...life can be translucent

Menu

Hexagram 15. Ch'ien / Modesty

L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
Entice? Perhaps it is there in 33 but it is not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about 33.

33 pairs with 31 - they BOTH reflect enticement but one is competitive (33) the other cooperative (31). you have spent too much time focusing on a part (the traditional sequance) as if it were the whole - it isnt ;-)

The EASE in association of the total covering of 15 with the partial exposure (and so still maintaining a sense of cover-up) of 33 is not due to my interpretations, it is due to the FACT of the relationship, its absolute determinism, due to the methodology on creating the I Ching.

The enticement nature of 31 is reflected in its link with 52 and ITS focus on sharing space with a 'lost' or 'imagined' love - all totally 'in here' - as compared to exposure of such sharing physically through wooing (and so still a restraint of some form, still 'covering up' but leaving a little 'enticement')

the association of 49 with 33 complements that of 13 with 31 etc etc etc

IMHO opinion Martin, you are missing SO much by sticking to the limited traditional perspectives. (that said, the SAME methodology is applicable to the traditional sequence due to its roots in self-referencing, as manifest by the pairs. Thus the octets of the tranditional sequence are open to the same form of interpretation as the binary but from a different, specialist, perspective)

To understand the STRUCTURE of the I Ching, the relationships that come out of self-referencing yin/yang you MUST understand the binary sequence. If you stick to the traditional you will be severely limited and muddled (also being exposed to ad-hoc development of interpretations is not useful in the long run ;-))

We need to understand the symmetric, anti-symmetric, and asymmetric aspects of the IC and interpretations to get close to the 'full spectrum' of the IC.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
rosada said:
Dear Chris,
As I understand you, it appears you are saying you have discovered something in the I Ching that gives you a great deal of satisfaction. So much so that you would like others to share your viewpoint that they may also share your positive experience. It also appears that you have not been as successful as you would like to be in this sharing. I wonder if you have ever asked the I Ching, "How might I more effectivly share my discoveries?" I would be interest in knowing the results.

R.

All hexagrams apply to the method and question you suggest so there is no one 'meaningful' expression using random/miraculous methods; or more so the result is not necessarily the 'best fit'. As such I can review ALL of the hexagrams and get 'value' for the question (or any question for that matter).

I can use the Emotional IC to paint its 'view' of the emotional enviroment but that does not answer things about sequence since its focus is on magnitudes (emotional highs/lows).

Analysis of YOUR question that starts with 'how' indicates you are thinking of a qualitative, values, perspective, about what could be and there is a passive aspect in your asking so it is all yin. If we vary the last part then YOUR interest is on issues of identity (identity seeking being a property of earth/mountain based hexagram dynamics)

The only way of establishing identity in this context as such is through use over time. That requires work, you need to go through all 64 harmonics of each hexagram to flesh out clear identity at the 64-level (as compared to finer precision at the 4096 level - but a LOT more work!) - thus this is not a realm for seeking immediate gratification, some learning is required and many use the IC to avoid that! ;-)

Others favour my getting this stuff published but it IS - on the 'net and you can download it, print it, cut n paste your own version etc etc so I find no immediate need to publish but some favour an "Emotional IC" publication at some time or another since it is useful in therapy etc by being able to identify/bypass censorships etc.

The push by non-IChingers is for the IDM material to be published since it covers so much easily (e.g. hitchhikers guide to the meaning of mathematics, extensions to the MBTI etc etc etc) - the issue is having the time at the moment due to my work contracts etc... so things are slow ;-)

As for sharing the material with traditional I Chingers - most dont like it, hate it, dont understand it etc etc they are SOOO rooted in the traditional perspective as if it is THE perspective that they cannot imagine change! ;-)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
bruce_g said:
Chris doesn’t use divination. Each and every hexagram fits any question he would ask at any given time. There is no synchronistic event occurring. It is purely a neurological function of self referencing.

No - the issue is more on methodologies. The FULL set of hexagrams applies to any moment BUT is sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order by the local context. Trying to capture a 'sychronistic' moment is like trying to repeatedly predict 'snow in the sahara' where it IS possible but VERY rare and equilibrium is quickly re-established.

