanging which I could interpret as that the keys are under some surface I haven't yet checked
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 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.
(My answer for the lost papers was 33.2, between pillow and lattice in a yellow- leather-looking chair)
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
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)
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.
Filling out the questionnaire is not part of the question itself.
The surroundings are not proactive, they are not running away with the keys when they see you coming.
I think you include too much in your evaluation, not just the question itself.
Thanks very much for this example. It has given me the opportunity to show why I find this questionnaire so difficult.
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 .
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 . .)
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.
.
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).