PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
It's like we're given the plot, of a life, a decade, a year, a day or hour, to 'act out'. We're given the nature of the character we play, and the general script. How we play it is our doing. A character who is especially prone to doing something negative may consciously choose to use that same moment and energy to do something positive. If you know the problem before it arises, you can prepare to take corrective action before the time it arrives. But sure as heck, there's a deck of cards we'll each be dealt tomorrow. It's up to us how we play them.Maybe it is like that. Looking back, it is as if everything had to happen the way it did. It is what shows of your tao, you live and you think a lot of it is random. You just happen to take a turn here, a turn there, something happens to cross your path, so you take one of many possible roads. Could just as well have gone in another direction. It seems...
Universe came into being in this same way. Seemingly random, but I think random is much more that we think it is. Like the coins which fall down in a random way. But a fraction of a difference in the side they "choose", or tao chooses for them, changes the reading. That fraction, that is why random is the only way to make tao work. No decision can ever match that tiny push of that tiny difference, pushing fate exactly where it 'wants' to go.
Knowing that 'something' much bigger than me chooses my direction is a wonderful thought to me. It doesn't feel like cold predestination, but as if I really am part of universe. Looking back I know it could not have happened otherwise. Looking forward I know I will go where I am supposed to go. My own decisions are an important part of that as well. But more I can 'let them happen' and less 'make them happen', the closer I will get to my true destination. Letting happen does not mean sit back and just wait, it is something very active. When you sit back, you become victim of decisions of things or people outside yourself. Letting happen feels rather like "letting myself make them" instead of "making myself make them".
It is going on. See such as the journal of consciousness studies. The IDM work covers the emergence of consciousness as an agent of mediation and as such an originator of language. The more refined the development the more the language moves from a mythic format to a directed format. You appear to know nothing of this so your assertion above is a bit weak.Neurology has not yet developed a science of consciousness .
...and your evidence for this?.... such specialist metaphors as the I Ching reflect more so the use of brain dynamics at an ignorant ,ad-hoc, level of understanding over generations.The I Ching is derived from pre-historical teachings that were
based on knowledge that included many levels of consciousness,
later represented by number , symbol and language.
The issue with the sensory systems is synaesthesia issues that can develop - reflects a mix of genetic diversity or local development issues for some senses over others.The range of the five physical senses in most contemporary humans is
limited. Compared to our ancestors, it seems likely the range has
declined over the centuries, although there have been small groups
who have known ways to develop the range of different senses.
The superiority of audition over vision is well known and is brought out in the increased resolution power of hearing as compared to trying to extract RGB details from a hue. As I have said, the NEUROLOGY makes no distinctions - as far as it is concerned all is in the form of frequencies/wavelengths/amplitudes and THOSE elicit emotional responses to data that we can extract using the EIC.Perhaps the most sensitive human sense is hearing. Most humans have
a ten octave range; whereas in the case of sight, a two octave range.
We see in three colors, while other species see in four and include the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum. In the case of smell, some dogs have 100 times the range of humans: a dog can sense a drop of a drug in a swimming pool.
The above is meaningless without specific details.There are finer senses than the five that humans have and can develop, just as there are many levels of consciousness that are possible for us.
it makes no difference what specific sensory system, or combinations of, is used - the neurology will categorise as covered in the IDM workIt is not surprising that oral transmission and the precise use of sound formulas (among other practices) are part of the traditional means for learning texts such as the I Ching.
The development of consciousness as an agent of mediation allows for communications through the use of language. The format is through resonance - as we experience in the first language, our emotions. It is this language of emotions that allows the EIC to get an assessment of a context and translate such into I Ching hexagrams. Discretisation allows us to take the overwhelming nature of some emotional communication and cut it up into chunks to be processed serially. Words then add to the precision in doing this.You write:The language property of the I Ching allows us to see ANYTHING In the I Ching since, as a language, it is capabable of representing anything. Issues are then in the details and THAT is supplied by personal consciousness having access to names/dates/places etc etc
Who is doing the seeing?
The IDM work covers ALL meaning and as such all languages - besides being trained in logic etc I also have a professional musician background ;-)Traditional scholars today and sages in the past mastered a wide range of arts and sciences as a necessary part of their study. Confucius was a skilled musician, yet he taught calligraphy and other arts as well. ( I recall a legend he taught 1000 -or 3000? - pupils in his school the different required fields - including the I Ching- but only 77 were graduated and approved )
No. ALL languages have a common ground and that is in our neurology. Local contexts have elicited specialist languages that appear to be 'unique' but the fact is behind all of the differences is the sameness we all share as species members and THAT is what the IDM work has focused upon and is driving the EIC work.A Western historical study of any tradition - as its arts, literature, sacred texts and so on has its value. To be cognizant of the simultaneous, multiple meanings and associations for words and images requires a thorough familiarity with a culture.