To get anything like 'synchronicity' requires more so a development of sameness across two entities - there must be correlations and so purity is essential - see anything on identical twins or Sheldrake's lab rats or old radio crystals or cancer cells (or basic quantum mechanics) (as I have mentioned MANY times on this list - see the archives)

Note that these relationships have NOTHING TO DO WITH TIME/DISTANCE and it is THAT that allows for them to work across the universe - in other words the LINK is always there. This is different to coincidences that get interpreted as if 'synchronous' where education, social background etc can increase probabilities of running into people or being in the same area etc

The use of random/miraculous methods will NOT give you repeated consistancy in hexagram associations to the local context at the level of the everyday - questions methods will. - so why use something that is inefficient and creating illusions that can lead to delusions?

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
bruce_g said:
I can see the mask idea, in the sense of more going on inside than what is evident or seen on the outside. But the mask isn’t intended to hide anything - as 36 isn’t intended to harm anything - it’s just that there’s more than what meets the eye.

Isn't that how it feels when you meet a truly modest person? They have a reservoir inside, and their words and actions bubble up to the surface from that place. I've met some famous people, and they seemed to be divided into two distinct types. One was obviously insecure and the other unusually humble. I always got the feeling that the insecure one was "tapped out", while the humble one seemed to have great reserve.

As covered in the XOR material giving the outside look of 15 as 27 (potentials, infrastructure) and the inside look as 28.
 

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
8,994
Reaction score
2,085
Hmm..so is it correct to say that the divining methods - tossing the coins - assumes there is a "best fit" that can be best discerned by divination. Whereas you are saying there is no "best fit" but by being acquainted with all the hexagram possisbilities man can make a concious choice and decide for himeself the best fit? I am assuming that it is possible to know these possibilities well enough that one could determine the best fit this way in a reasonable amount of time. I mean, if you toss coins you get an answer in a moment. If you have to go through 64 hexagrams checking all the lines I wonder if anyone would feel they had the time to do it. So I probablby don't fully understand your approach.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
In other words, 'modesty' is included in the meaning of Hex 15, but it by no means covers the range of meaning contained in Hex 15. Like Chris, I think that there is *way* more to the meanings of hexagrams than meets the eye. I'm not familiar with the range of meanings that he's dealing with, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't sit comfortably under the umbrella as well.

From the species level we have ANYTHING or ANYONE focused on (a) a context of sharing (inner) space with someone/something and (b) within that context, being focused on inner 'oneness' (the contractive blending of earth)

The XOR material shows that all hexagrams describe each and so 64 'aspects' of a hexagram are derivable using XOR - no human reference etc at all - the links are there due to the method of self-referencing. -- and so the 27-ness of 15, 34-ness etc etc etc

THEN comes the comparisions of octets etc etc. LOTS and LOTS of stuff that has been sitting there for eons unnoticed by the 'gurus'.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
rosada said:
Hmm..so is it correct to say that the divining methods - tossing the coins - assumes there is a "best fit" that can be best discerned by divination.

Any methodology - be it coins or yarrow sticks or marbles - is interpreted as establishing a link from the local to the general where the general determines the fall of the coins etc. this is the miraculous perspective.

rosada said:
Whereas you are saying there is no "best fit" but by being acquainted with all the hexagram possisbilities man can make a concious choice and decide for himeself the best fit?

No. There IS a 'best fit' in that from a evolution perspective we have internalised the characteristics of 'out there' and so can predict events through resonance. We FEEL that resonance and can elicit a 'best fit' hexagram through use of general questions. These can be asked by you or by some interpreter for you. The latter is useful in getting around 'conflict of interest' issues of the questioner.

What the Emotional I Ching (EIC) does is utilise what we understand about how we process novelty etc through our emotions where they operate semi-autonomously to our consciousness (the latter can censor expressions etc and the EIC can identify that censoring)


rosada said:
I am assuming that it is possible to know these possibilities well enough that one could determine the best fit this way in a reasonable amount of time.

it is done immediately through questions and can be done 'mentally', on the run, if you wish ;-)

rosada said:
I mean, if you toss coins you get an answer in a moment. If you have to go through 64 hexagrams checking all the lines I wonder if anyone would feel they had the time to do it. So I probablby don't fully understand your approach.

your confusing aspects of the model - besides derving the 'best fit' for interpretations, the method of creating the hexagrams (recursion of yin/yang dichotomy) means each hexagram contains aspects that are describable by all of the other hexagrams - the ability to do this is due to the method of self-referencing of yin/yang. As such we can get the IC to describe itself using the XOR material - see the intro page :

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

Thus we can identify, for example, how a hexagram 'begins' or what it keeps coming back to by XOR-ing the hexagram with hexagram 24 - the symbol of return/begin.

