geekery 57.1

[dobro p]

HY Yi: ...li4 wu3 ren2 zhi1 zhen1

Ritstema/Karcher: ...wu3 ren2 zhi1 li4 zhen1

Piddle. C'mon you guys, get it together. What's a user to believe?

I like the HY Yi version better.

 

[Sparhawk]

Piddle. C'mon you guys, get it together. What's a user to believe?

Perhaps that's the message... Forget about the text. Hexagrams are universal.

L

 

[dobro p]

"Hexagrams are universal."

And hardwired into human psychology if Chris is to be believed, as well. But if my onboard guidance system was operative, I wouldn't be reaching for the Yi so often now, would I.

 

[Sparhawk]

But if my onboard guidance system was operative, I wouldn't be reaching for the Yi so often now, would I.

Houston, Dobro has a problem...

 

[Sparhawk]

It just occurred to me and I've a question: you are doing all these comparisons and translations because you want to study and learn as much of the Yijing as you can or is it because you want to interpret oracular consults better? If the latter, IMHO, perhaps you may be over-doing it...

L

PS: and don't reply "both" because that does not "compute"

 

[bradford]

HY Yi: ...li4 wu3 ren2 zhi1 zhen1
Ritstema/Karcher: ...wu3 ren2 zhi1 li4 zhen1
Piddle. C'mon you guys, get it together. What's a user to believe?
I like the HY Yi version better.

Dobro-
I don't know why you're even trying to use the R/K for a Chinese text.
It's not a scholarly version. The H-Y, however, is pretty definitive,
although a couple of textual discrepancies have crept in sine the
Zhouyi Zhezhong was printed in 1715. Is it because Steve Marshall's text
is Zhouyi only and doesn't have the Wings? If so, I recommend getting
Z.D. Sung's very faihful version. And it's interlinear, alongside Legge.

 

[lightofreason]

"Hexagrams are universal."

And hardwired into human psychology if Chris is to be believed, as well. But if my onboard guidance system was operative, I wouldn't be reaching for the Yi so often now, would I.

I gather what you reach for is a coin tossing system of divination - a method that is not consistant and so will fail you or misguide you in relation to some current, local, context.
Using the IC in this manner is akin to living a 'random' or 'partial' life in that all 64 hexagrams apply to any moment and if you dont sort them into best-fit/worst-fit order in a consistant manner then it becomes a 'lucky dip' exercise in getting the best fit. The consequences of THAT are covered in such novels as "The Dice Man" by Luke Reinhart (?)--- unless of course you believe in super-determinism and so the coin toss etc is guided, your singular life is fixed, and your consciousness is along for the ride.

To get into those issues from a neuroscience perspective see:

Pockett, S., Banks, W., & Gallagher, S., (2006) " Does Consciousness Cause Behaviour?" MITP

The mentioned hard coded element is in the IDM template from which customisation, labelling, gives us the IC metaphor. Thus categories of wholeness, partness, static relationships, and dynamic relationships (and composite forms) are in all of us as neuron-dependent species members.

As such the categories, qualities, that seed hexagrams are hard coded but being so are unconscious, universals, and so vague - you need to flesh them out more, as IC+ XOR etc does, and then colour them to personalise them for you.

The analysis of the IC from an IDM perspective covered all the here listed IC interpretations/translations and more:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html

The focus was on identifying the SAMENESS behind all of the DIFFERENCES. That analysis maps Blend, Bond, Bound, Bind to trigrams etc as well as recognise the differences in trigram positions to meanings (e.g. mountain in lower = self-restraint; mountain in upper = discernment (exploitation of the self-restraint))

Identification of the methodology in creating hexagrams, self-referencing of yin/yang, allows for the properties and methods within self-referencing to be used to flesh out the IC even more (and so the XOR material; the questions method of accessing the IC (Emotional IC etc) etc etc)

Going through different versions of the IC without considering the common ground behind the IC will not give you what you seek - you will need to step out of the IC box, learn what is behind the IC, and then step back into the IC box with a more refined understanding of what you are dealing with and so capable of writing your own IC. (and given the neurologically-derived categories you dont need to use the chinese versions etc since they too are customisations of something 'bigger' than the 'traditional', 10th century BC, material. )

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

It just occurred to me and I've a question: you are doing all these comparisons and translations because you want to study and learn as much of the Yijing as you can or is it because you want to interpret oracular consults better? If the latter, IMHO, perhaps you may be over-doing it...

I want to do it for the sake of consulting the oracle, and I want to make my own version as 'accurate' as possible. Of course, I've found out that there isn't a 'correct' version. On top of that, I believe that the oracle will work for you no matter how idiosyncratic it is compared to others, as long as *you* understand the meanings in it. And finally, I've got Chris chiming in with his opinion of the general uselessness of my approach anyway lol.

You're right. I'm overdoing it.

 

[dobro p]

Dobro-
I don't know why you're even trying to use the R/K for a Chinese text.
It's not a scholarly version. The H-Y, however, is pretty definitive,
although a couple of textual discrepancies have crept in sine the
Zhouyi Zhezhong was printed in 1715. Is it because Steve Marshall's text
is Zhouyi only and doesn't have the Wings? If so, I recommend getting
Z.D. Sung's very faihful version. And it's interlinear, alongside Legge.

I came to the same conclusion about the RK version this morning. I'm going to use it for a lexicon, but I'm abandoning it as a guide to the Chinese text.

As for Steve's Yi not including the Wings, that's a point in its favor as far as I'm concerned, cuz my version doesn't include the Wings either. Just the basics. Just the required. Stripped down and built for speed, sweetheart. Hold on tight.

 

[bradford]

I came to the same conclusion about the RK version this morning. I'm going to use it for a lexicon, but I'm abandoning it as a guide to the Chinese text.

That's how I used the R/K as well - as a lexicon. The concordance was pretty handy too

 

[dobro p]

Yes, the concordance is extremely useful. And a ton of work to do. Have you ever done a concordance like this one? I started one for the Yi once, but that was one bit of grinding routine I didn't keep up. I should have bought a hardcover version of RK. Mine's in about twenty pieces. Tsk. Overuse.

 

[bradford]

YHave you ever done a concordance like this one? .

I used the "real" Harvard Yenching concordance, plus the one in Kunst's dissertation. But for my own I didn't need to. I set my Matrix up, both in Word and PDF format, so that all I needed to do was use the "Find" command, with either the Mathews number or the Big 5 character. Zips you right through all the occurrences. Plus, for all of the characters not used too often, the Matrix also has a "Next Occurrence" column so you can trace its use through the Yi in hardcopy. It still does this, by the way.

 

[dobro p]

*very* slick.

Hmm...do most office softwares do the same thing for either a document or the whole folder they're in? A wordcount-***-locator function, I mean.

 

[bradford]

*very* slick.

Hmm...do most office softwares do the same thing for either a document or the whole folder they're in? A wordcount-***-locator function, I mean.

I believe so. All my html files are searchable by my browser.
On my Mac all of them are Command F for find