How to Best Approach Yi re: Broad, Multidimensional Questions?

[peters]

When one is confronting a single situation and choosing insight, or even selecting between a pair of possible decisions, the approach of posing a question, or pair of questions, to Yi is fairly straightforward. What is the best approach, however, when attempting to determine amongst a broad set of possibilities? Let me give a concrete example that Hilary mentions in her post “I Ching and Business” [https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/answers/2005/03/17/i-ching-and-business/], that of setting a price point for a product. Now, this can be thought of as essentially a ‘search algorithm’ – more precisely, a well-defined quantitative, single-dimensioned search algorithm, however it might be carried out.

What if you need to select among multiple possibilities in multiple dimensions? For instance, if one is looking for an ideal employment, there are questions of location, type of work, size of firm/institution and so on. It is a kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query, rather than simply selecting between a pair of possible actions. A search algorithm could be rigorously formalized and optimized or could be more along the lines of the blindfolded children’s game “warmer…cooler”, only the querent is literally ‘blind’ – not having a clear direction as to an optimal outcome – and Yi is shouting/whispering “warmer…cooler”.

I queried Yi regarding this: “Is it acceptable to structure a set of questions addressing a single topic in order to narrow down your reply from a broad set of possibilities?” and received 10.3>1, with the wonderfully on-point humbling/nixing changing line (tr. Hilary):

‘With one eye, can see.
Lame, can still walk.
Treads on the tiger’s tail:
It bites him. Pitfall.
Soldier acting as a great leader.’

Now, this might be taken as Yi’s reply to me in that moment, rather than a general judgment.

What are people’s thoughts on the best way to deal with the kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query I have described above?

 

[moss elk]

How .. best
What is the best...
The best way?

⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆
⬆ Like that ⬆

 

[Black_Panther11]

When one is confronting a single situation and choosing insight, or even selecting between a pair of possible decisions, the approach of posing a question, or pair of questions, to Yi is fairly straightforward. What is the best approach, however, when attempting to determine amongst a broad set of possibilities? Let me give a concrete example that Hilary mentions in her post “I Ching and Business” [https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/answers/2005/03/17/i-ching-and-business/], that of setting a price point for a product. Now, this can be thought of as essentially a ‘search algorithm’ – more precisely, a well-defined quantitative, single-dimensioned search algorithm, however it might be carried out.

What if you need to select among multiple possibilities in multiple dimensions? For instance, if one is looking for an ideal employment, there are questions of location, type of work, size of firm/institution and so on. It is a kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query, rather than simply selecting between a pair of possible actions. A search algorithm could be rigorously formalized and optimized or could be more along the lines of the blindfolded children’s game “warmer…cooler”, only the querent is literally ‘blind’ – not having a clear direction as to an optimal outcome – and Yi is shouting/whispering “warmer…cooler”.

I queried Yi regarding this: “Is it acceptable to structure a set of questions addressing a single topic in order to narrow down your reply from a broad set of possibilities?” and received 10.3>1, with the wonderfully on-point humbling/nixing changing line (tr. Hilary):

‘With one eye, can see.
Lame, can still walk.
Treads on the tiger’s tail:
It bites him. Pitfall.
Soldier acting as a great leader.’

Now, this might be taken as Yi’s reply to me in that moment, rather than a general judgment.

What are people’s thoughts on the best way to deal with the kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query I have described above?

 

[Black_Panther11]

SIMPLICITY...works best for me. Letting go (no confronting or struggling)... easing the tension of the mind and centering in the cushion of the heart and the heart of the inquiry. I find that the pressure of too many questions, multi-layering or intellectualizing anything ... is a reason to pause, breathe and let it go, especially of the anxiety and need to control or know the outcome or answer (same difference). Perhaps return later (if answer doesn't come on its own), give it space and time to come from that higher place.

What are people’s thoughts on the best way to deal with the kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query I have described above? answer is in your question.... TAKE A MOMENT TO DIVE DEEPER...into the beautiful "blue ocean".... the answers are all in there.

 

[peters]

Dear moss elk: I’m afraid your reply is too cryptic for me. Can you elucidate?