To get a description of the infrastructure of a hexagram we XOR it with 27 - the symbol for issues covering infrastructure (and what we put in to that structure)

etc etc (also see examples in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icspectrums.html )

THEN comes the different methods of interpretations - hexagrams as magnitudes, as sequences, or as hierarchy.

There are no changing lines as such in magnitudes - they serve more as methods to extract harmonics details (the XOR focus). There is only ONE changing line in sequence (Plum Blossom method). The 'traditional' focus is on treating the hexagrams as hierarchy where each change is a change in some level of the hierarchy that can limit influence upwards, strongly influence downwards. Thus each line change is semi-independent of the rest but they all contribute to a change in the expression of the hierarchy.

Chris.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Chris, you don’t really think I expected you to agree with me, do you? even if we said basically the same thing?

Heil, mein Führer!
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
bruce_g said:
Chris, you don’t really think I expected you to agree with me, do you? even if we said basically the same thing?

You wrote "Each and every hexagram fits any question he would ask at any given time" - this lacks precision - all hexagrams will fit a question but they are SORTED into best-fit/worst-fit order.

Ze izzue vas on preciZion!


bruce_g said:
Heil, mein Führer!

und I vant to hear ze heels CLICK ven du saize dat! ;-) (mein liber got! - one cannot get good staff these days....)
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
Chris a Führer?? Hmmm, nah, Mr. Lofting Sr., used to flight for H.M. in the RAF in WWII. He would most certainly disapprove of it... :D

L
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
lightofreason said:
33 pairs with 31 - they BOTH reflect enticement but one is competitive (33) the other cooperative (31). you have spent too much time focusing on a part (the traditional sequance) as if it were the whole - it isnt ;-)
Focus on the traditional sequence? No, I rarely think in terms of that sequence and the 'story' that it suggests.

But IMO you are focusing on a part if you emphasize enticement, 'trickery', 'drawing in the enemy' (IC+) so much.
This is only one of the many possibilities of 33. Sometimes you simply wish to get rid of those damned followers (people, obligations, etc), for instance, and drawing them in is the last thing you want! :)

Is it because of the supposed pairing of 33 and 31, based on your conditional/unconditional 'law', that you see enticement etcetera as a central feature of 33?
Perhaps it's time to throw that law out of the window? And a few others too? Imagine the freedom!

If you stick to the traditional you will be severely limited"
Come on, I don't even stick to my own interpretations. :)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
Hmm, didn't read the recent posts before I posted. The subject changed from hexagram 15 to mein Fuehrer?!
Beyond all modesty, must be 15.7 or 8 ...

For more about this, see the hex 16 thread. :D
 
Last edited:

frank_r

visitor
Joined
Jun 20, 1971
Messages
639
Reaction score
14
lightofreason said:
The use of random/miraculous methods will NOT give you repeated consistancy in hexagram associations to the local context at the level of the everyday - questions methods will. - so why use something that is inefficient and creating illusions that can lead to delusions?

Chris.

Last week two students asked me to look into a list with questions, with this list you can make a diagnose if somebody needs only physiotherapeutic help, also psychological help, both or nothing at all.
So I thought lets make the test myself, the first time that I answered the questions I was stressed, was somatising, was a little depressed and had big fears. I needed Phsiotherapie for a long time and I also needed psychological help.
A week later I did this test again, now I was completly healthy.
okee the first week I had a bad day and felt not al that good.(and maybe some help would have been nice that day)

The second time I had a better day. But neverteless it was a very big difference with totally different advice.
And this was a so called scientifical questionairy list. When this list was converted to a hexagram I should have two totally different hexagrams, two different sort of advice.

