How will the war in Iraq be resolved?

[rosada]

I asked, "How will the war in Iraq be resolved?"
I received 36.1 > 15.
Comments?

 

[lagunader]

hi Rosada

I might be alone in this, but I truly believe that the Yi answers our questions clearly and directly when we are anxious and emotionally entangled in a personal matter. General questions about election results, political this or that , don't in my opinion get the same
responce. In fact, I think one can ask a "superficial" question and get the Yi to address
what really matters in ones life, having no relationship to the question asked.
Just my opinion.
Regards
Lagunader

 

[willowfox]

Hi rosada,

I asked, "How will the war in Iraq be resolved?"
I received 36.1 > 15.

hex 36.1 says Mr.Bush has tried to fly to high in his war in Iraq but he has encountered a very hostile fate. He tries to downplay the issue, so many, many problems for him. Mr. Bush does not eat the spoils of war for over 3 years. He has no rest, no place to hide from the war. He insists on remaining true to his war on terror because he has a fixed goal to aim for. The Americans and the rest of the world speak ill of him.

hex 15 says modesty creates success, so if Mr.Bush was modest then all would go well in this war. Fullness must be made empty and modesty must be made full. Men hate fullness, the USA has filled Iraq to the brim (soldiers, construction, etc), now America is drawing down destruction upon itself and the modest (Iraq) is becoming great, arrogance brings dislike with it. American is full of itself but is being worn down by this war. People want the troops out but Bush say no but eventually the American troops will be withdrawn. The way to expansion is through contraction. The Americans will have to stop because modesty wins hearts not this fullness of war.

 

[rosada]

Hi Willowfox,
Thanks for looking into this reading. I agree with you that 36.1 does seem to fit Bush. In fact, with him in mind I think it's worth writing out exactly what Wilhelm says about 36.1:

"With grandiose resolve a man endeavors to soar above all obstacles, but thus encounters a hostle fate." Boy, that sure fits!

"He retreats and evades the issue." Hmm, he hasn't retreated.. Perhaps this refers to Bush's originally linking the invasion of Iraq to 9/11, and his latest spin claiming he never said there was a connection.

"The time is difficult." Duh.

"Without rest, he must hurry along, with no permanent abiding place. If he does not want to make compromises within himself, but insists on remaining true to his principles, he suffers deprivation." Well, I'm not sure what this means regarding Bush. I personally feel the man has no principles! And I don't see him suffering any deprivation. But perhaps this could be seen as the polls showing his ratings slipping?

"Nevertheless he has a fixed goal to strive for," Yes, Bush does seem to be very fixed in his goal.

"even though the people with whom he lives do not understand him and speak ill of him." Hmm, this again seems a bit of a stretch, as Bush is very careful to only surround himself with people who agree with him. Perhaps this indicates that before the war is resolved the factions who "do not understand him and speak ill of him" will become more outspoken than they are now.

The thing I really don't understand is that this line seems to imply this person is a superior man who is misunderstood.

Anyway, 15 certainly look's promising.

Hi Lagunader,
I think the debate about how closely one has to be personally involved in a situation to get a valid answer to an I Ching question, can only be answered by the person asking the question.
But even if there were some Almighty Edict about what can and cannot be known, your inference that my asking about the war in Iraq is somehow an impersonal question really pushes my buttons! I am an American, I vote and I pay taxes. What closer connections do I need? None, of course. Unfortunately there are too many people in the world who share your belief that ordinary citizens are powerless and blameless. And thus the war continues...

 

[jesed]

Had you think that the people in 36 are not the people who want war and invasion continue, but the people who want to solve the situation with justice and peace?

This people had been misunderstood (if american, like traitors; if non-americans, like pro-terrorism); and faced hostility. But they persist.. and the could lead this situation to 15

Best wishes

 

[willowfox]

Hi rosada,

"He retreats and evades the issue."

I think this means his original statement about weapons of mass destruction.

but insists on remaining true to his principles, he suffers deprivation.

He is remaining true to his principal theme of war against terror (for better or worse), and he is suffering from deprivation, people are fed up and this shows in the polls.


"even though the people with whom he lives do not understand him and speak ill of him."

I believe this to mean the American public (and the world), as Bush does not live a secluded life, his life is very public which means that he lives with all of us, all the time, and it is true, half the people really don't understand what this guy is upto. What matters here is that many people the world over do speak ill of him, and this is what the line is meaning here.

The thing I really don't understand is that this line seems to imply this person is a superior man who is misunderstood.

I believe that the line refers to Bush as a superior man just because he happens to be the president which is extremely hard for the common man/woman to become. He is in a superior position thus making him a superior man to the rest of us. Of course he is misunderstood, he is all over the place with his stories, yes there are weapons of mass destruction, oh, sorry, now there are no weapons of mass destruction, phone tapping, prisoners of war, secret prisons, bombing Pakistan, who knows what secret will next emerge from beneath a rock.

 

[jte]

How will the war in Iraq *be resolved*...

Cutting through some of the nuances of this line (which can be quite important in some readings, but I think are more trees than forest in this particular one)...

Isn't this a pictue of an optimistic/idealistic endeavor which simply doesn't work out (the "hostile fate"). In continuing, the actor (the US) "suffers deprivation" - the negative consequences of this war.