Dear Black_Panther11: This is inspiring but, at least for me, unhelpful. If we were generally capable of discovering such guidance on broad, ill-defined questions through direct introspection, we would hardly need to turn to something like divination or the I Ching.

Dear Freedda: With regard to 10.3, to the contrary, I find Yi’s reply to my specific query perfectly limpid. As to your proposed question, certainly one may do this and it’s a perfectly fine and useful approach for all sorts of situations, but it’s not particularly helpful for the kind of situation I outlined in my originating post, as what the reply reveals is unlikely to be sufficiently informative to sort out from a wide range of possibilities.

Let me comment further generally. The pattern of life tends to vary from broad to channeled, from wide open to well defined. For instance, you have to choose a career (broad, wide open), but then you settle into it and do the day to day work (channeled, well defined). The biggest, most consequential decisions are typically those that are most wide open. A short list would be: a) where to attend university, b) what career to pursue, c) whom to marry, d) where to find suitable employment, … When decisions are smaller and simpler, such as a choice between a limited set of well-understood options – we can simply reason or gut-intuit our way to a decision. It might not be the best, it might have been better informed through Yi, but we do that kind of decision making all the time. It’s when the options are many, diffuse and poorly understood that this kind of ‘standard’ approach tends to break down and serve us less well. See, for instance, Peter Struck’s TED talk, which makes precisely this point: [www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNq6RI8DvI]. It is precisely in such a situation, which invariably comes up – often repeatedly – in the course of a life, where turning to a source of guidance such as Yi would be most helpful. But – and this is the point of my originating post – it is also in such a situation where the means of turning to Yi is least clear. That is the problem, one I still hold out hope of further insight into from this forum.

Best to all of you.

 

[moss elk]

Dear moss elk: I’m afraid your reply is too cryptic for me. Can you elucidate?

I gave you the answer in a very simple way.
The comprehension part is your work to do.
Take some time and think about it.
I have nothing more to offer.

 

[peters]

Dear moss elk: Fair enough.

 

[Liselle]

Mr. Elk, sir, I don't understand your reply, either. That makes at least three of us. Do you mean something like, "ask a higher-level question"? That would go along nicely with the following...


Peters, here's an article Hilary wrote in her blog, if you haven't already seen it:

Yi and decisions: a cautionary tale

Here is a cautionary tale about involving Yi in decision making, how this can get you tied up in an endless series of unpromising readings, and the tremendously simple way to avoid this. Why is this a cautionary tale? Well, because I've managed to act out the full story twice in the past couple of w

www.onlineclarity.co.uk

It recommends starting out asking for general guidance first, as Freedda also suggested. I think the point is you might recognize something from that which will help guide everything else. (I'm going from memory as unfortunately I don't have time to re-read the whole thing now.)

Also, here's the results page from using Clarity's "Quick search" feature with the search term 'decision': https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/?s=decision
From the article titles it seems useful (I want to sit and read them too when I have chance).

("Quick search" is in the menu at the top of the page - hover over the magnifying glass on the right. It's really good for finding blog articles.)

 

[moss elk]

I apologize to everyone for not being clear.

My attempt at communication meant the same as blackpanther,
Ask these types of simple questions: What is best? What is the best way?
How best? Which is best? ...etc

Works every time for me.
Making it more complicated only muddies comprehension.

The arrows in my first post were pointing to peters own words containing the answer.

 

[peters]

You say you found Yi's response 'perfectly limpid', but you haven't shared what makes it so, or what you think it means for your reading? Of course it's perfectly fine that you don't agree with my approach, but you did invite us to share our 'thoughts on the best way to deal with the kind of broad ‘blue ocean’ query I have described above' ....

And what I described often works for me, regardless of the particulars of the subject or the 'type' of query. I'm often amazed too with how specific the response is.

Looking a bit more at 10.3 and what the response said, here we have:

The one-eyed are still able to see​

The lame are still able to take steps​

Treading upon the tiger’s tail​

Is the bitten one’s misfortune​

The military man works for a greater noble ​

I was wondering then, is this referring to three or four different people and their responses/approaches to 'Treading', 'Respectful Conduct', and/or 'Propriety, Courtesy, Respect' (three names for hex. 10); or, is this perhaps one person, who might - at times - have trouble seeing or moving forward, or steps unthinkingly into danger, but that even so, this person can be - or become - a warrior if acting for the greater good? One might even think that it's only by making these mis-steps that they can become a 'warrior'.