The EIC material comes out of a scientific perspective free of any association with 'secret handshake' organisations. The language element discovered allows us to get the IC to describe itself at the class level and as such is extremely useful in fleshing out details of hexagrams etc.And the inner teachings and keys to texts like the I Ching were traditionally kept secret and reserved for the few. This secrecy is less the case now, although access to the keys is still accessible to the few who are prepared to learn it - a self-selective process. The Chinese have a saying that there are few who know and among those who know there are few who teach.
So if i understand you right, if I'm standing at a vantage point where I can see two cars hurdling towards each other, but the drivers, because of a curve in the road don't see it, the crash is predestined but not predetermined. Right?
LOL! love it Frank - you walked right into it! You analogy to a CIRCLE reflects a grounding in SYMMETRIC, mythic, thinking. Neurologically, psychologically, this is a realm of metaphors where all are interchangeable and this covers the realms of abstractions, of specialist languages that in fact all cover the ONE set of concrete meanings we all share as neuron-dependent life forms.So much changes if one assumes to have a better vantage point than anyone else. However, that is rarely true, just different points of view like points upon a circle, each looking off on their own tangent and noting that from their perspective all others are under them.
Demonstration of the LACK of equality, the nature of uniqueness, is the best retort for the above, symmetry minded, rubbish. The 'logical flaw' is in your use of bi-conditional logic Frank - the equivalence focus reveals your symmetric perspective and it is that that is distorting your point of view.Any view that claims its assumptions are unquestionable truth and all others false if they disagree quickly reduces everything to just a simple dichotomy of 'our view' and all others we reject. Whether that is logical positivism or Elvis' or poor Chris Lofting's--they all founder on the simple logical flaw involved. What proof have you that what you assume so important is of any value outside of your own clique of 'true' believers? Equality of personal perspectives is the most devastating retort to all those claims.
too much reading gives you a headache? - lengthy discussions can be of value if you can deal with it - otherwise comments like the above just present you as if unable to use directed thinking (thinking in words) over mythic thinking (thinking in images) and that can be an issue in that you can miss out on the 'difference that [can make] a difference' (Bateson).uh-oh, pantherpanther did not see this coming, these lengthy discussions!
for many of us it is a deja vu..
too much reading gives you a headache? - lengthy discussions can be of value if you can deal with it - otherwise comments like the above just present you as if unable to use directed thinking (thinking in words) over mythic thinking (thinking in images) and that can be an issue in that you can miss out on the 'difference that [can make] a difference' (Bateson).
I've still got the migranes from the last timeno, it's just that Elvis has been around before. the headaches will come. but he's lovable
My understanding of it has failed me miserably at some crucial times. If I had understood better the more complete meanings of the readings, I could and would have made better choices.My objective question is, in your own personal experience with this dialogue, in situations that were on-going processes (mostly relationships - or work) and that you chose to follow the Y's advise and see what came, have you experienced that the outcome was completely another than what the book suggested, the situation had nothing to do with the Y's predictions, you led yourself into stormy waters for no apparent reason? …
As it ever bluntly failed for any of you?…
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not marching in here with my ridiculously short one-year experience announcing how I am so definitely right and the book so obviously mistaken. I didn't even share my readings nor made it that specific because of course I contemplate the likelihood of my clinging to the outcome having completely distorted whatever reading I could have gotten. This is why my question really concerns you, the experienced ones, and how you deal with interpretations that seemed so poignant and turned out completely contradictory. I don't feel it would be a very healthy attitude to just ignore those and focus on all those times we know the Y works... that would be acritical and somewhat dangerous, imo...My understanding of it has failed me miserably at some crucial times. If I had understood better the more complete meanings of the readings, I could and would have made better choices.
Are you talking about relationship questions...romantic ones, the ones where you think you were 'led astray' ? Cos well IMO thats a category on its own. We form romantic relations by and large with a heavy dose of projection...we can only sustain this projection when the person isn't fully available to us, where they can't for some reason fully communicate with us. If they could fully communicate their actual thoughts and feelings about us to us we'd know them and the romantic projection may well totally shatter so...enter 10000 questions to the Yi on "how does he feel about me" and "will we be together". By question 45 'he' has probably gone from complete indifference to the utmost devotion in our minds.It also disturbs me a bit to think only the erudite can have access to it. At some level, it should know it's readers capabilities, I believe, and convey meaning in a way accessible to you. Me, in the case... am I being naive?