When I throw with the coins on two different occasions I usually also get two different hexagrams and with that different advice.

So I don't see a very big difference, if you use a questionairy or at random. it is both a mirror of your state of mind. They are both working, your method and also the at random method.

The only reason more people think that a questionairy is better is because that has the Mandate of heaven at the moment and at random not. Science only needs a paradigme shift to see that on a certain level at random also works and for some area's even better.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
What surprises me is that Chris does not, can not or will not see the relatedness of time (timing) in “random” methods. It is outside his specialization, and so it doesn’t exist in his equations. Since his equations are more important to him than his instincts and premonition (what he calls "magic"), he must follow the “thing” that he’s created.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
lightofreason said:
The use of random/miraculous methods will NOT give you repeated consistancy in hexagram associations to the local context at the level of the everyday - questions methods will. - so why use something that is inefficient and creating illusions that can lead to delusions?

Chris.

If you actually used the so-called random method, you would be surprised to see how often the same hexagram would come up for the same related questions within a small period of time. You could claim coincidence only so many times before you had to question the likeliness of such coincidences. Have you ever tried and recorded this? I suspect the whole idea would be foolish to you, and so why would you even try?
 

RindaR

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 2, 1972
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
31
Using the random method may also remove any errors that might occur due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem or subject explored... ??

Rinda
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Martin said:
But IMO you are focusing on a part if you emphasize enticement, 'trickery', 'drawing in the enemy' (IC+) so much. This is only one of the many possibilities of 33.

All of the POSSIBLE events that 33 can represent are covered in the generic categories of a context of contractive bonding (issues of sharing space with another/others) within which is operating expansive blending (a focus on issues of wholeness through expanding - and so asserting the context, no sharing dude! ;-))

Refine these terms a little to give us self-restraint (mountain in bottom) and singlemindedness (heaven in top)

Add-in the five-phase influences of METAL and so the Western interpretation of a focus on EXCHANGE (where we have lake = cooperative exchange, heaven = competitive exchange) where this is going on WITHIN a five-phase context of EARTH (mountain trigram maps to conditional FILTRATION - includes discernment, quality control, best practice, potential 'loves' vs lost loves that seed the quality control etc etc)

Include the PAIR emphasis where 31,33 stem from 00111 with 31 being general, unconditional, 33 being conditional, focused, particular.

Add-in the XOR material of 33 infrastructure described by 49 whereas 31 is associated with the more 'likeminded' emphasis of 13.

Etc etc etc and I think the enticement focus is reasonably good. ;-) (Wilhelm covers this as a structured retreat/withdrawal and so the suckering in of the enemy, and so trickery, draw-in etc etc - then add-in the *local* ideogram:

"TUN : withdraw; run away, flee; conceal yourself, become obscure, invisible; secluded, non-social. The ideogram: walk and swine (wealth and luck) satisfaction through walking away."ERANOS p381

THEN add-in the associations from the octet for mountain with the relation of 15 to 33 and we see the differences in total level-out, modesty (15,52) with a touch of enticement, we leave a little opening to tempt (33,31)

Note in five-phase the 15,52 pair occupy the five-phase position of EARTH (it covers the trigrams of earth and mountain) and so general FILTRATION. Thus 15 and 52 mix the main hexagrams of general and particular filtration (the other mix is in 02 and 23 pair that is more general, the rules for filtration come from the OUTSIDE, in mountain they are refined through rules from the INSIDE)

The 15-33 relationship, as with the XOR material, strongly support the overall focus on enticement as a particular over all of the other possibles - call it the 'best fit' for the hexagram/hexagram_pair - recognising that it covers, IN GENERAL, all events of blending inside bonding. As such we do a better job here then the traditional ideogram does! ;-) (we capture the sense of loss as we do gain of quality; in mountain we capture the self-restraint, being blocked, as we do the exploitation of that blocking, we use it for quality control. With lake comes the issues of immediate passion and with heaven the issues of singlemindedness.)