And here, a 'warrior' might be 'detached and at ease, and she 'acts not for profit, but for the spirit', and they think that despite their mis-steps and despite the troubles of the world, they see it as 'stupendous, awesome, mysterious, and unfathomable' (all from the teachings of Don Juan).

Similarly, if we were to think of this response as being about querying the Yi (and not about a particular person), I can see the Yi responding:

'Go on, ask your question. Don't worry if it's worded incorrectly, or if you don't see clearly how to best act or ask; and that even if you 'step in it' - and fumble and blow it - if you ask sincerely - as a warrior might - you'll get an answer that you can use or one that you need.' ​

Works for me!

Best, D.

Dear Freedda: To reply to your second posting, your offered translation of the changing line in question is a little different (and somewhat more positive) in language than Hilary’s translation, as given in my originating post. The comparison opens to a larger issue – which should really be its own thread – of which translation to look to. In other words, what are the ‘ground rules’ established between the diviner and whatever wisdom-intelligence speaks as Yi to maximize the chances of understanding what is being conveyed. For myself, the ‘ground rule’ I have ‘announced’ to Yi is that I look primarily to Hilary’s translation (both her I Ching: Walking Your Path, Creating Your Future as well as the word translations of the ancient Chinese Zhouyi ‘technical’ vocabulary in Language of Change: A Yijing Glossary), but also glance over to Karcher’s I Ching: Plain & Simple as well as DeKorne’s Gnostic I Ching (which incorporates a number of leading translations). This could obviously be extended, and sometimes is, but it already covers a fair amount of ground. Even in comparing Hilary’s translation to Karcher’s I Ching: Plain & Simple, there are, occasionally, distinct shades of meaning that can make a real difference in interpretation. This is a potential problem that requires steering between a) the Scylla of consulting only a single translation, of whatever quality, and b) the Charybdis of looking at too many translations and getting confused in interpretation when meanings diverge. Usually, of course, meanings diverge – among what are presumed to be capable translators – for a very good reason, namely the impossibility of fixing a single English meaning to a given word from the Zhouyi. Ritsema/Karcher (alternatively, Ritsema/Sabbadini) make this perfectly clear. The kind of double assumption I am working under is a) good translation matters and cleaving to the meaning of the ancient Zhouyi as closely as possible is important (in particular, looking to translations and not ‘repackagings’ in contemporary English), but that also b) Yi is adaptable and able to ‘speak’ with a particular ‘go-to’ translation in mind, as long as this is clearly understood and consistently followed on the part of the diviner. In this latter case, consider the near-even split of opinion, both ancient and modern, with regard to the three-coin method, as to whether two heads = yin line / two tails = yang line or the other way round. A choice has to be made by a given diviner – the only way forward is to make a choice, ‘announce’ it to Yi and then be consistent with it.

Now, in looking at 10.3 in Hilary’s translation, the understanding I received, which in this instance hardly required deep consideration or pondering, is that the proposed scheme was a kind of over-reach, in which I was ‘one-eyed’, ‘lame’, stumbling into ‘pitfall’ and an ordinary ‘soldier’ trying to take the part of a ‘great leader’. Hilary’s commentary for the line is very much in keeping with this interpretation. Your translation of 10.3 is, as I said, shaded more positively and your interpretation follows that.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should share with you two immediately following queries, assuming the general correctness of the interpretation I have offered above. I’ll just include the changing lines (tr. Hilary).

“What, then, is the way forward to receive your counsel, given the large space of confronting possibilities?” 1.3.4>61

1.3: ‘Noble one creates and creates to the end of the day,
At nightfall on the alert, as if in danger.
No mistake.’

1.4: ‘Someone dancing in the abyss.
No mistake.’

“Can you advise further?” 19.1>7

19.1: ‘Influence nearing.
Constancy, good fortune.’

I’ll leave these without attempted interpretation.

