Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
bruce_g said:Heil, mein Führer!
lightofreason said:und I vant to hear ze heels CLICK ven du saize dat! ;-) (mein liber got! - one cannot get good staff these days....)
Focus on the traditional sequence? No, I rarely think in terms of that sequence and the 'story' that it suggests.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 ;-)
Come on, I don't even stick to my own interpretations.If you stick to the traditional you will be severely limited"
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.
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.
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.
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!
martin said:Come on, I don't even stick to my own interpretations.
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.
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?
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
lightofreason said:BTW - To fit the yarrow sticks into MODERN times, reverse the associations to give a bias to yang.
Chris.
sparhawk said:Interesting... Why?
L
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.
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).