... and I have not touched on the other 61 aspects of 15 covered in the spectrum! (and so sourced not in me, but in the IC)

martin said:
Sometimes you simply wish to get rid of those damned followers (people, obligations, etc), for instance, and drawing them in is the last thing you want! :)

Then you are focused on positive feedback in the form of push away rather than negative feedback with its emphasis on 'getting closer to' - which is more what is going on here in this pair of 31,33

Lake in LOWER position is more what you seek - its focus on self-reflection and the use of mirrors allows you to push others away by appearing 'like' them as you hide behind the mirror.

If we put competitive exchange atop cooperative then we have 10 - walking your own path but under intense scrutiny. Better to use 38 where we use the mirrors to reflect 'them' and so they don’t bother you as someone seen to be 'different'. - you deal with oppositions by appearing to 'share' something and use that to stop intrusions etc (and so an element of trickery but it all goes with the overall mountain-lake link to issues of passion - be it with a love (lake) or suffering a loss of love (mountain)

martin said:
Come on, I don't even stick to my own interpretations. :)

That’s because they are YOURS and so singular. The IC+ material gets a lot from the IC itself and so from the particular-general realm - that is if you are prepared to accept the material, or do you prefer the limited, 10th century BC perspective? ;-)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Frank - look carefully at the IC+ questions - they are all GENERAL and hierarchic and about YOUR interpretation of a situation as in is it/you focused on:

(1) facts or values
(2) what was/is/will be or what could-have-been/is not/could-be
(3) are you reacting to something (reactive) or instigating (proactive)

Thats it. We can add six more questions and rephrase (see my thread on Dilts) but the focus is on the questions being hierarchic where (2) is done WITHIN (1) and (3) applies within the context set by (1) and (2).

I am sure your particular questionaire was NOT structured this way - the structure I use is based on how you brain IN GENERAL deals with novelty.

We could make the questions more general by just using yin/yang:

(1) WOULD YOU INTERPRET THE GENERAL CONTEXT AS YIN OR YANG? (measuring a Magnitude, emotional expression)

(2) given the answer to (1) would you interpret the dynamics in that context as more yin or more yang? (dynamics = sequences - note the temporal emphasis in question 2 above.)

(3) given your answers to (1) and (2) would you consider YOUR dynamics as more yin or yang? (mix the (1) and (2) and we then add you into a hierarchy)

I can do this for all six lines but people will lose track due to issues with consciousness and the repeating of yin/yang (and so I use different terms in the original questions) OR I can (as I do) split things into two trigrams, one the inner (YOU, particular) and the other the outer (THEM, general)

I can even do things in reverse but the ESSENTIAL focus is on the hierarchy.

SO such questions as:

(1) how do you feel today? yin or yang?
(2) given (1), is the 'flow' of things more yin or yang?
(3) given 1 and 2, are you being more reactive (responding) or proactive (instigating).

Each question has four possible answers (yin, yang, was yin, was yang)

GIVEN the knowledge of the method, I can ask questions out of order if need be - UNLESS I use only yin/yang where I must ask them in order since they are note 'independent' of each other (orthogonal if you like).

The IC+ questions are NOT about the situation itself but about its qualities. ANY question will be facts or values oriented, will be about what was/is/will be or what could have been/is not/ could be , and will involve you proactively or reactively.

The emotional IC works off our emotions interpreting the emotional quality of the situation given the questions as general coathangers (they are vague, sort of neutral etc) onto which emotions place particulars through their answers.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
bruce_g said:
What surprises me is that Chris does not, can not or will not see the relatedness of time (timing) in “random” methods. It is outside his specialization, and so it doesn’t exist in his equations. Since his equations are more important to him than his instincts and premonition (what he calls "magic"), he must follow the “thing” that he’s created.

your missing fundamentals on magnitudes vs sequences etc and you are stuck on the coin being determined no matter when you toss it - IOW if I ask a question and derive one line PER DAY, after six days the resulting hexagram should be the SAME as if I had asked the question and done it all at once. - this would map to te focus on correlations where there is no time/distance influence.

The terms 'random' and 'miraculous' are terms related to an event with NO HISTORY and so no past to influence the present. From an information processing context, a random sequence of bits, e.g. HTHTTHTH, derived from tossing a coin, is the purest form of information in that there is no redundancy - I cannot compress the information, relying on past patterns to allow for the compression/decompression based on statistics etc.