 

[peters]

Mr. Elk, sir, I don't understand your reply, either. That makes at least three of us. Do you mean something like, "ask a higher-level question"? That would go along nicely with the following...


Peters, here's an article Hilary wrote in her blog, if you haven't already seen it:

Yi and decisions: a cautionary tale

Here is a cautionary tale about involving Yi in decision making, how this can get you tied up in an endless series of unpromising readings, and the tremendously simple way to avoid this. Why is this a cautionary tale? Well, because I've managed to act out the full story twice in the past couple of w

www.onlineclarity.co.uk

It recommends starting out asking for general guidance first, as Freedda also suggested. I think the point is you might recognize something from that which will help guide everything else. (I'm going from memory as unfortunately I don't have time to re-read the whole thing now.)

Also, here's the results page from using Clarity's "Quick search" feature with the search term 'decision': https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/?s=decision
From the article titles it seems useful (I want to sit and read them too when I have chance).

("Quick search" is in the menu at the top of the page - hover over the magnifying glass on the right. It's really good for finding blog articles.)

Dear Liselle: Yes, I know the article you referenced well. I fully agree, a kind of general ‘clearing question’ / ‘orienting question’ is a very good idea. To bark up the right tree, first you need to be in the right woods. Yes, checking to make sure that, really, these are the woods you are supposed to be in before proceeding on a tree hunting expedition is a generally good idea. How might this work in practice? Let’s take a leaf out of Hilary’s blog post, mentioned in my originating post, where she was trying to set a price point for a product. She doesn’t go into detail as to how exactly this was done, but let me propose a possible example:

I have an item I want to offer for sale and I think a reasonable price range is between £30 and £50. Now, following Hilary’s advice in the blog post you mention, if I ask an ‘orienting question’ and receive, say, 28 unchanging – ‘Great Exceeding’ – or, alternatively, 46 unchanging – ‘Pushing Upward’, that might be a suggestion to revise my range downward or upward respectively. Once the range is established, one could employ a formal search strategy. As an example, a very straightforward strategy would be to halve the range into two ranges, £30-£40 and £41-£50, and inquire to see which was preferred. Take the preferred range, say £41-£50, halve again, £41-£45 and £46-£50, and inquire again. Repeat similarly to narrow down to whatever precision you are looking for.

In doing so, one is looking to Yi for ‘more yes / more no’, ‘this / that’ or ‘hotter / colder’ kinds of responses, but Yi is capable of speaking with greater sophistication than this. Thus, even before embarking upon such a strategy as outlined above, it would be well worth inquiring where in the range the best value would be found. If 55 unchanging were received, ‘Abundance’, this would suggest searching near the high end of the range straightaway.

This single-dimensional example – in which the price point is either higher/more or lower/less – might be extrapolated to a two-dimensional further example to stretch the consideration a bit further. Let’s say you are moving to a new area and house/apartment hunting. A way of narrowing down possibilities might be geographic location, but the potential options are dispersed rather than distinctly clustered in location. You could, as a strategy, take a map of the area, with the grid letters A-Z running East-West and grid numbers 1-26 running North-South. The same general strategy laid out in the single-dimensional case can be applied separately to each axis in this two-dimensional case in order to narrow down a preferred location to find a house/apartment. Again, the first thing you want to do, however, is query whether you are looking at the right map!

 

[peters]

Dear Freedda:

One guideline I know of (from a few different people) is to look for a Yi version that keeps the imagery of the Yi, and doesn't do your thinking for you. ...

Yes, certainly. That's what I was getting at by mentioning "looking to translations and not ‘repackagings’ in contemporary English." Yes, Bradford Hatcher's translation is a very good way to go. A strength of Hilary's translation is that the commentary is 'road tested' and aimed at practical divining, while having been reviewed in detail by Bradford, Harmen and LiSe - likely the top three Yijing Sinologists active here. See: https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/fri...-about-20-years-too-soon-from-the-blog.11246/

I find it interesting (thought not entirely in a critical way) that you then mention a half dozen or so versions - some of which are very, very different - and I found myself wondering, where is the clarity, or where are the 'ground rules' in that approach? ...