It's true that i got 17 and 5 and 32 over and over and I gathered that meant not giving up. And then I got 31 and 19 and that meant a bit of hope in coming together as a couple. Therefore I have to accept I just don't have enough knowledge on those hexagrams. But that's puzzling. I imagine that if the Y wanted to tell me go away or give up it could have gave me a 33, 23, something a bit more obviously hopeless...?
My question still stands then, if I know I keep getting answers I have little likelihood to interpret right, how do I go on chatting?...
Thanks for your view on it, it's an important point to be made, of course, my ignorance
Having been through similar situations I look back and find that the lack of trust was not with the IC but with myself. Starting to trust myself again was a times really hard, however a good maxim to follow is "Take one day at a time". The Yi is Mr Dependable, so you know he's on your side and is rooting for you to get 'it'. If I allow myself to get bogged down by self- doubt and mistrust then I'm never going to get it. Taking one question at a time - forgetting all the ones before and all the ones still to be asked. Approaching each question with the same innocence, wonder and expectations of success as the first one you asked...... that may be one way to manage the self doubt. Let go of the wrong and non-answers, treat yourself with compassion, forgive yourself and have faith.how do you manage the non-answers and the wrong-answers? How do you regain trust?
For me, it changes not how much I rely on its answers but in what way I rely on its answers. There's a great deal less credit and judgment involved in my interpretations these days than in times past.But if at some point I believe using my interpretation of an I Ching led me astray in a major way or in minor ways many times, I'd have to make a decision on whether to continue using it and, if i decided to continue using it, how much to rely on its answers.
I think it's very good to question and scrutinize our beliefs from time to time. I still ask if the whole synchronicity thing is just a self-perpetuated hoax, if there's a way I am tricking myself into seeing what I want or need to see? I don't view that as unhealthy. I view it as part of vitality.I think what you might be asking is how does one overcome the feeling or thought that the i Ching is just phony baloney after you experience a major malfunction with it.
Change your approach.Hello everyone -
....So, in short, how do you manage the non-answers and the wrong-answers? How do you regain trust?
The EIC comes out of IDM and the focus on meaning derivation REGARDLESS OF SCALE. In other words we use the SAME methodology in interpreting reality at all scales. Issues then emerge re the DEPTH of analysis and the EIC demonstrates in its XOR work the phase transition present in meaning generations and so what you consider 'graded levels of energy'. The gradings are at 2^1, 2^3, 2^6, and 2^12 in the I Ching. The 2^6 level is the MINIMUM level for getting the I Ching to work as a language - lesser levels show emergences of categories etc (yin/yang, trigrams) but not the emergence of language usage.elvis,
In reference to your extensive comments (#32) on a few of mine (# 30). I will look into your Emotional I Ching.
I think what lacks in your approach to the I Ching is the principle of scale. While everything in creation is "material," there are graded levels of energy and these levels interact.
The IDM template covers all POSSIBLE classes of meaning GIVEN our neurology and our senses. Our species nature development has been grounded in SYMMETRY and our sensory systems reflect that adaptation. It is the emergence of the ASYMMETRY of our consciousness that allows us to 'see' the fact of only coming up with the 6% you mention.The I Ching was based on a knowledge of these many levels. You have developed a partial model based on a selected number of observations. You say words and numbers have certain meanings. This is analogous to theorizing how the universe works from the 4% that is observable. Scientific research as neurological research, genetic research - that is, astronomy, biology, physics and so on - is based on "observable" phenomena .
Since the IDM material covers what is 'in' our heads, so the alchemical elements of the I Ching are 'in our heads' - e.g. hexagram 41 where the 'decrease' covers distillation processes and the consequences of failed distillations. The Taoist focus on alchemy and the western focus both cover hierarchic activities of abstractions(metaphysical) from the concrete(physical) (moving UP the hierarchy) and concrete from abstract (moving down the hierarchy). see my comments on the binary NUMBER sequence of the I Ching in my previous post to this thread. Note this particular sequence is one of MANY covering this dynamic but is the best to bring out the extremes of yang/yin distinctions.When I noted science has not developed a science of consciousness, I was aware of several hundred published studies that conform to the standard scientific method . I am familar with the Journal of Consciousness Research you mention. This work points toward what may become a science of consciousness. There is still little funding in this area of research.