As such, each bit is a bit, has a value of '1' or '0' as information. with redundancy I can compress, introduce probabilities etc so that a bit becomes removed etc (as I can remove vowels from a word and easily retrieve the word in full)

I am WELL aware of the dynamics of coin tossing, the random/miraculous, etc etc and the point is the method lacks efficency. The need for a pure form repeatedly is an issue, each answer as such has to be a miracle (the other term for 'random' ;-)) and if you look around you (and review my last comments on identical twins etc) this is all RARE.

To be MORE CONSISTANT, repeatable, in deriving valid meaning it is better to use the questions method - as it is to realise the differences in interpretations re magnitudes, sequences (date/time stamps), and hierarchy.

The questions use the hierarchic perspective out of which can be extracted the magnitudes but time/date stamp can be, is, an issue. (Plum Blossom being the only method I have seen that recognises the issue with sequencing and so has only ONE changing line - but again its intent reflects more a focus on expressions of correlations and so time/distance is meaningless)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
bruce_g said:
If you actually used the so-called random method, you would be surprised to see how often the same hexagram would come up for the same related questions within a small period of time. You could claim coincidence only so many times before you had to question the likeliness of such coincidences. Have you ever tried and recorded this? I suspect the whole idea would be foolish to you, and so why would you even try?

Been there, done that. You seem to think I have not investigated all aspects of the divination process! LOL! - as part of my analysis of the derivation of meaning all of this has been done - and associations differ over the method used.

If I use yarrow sticks there is a bias to yin.

Coins gives me a 50/50 call.

questions are REALLY GOOD, giving consistant results re describing as situation. GIVEN the description we can apply XOR to flesh out where things will go if the situation is allowed to run its course - and so whether we need to get involved or not. ;-)

BTW - To fit the yarrow sticks into MODERN times, reverse the associations to give a bias to yang.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
rinda said:
Using the random method may also remove any errors that might occur due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem or subject explored... ??

Rinda

But it does not give you consistantly the 'best fit'. It IS useful in getting a 'left field' perspective but that can also be covered by actively applying all hexagrams to the situation and seeing which one 'resonates' with you - this DOES require a good feel for the hexagrams but that is easily done with some practice or just building a hexagram hierarchically as covered in the below questions.

Chris.
 

frank_r

visitor
Joined
Jun 20, 1971
Messages
639
Reaction score
14
Hallo Chris,

Thanks for answering it so thorougly, yes I think your way of working with questions is really working well. And if your always thinking of what is the emotion behind something it's a very good system. and I agree that's something different than the questionary the students asked me to do.

But I still think that the random/magical way of divining is also working. Because behind every word there is a emotion, in one way it has a meaning we agreed to work with(the yin part) on the other hand everybody has his own feeling with it(the yang part). Even behind a question like: Why is my fridge not working well. This is a question about a emotion but also a question why something is not working.

So from this point of view you are always answered with a yin and a yang part.Which can come together in your heart and make a connection.
Divining or answering questions are both about the now. And a hexagram with a questionary or with coins are both hexagrams. So if your belief in questions or you belief in divining it's both the same.

And where are the big differences between this systems?
So maybe you must look when your system is working better and in what cases divining is working better.
Because I don't think it should be a game who and which is better. 10 % of the effort should be about naming the differences and 90 % of the energy should be spent to look for solutions. Only then there is really change possible.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
frank_r,

the focus on questions etc is on efficency so see how it goes using both over time.

The XOR work is on details derived from the IC itself - one of the details covers beginnings, another endings and so given the questions we can extract those details - if you try to do that from coin tossing etc you can soon see any 'error' in that the historical details will not fit the parts leading up to the event whereas with questions they should.

Chris.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
lightofreason said:
BTW - To fit the yarrow sticks into MODERN times, reverse the associations to give a bias to yang.

Chris.

Interesting... Why?

L
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
59
I think you only do that if you think the procedure of arriving at a hex by manipulating the stalks is random, a matter of chance. But if you believe that life gives you the hexagram you need for the question you're asking, that somehow the hexagram you draw via manipulation of sticks or coins IS A FUNCTION OF THE SITUATION AND THE QUESTION THAT ASKS ABOUT IT, then it's not random, and there's no need to make the adjustment Chris describes.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
The "why" in my question on the adjustment Chris suggest is about the "Modern Times" connection. As for myself, I'm too much of a romantic not to believe in synchronicity... :D

L
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
sparhawk said:
Interesting... Why?