Very simply, it's that Hilary's translation gets weight of preference for interpretation if there is a significant distinction of meaning, but that very often, the minor distinctions between different translations are edifying without really altering interpretation.

I don't really understand your idea of 'annoucing' this to the Yi, but it seems to me that consistency is what matters here - that you don't swap out heads for tails mid-reading.

'Announcing' could be done in any number of ways. In a way, it is similar to 'announcing' a question. This could be internally clarified, spoken aloud, written down...

But if for your next reading you wanted to swap the coin's meanings, or use yarrow stalks or willow branches, or use computer-generate random numbers, ...

Sure. You are not 'married' to a given way of doing things, or a given preferred translation for the rest of your days, but it would seem sensible not to change things up too often or without good cause.

For me - despite differences in translation/interpretation - I am seeing a similar theme to what you, I, and others are saying here: that a different approach is needed, and perhaps one that (according to some of us) should be more direct and simple .....

Yes. But again, there is the problem of 'information transfer', particularly if what is needed is something specific out of a wide range and the language of the Zhouyi is comprised of short, cryptic phrases.

 

[peters]

Again, thanks, and just a few more thoughts: ...But that's just one take on things, and if that's not true for you, that's fine too - we are just exploring here at your invitation ....

Best, D.

Dear Freedda: Thanks for your closing thoughts. I agree, there are no hard and fast rules here, and ultimately, we must each learn from our experience as to what is fruitful and what is not.

 

[peters]

Thanks Moss Elk, et al.

I understand that in the era of oracle bone divination (pre-Yi), they often didn't ask questions, but instead made statements. So, instead of: will next fall's crop be good or fail? Will we have a harsh winter? Or, will the advancing army attack us?

.... you would have statements like:

'next fall's harvest' ​

​

'next winter' ​

​

'the approaching army' ​

I rather like that ..... simple, direct, open.

Best, D.

P.S. and thanks to Harmen Mesker, who first presented this idea to me:

Two workshops with Harmen Mesker in March, 2020

Two workshops with Harmen Mesker in March, 2020 – at The Academy of Acupuncture in San Diego, Calif. (USA) This is one workshop, but you can attend either for the first two days (March 26-27) which will be about using the I Ching, or you can attend all four days (March 26-29) which will also...

www.onlineclarity.co.uk

Dear Freedda,

Two references I have that address just this topic are as follows:

Harmen Mesker: http://itcn.nl/serendipity/archives/81-Questioning-the-question.html
Joseph Yu: http://fsrcenter.blogspot.com/2007/12/questions-in-divination.html

 

[peters]

The kind of double assumption I am working under is a) good translation matters and cleaving to the meaning of the ancient Zhouyi as closely as possible is important (in particular, looking to translations and not ‘repackagings’ in contemporary English), but that also b) Yi is adaptable and able to ‘speak’ with a particular ‘go-to’ translation in mind, as long as this is clearly understood and consistently followed on the part of the diviner. In this latter case, consider the near-even split of opinion, both ancient and modern, with regard to the three-coin method, as to whether two heads = yin line / two tails = yang line or the other way round. A choice has to be made by a given diviner – the only way forward is to make a choice, ‘announce’ it to Yi and then be consistent with it.

On the question of the ‘adaptability of Yi’ to ‘speak’ in the context of a given assumption or choice with regard to, say, a preferred ‘go-to’ translation of the Zhouyi, the following two references are of additional interest:

Harmen Mesker: http://itcn.nl/serendipity/archives/103-Believe-me.html
Bradford Hatcher (originating): https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/fri...-response-be-tailored-to-your-resources.4903/

The question of the ultimate nature of Yi is somewhat separable from the question of whether, in a diviner’s experience, this kind of adaptability is empirically encountered. If one assumes Yi to be something more than the mind working over and imputing meaning into a random signifier lacking inherent significance, this should hardly be surprising, insofar as if Yi has sufficient wisdom-intelligence to have insight into a matter that one is baffled by, it can certainly tell what one’s preferred translation or methodology of interpretation might be.