Mircea Eliade writes that it is only “with the appropriate psycho-somatic and spiritual training that (modern) man can have the (ancient) revelation of the primordial mode of nature”. (Eliade,Sacred and Profane, 1978). He calls it an oddity that alchemy is mankind’s first science, but is widely regarded as a form of mysticism. Modern man has an aesthetic appreciation of nature, but his awareness is so greatly narrowed by materialist views that he is today incapable of understanding the science of ancient alchemists.
The thing is I don't really imagine myself right now without this dialogue in my daily life. I think I will completely refrain from relationship questions for a good while, and just study through other people+s experiences (Shared Readings forum) but it just doesn't feel like giving it up...I think what you might be asking is how does one overcome the feeling or thought that the i Ching is just phony baloney after you experience a major malfunction with it. Personally, I'd ask: what does your heart tell you? If you feel that despite your disappointing results, you still resonate with the I Ching, keep working with it, but perhaps read its answers with some skepticism. But if you feel the i Ching may be just a lot of hot air, you might decide that it is not the best spiritual discipline for you at this point at least.
Thank you all,See the summary of these in the EIC sample pdf document (first 50 pages of the book)
By using the language approach one can start to regain trust in the IC and in oneself
Hi Trojan,Frank, Elvis is Chris Lofting...its not his 'acolyte' its the same person new name..
No, no I didn't mean it was a masquerade ! Chris simply left the forum and has now returned and used another name. When people rejoin they often use another name but I don't think its due here to any attempt to masquerade. I was just telling you it was him..hes not pretending anything, just being himself...who else writes like that !? He isn't attempting to be anyone other than himselfHi Trojan,
How very sad to hear it is all just a masquerade by Chris. I had hoped he had finally found the true believer he had so desperately desired. Here in Vegas we are used to all sorts of Elvis impersonators. Pity Chris hasn't grown any yet. Perhaps this new year will bring new things for us all.
Really interesting thread though of course some went over my headAre you talking about relationship questions...romantic ones, the ones where you think you were 'led astray' ? Cos well IMO thats a category on its own. We form romantic relations by and large with a heavy dose of projection...we can only sustain this projection when the person isn't fully available to us, where they can't for some reason fully communicate with us. If they could fully communicate their actual thoughts and feelings about us to us we'd know them and the romantic projection may well totally shatter so...enter 10000 questions to the Yi on "how does he feel about me" and "will we be together". By question 45 'he' has probably gone from complete indifference to the utmost devotion in our minds.
So I think what can often happen is in the 'how does he feel' 'will we be together 'question frenzy one is just looking into a hall of mirrors of ones own projections which is why its quite frustrating so many people give themselves pain and feel 'misled' by doing this over in shared readings...but then again its something everyone has probably done, I know I have but i think its well to be aware its an area because of projection of our wishes we really are quite blind...so IMO readings re 'romantic ' questions are probably best kept to a minimum and even then taken with a pinch of salt...
I think its a bit different with relationship questions where one has an actual ongoing relationship...but very often romance questions concern someone, as I said, who really is not that close to the querant, who the querant doesn't really know...they ask 40 questions, think they know and then wham when the reality of that persons real thoughts and feeling becomes apparent...and it turns out it really would have been better to try to get to know their feelings by by talking to them..its the only reliable way IMO.
So in short i think its possible not just that you didn't know enough about the hexagrams but that you substituted communication with him/her with communication with the Yi., which doesn't work at all well IMO. Wouldn't your cues on whether to give up or continue be better, more reliable coming from him/her. Often people say they can't ask or talk to the loved one..and that in itself is probably a pretty good sign that its just not working
Of course all this assumes it was a romantic question that you feel the Yi misled you on...but even in any relationship question something to bear in mind is the more you have to ask the Yi about them the less they must be actually communicating/ sharing with you.
I don't think only scholars have access to getting wisdom and guidance from the Yi but I don't think i agree the Yi, can always fit itself according to the level of our knowlege of it. I say this because i can see many many times where i totally misunderstood an answer.., where the answer was quite apt but i just did not understand it and I would have been better off not following what I mistakenly thought was Yis advice but my own judgement. If i am unsure about an answer I still do that.
I can't see any need for 'faith', its not a religion but an oracle, and when there are times we don't have a clue about our answer i think we'd better put the faith in ourselves
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).