L

As a species we have 'sped up' since the 10th century BC, in other words our context and our interactions with it are more proactive than reactive. The yarrow stick method is biased to a reactive focus (yin) but our consciousness/culture is more proactive(yang).
Thus to 'fit' the yarrow stick dynamics into reflecting 'out there' we need to make it more context sensitive and so have a range of biases! The quickest form is to reverse the associations and so keep the probabilities, the method, bias but swap yin/yang.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
I think you only do that if you think the procedure of arriving at a hex by manipulating the stalks is random, a matter of chance. But if you believe that life gives you the hexagram you need for the question you're asking, that somehow the hexagram you draw via manipulation of sticks or coins IS A FUNCTION OF THE SITUATION AND THE QUESTION THAT ASKS ABOUT IT, then it's not random, and there's no need to make the adjustment Chris describes.

if you believe this then there is no need to use the sticks at all. Super determinism 'says' that all is foreseen, even the act of questioning superdeterminism is foreseen ;-) This is REALLY reactive, passive stuff - it means do nothing since all will be done no matter what you try to do to express 'freedom'.

Basic genetic diversity alone goes against this. Determinism is in the realm of the GENERAL with LOCAL context eliciting differences and so 'free will' in the form of a range of choices, the full range being outside of consciousness and so a feeling of being 'free' but more so of being 'guided' by those choices.

From the IC+ perspective super determinism is a dead end, sterile, corrupt and in need of 'correction' (18) and the questions method elicits the 'best fit' hexagram for the situation - be it from direct perception or from asking one's emotions (18 even emphasises the need for continued communication to prevent small errors getting out of hand). The only issues are with self-deception that IS possible in the questions - so the advice I gave earlier re getting someone else to aid in the questions.

From an information processing perspective, the purest form of information is the random. Tossing a coin to give a sequence of HTTHHTHTT is pure in that it is irreducible; there is no redundancy and so each 'bit' is pure 1 or 0, H or T. As such, the sequence is UNIQUE.

The development of consciousness follows the same patterns in that the development of SELF covers the first 2 years or so of life and then is refined for the rest of one's life. The interactions of the individual with reality will more often be 'random' and so we develop a unique self, someone irreducible.

BENEATH that is our particular/general nature and THAT is determined by our genetics where those genetics represent the history of the species, family, and one's on genetic diversity.

When we introduce memory systems we increase redundancy and in doing so conserve energy - I can compress information and decompress it with little or no loss of the information. Our brains do this and the XOR material covers this 'entanglement/compression' dynamic that comes with self-referencing. The IC+ perspective is on the PARTICULAR/GENERAL where LOCAL context will customise to give the unique. That customisation will exaggerate, marginalise, or expunge universals to fit the local, be it YOU or your context.

The use of divination is an attempt to acquire a 'miracle' or 'random' sequence that represents a situation. The methodologies involved can get a 'hit' but not on a regular basis - as I said before, it is like trying to predict 'snow in the sahara' every moment - no can do. To get around this 'issue', use the questions perspective - it is more consistant and adds some proactivity, YOUR choices, where you ARE involved in the context and so influence - unless you believe in super determinism and do no need to do anything at all - context will just push you ;-)

Chris.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
lightofreason said:
As a species we have 'sped up' since the 10th century BC, in other words our context and our interactions with it are more proactive than reactive. The yarrow stick method is biased to a reactive focus (yin) but our consciousness/culture is more proactive(yang).
Thus to 'fit' the yarrow stick dynamics into reflecting 'out there' we need to make it more context sensitive and so have a range of biases! The quickest form is to reverse the associations and so keep the probabilities, the method, bias but swap yin/yang.

Chris.

You know what,? it makes some logical sense to me. Thanks. This point of view is very interesting. Not sure if I will ever be able to dare switch line results but I think is useful as another perspective. As a corollary, I wonder if these reactive/proactive biases --let's call them "big picture biases"-- are cyclical in any way...

L
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top