 

[peters]

Dear Freedda:

But it seems you politely rejected our suggestions, and instead did at least two more Yi queries about your question …

To clarify, all three queries that I shared earlier in this thread were done in relatively close succession a few weeks before my originating post to this thread.

So it seems to me that despite multiple queries you’ve made and multiple suggestions from others, you do not yet have a response from the Yi which answers your original question: “How to best approach Yi re: broad multidimensional questions?”

I would agree with that. I don’t think I have what I would recognize as a suitable reply to my query either from Yi or the forum here. It is quite possible that there isn’t a suitable reply that could be given. The problem, again, is one of inherent limitations of ‘information transfer’ in the very way in which the core Zhouyi text offers a basis of bibliomantic communication with Yi. Let me assume, for purposes of argument, that there is a wisdom-intelligence behind the oracular ‘voice’ of Yi. (This is actually my view, but I don’t want to open up a side argument with the Balkin/Mesker/Hatcher camp.) Let me further assume that, like the modern major-general, Yi is never, or at least hardly ever, ill-informed or mistaken. Even with this, Yi is still limited in what can be conveyed as information to even an experienced and intuitively advantaged diviner. The limitation is inherent in the means of communication offered by the core Zhouyi text.

Consider two alternatives to put this in clearer context. One the one hand, consider an oracle that had all the wisdom-intelligence of Yi, but could only communicate through ‘yes/no’ or ‘warmer/colder’. On the other hand, consider an oracle that that had all the wisdom-intelligence of Yi, but could communicate directly, using the full expressive possibilities of the diviner’s native language. Such oracles ostensibly do exist or have existed: the Delphic oracle and Tibetan state (Nechung) oracle are two examples of oracles capable of direct oracular speech. If we consider the traditional Chinese view that what speaks through Yi are guishen (ghosts and spirits) – here, see the writings of Stephen Karcher, who is the foremost contemporary proponent of this view – then we might compare Yi in conjunction with the core Zhouyi text in relation to, say, an Ouija board or planchette. Here, I am not suggesting anything regarding the source of whatever comes through an Ouija board being equivalent to Yi – I think a) it is not so at all, and b) is highly variable in any case – but rather am again looking solely at the mode of possible communication. Consider three variant Ouija boards: i) only two markings, yes and no; ii) a broad collection of contemporary emojis; iii) the full alphabet and digits 0-9, as with the standard version. Variant i) is the first alternative considered above. Variant iii) is the second alternative considered above, capable of direct communication through the spelling out of letters and numbers. Variant ii) is, very roughly, something like how communication of Yi through the core Zhouyi text works (although it might well be argued as being closer to Tarot).

Let’s put this in the context of a particular example. Again, as per a previous post, let’s say I’ve moved to a new city and am looking for a place to live. Under variant i), I would have to query Yi regarding, say, every house on the market until a ‘yes’ was arrived at. Under variant iii), Yi could inform me directly: “A house is going on market at 210 Elm St. in two days. It’s perfect for you.” Under variant ii), Yi can reference a short, gnomic, metaphoric text and hope that the diviner gets the general idea of what is being conveyed. This is far more informative and flexible than a simple yes/no communication, but far less informative and flexible than direct oracular communication. In particular, the possibility for Yi to convey to the diviner through reference to the core Zhouyi text the example direct communication given above is practically nil. Simply asking Yi a more general query hoping for a general reply is not helpful at all. To the contrary, what the diviner is looking for is highly specific information. It is possible to be guided to this through a series of queries, but Yi is to a large extent at the mercy of the quality, relevance and even quantity of queries that the diviner poses. As an extreme case, if the diviner never divines, then Yi is muted, no matter the wisdom it might convey. If the diviner asks irrelevant questions, Yi can’t readily ‘bring the conversation round’ to where it needs to be. Of course, Yi can ‘change the subject’ and sometimes does, but this is as likely to simply confuse the diviner as anything else. So, it is incumbent upon the diviner to query ‘strategically’ in a way that makes clearer communication possible in light of a) the inherent limitation of clarity and flexibility in bibliomantic referencing of the core Zhouyi text and b) the initiative of question formation resting largely with the diviner and not Yi.

All the best, and many thanks for your thoughtful replies and engagement.