So, eventually, what *resolves* the conflict is our tolerance level for "suffering deprivation" - eventually we get so sick of the negative consequences that we just leave. Hey, we've been trying to do just that for at least a year, no? Just that some of the Iraquis won't stop the violence.

I suppose that when this happens (when we have "had enough" and pull out of Iraq) politicians and pundits will try to spin the situation it to save face, but I think ultimately we'll be "worn down".

Similar factors may actually apply to the internal violence between Iraquis - that too may "wear itself out".

My two cents,

- Jeff

 

[rosada]

I think you have a point there, Jesed, suggesting 36.1 could refer to those opposing the war, and perhaps 15 indicating their voices will eventually be given equal value? I'm also seeing how the superior man could be our troups who went in with good intentions. "The host has occasion to gossip about him." Sounds like Iraq wanting the Americans out of their country.

 

[ewald]

I mostly agree with Jeff. I see 36.1 as about being weakened in the pursuit of a goal.

This Iraqi war is weakening the US government budget and the reputation of the US in the world, it costs lots of american soldiers their lives, and it doesn't solve, but exacerbates the problem of terrorism. The waiting is for the US government to have the humbleness to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

 

[rosada]

Hmmm..ewald. I don't think 36.1 is about being "weakened" in the pursuit of a goal. The superior man's not eating for three days on his wanderings is a voluntary action. That is, he refuses to sacrifice his principles and will go hungry rather than secure food the wrong way. Wilhelm comments, "It is the obligation of the superior man to refrain from eating during his wanderings." So I see this now as suggesting those who oppose the war will more dramatically not support it, perhaps in voting out of office those who do, or maybe marches or hunger strikes, and this will lead to 15, the meek Inheriting the turf. The difference is not those who support the war being worn down, but those who oppose it prevailing by refusing to support it in any way.
Time will tell....

 

[ewald]

Rosada - Then what is the "darkening of the light" (or "brightness injured") in 36.1? Why is there "lowering of the wings?" What does not eating for 3 days do to you?

I see this "brightness injured" in all lines as some form of weakening. In 36.2 because of injury, in 36.3 as one is slowed down, in 36.4 it is hurt and demoralization, in 36.5 by needing to feign ignorance, in 36.6 there is an anti-climax.

 

[rosada]

Perhaps "lowers his wings" refers to the realization that although this is The Land of the Free, it is actually not safe to question the president. He will use what ever means necessary to silence the opposition.And while certainly not eating for three days would weaken one's physical, it would weaken the spiritual only if the superior man were being deprived of food by an outside source. In this case isn't the implication that the superior man CHOOSES not to eat, like Ghandi who brought the British government to it's knees by fasting? So 36.1 could be saying that "War is over if you want it." As people refuse to participate, even though they may be gossiped about and called anti-American, the war will end. 15. Modesty, the hexagram of the lone sage, suggests to me the war ends because of individual commitment to peace. I don't see anything in these two hexagrams suggesting the primary cause of the war resolving being due to American being worn down, although that may certainly be part of the equation. Rather it seems the quiet persistance of those who refuse to support war will be the deciding factor. 15 suggests a feeling of, well, if not winning, at least peace, and not defeat. So again a sence that ultimately the war will only be resolved when people who oppose it refuse to support it.

 

[willowfox]

Then what is the "darkening of the light" (or "brightness injured") in 36.1? Why is there "lowering of the wings?" What does not eating for 3 days do to you?

"Darking of the light" suggests that America/Bush suffer bad press over the war in Iraq, back in 2001 their star was rising but since that time a dark shadow has been cast over the US/Bush Iraq war. While in flight, while waging war.

"Lowers his wings", America/Bush have been severely hampered in its/his pursuit of victory in Iraq. Now they know, as we all do, victory is unobtainable.

"Not eating for 3 days", America/Bush will not stop in their pursuit of victory in Iraq at any cost, they are serving the public, hence they have no time to eat or rest. America/Bush has become fanatical in its/his pursuit of victory and this excludes all other matters (eating).

 

[Trojina]

Hi Lagunader,
I think the debate about how closely one has to be personally involved in a situation to get a valid answer to an I Ching question, can only be answered by the person asking the question.
But even if there were some Almighty Edict about what can and cannot be known, your inference that my asking about the war in Iraq is somehow an impersonal question really pushes my buttons! I am an American, I vote and I pay taxes. What closer connections do I need? None, of course. Unfortunately there are too many people in the world who share your belief that ordinary citizens are powerless and blameless. And thus the war continues...

Hmm the thing is I feel the nature of this debate isn't at all about what questions one 'should' or 'should not' ask, clearly anyone can ask exactly what they want. The point is when a question is asked about a world event like this then in a sense isn't the questioner posing the question to the Yi on behalf of everyone ? As if their answer were going to tell the objective truth about how the war will end. Some of us us pop up now and then to say er "well ask away but understand you don't ask on my behalf." I believe your answer is for you and you alone. If I or anyone else asked about how will the war end we would get an entirely different answer and its my opinion this would be about our relation to the question. So I don't see its so unreasonable for Lagunader to make the point he did as he is a sample of 'everyone' and you are asking on behalf of everyone implicitly because you suppose your answer will tell what will happen in the war. To me there is no reason why your answer should say what will happen in the war, or even if it is, it is to you and your relation to the war alone.

And I noted here you didn't ask "how can we help it end ?"but asked for a prediction "how will it end ?". But in your post to Lagunader above you imply that acting as if 'powerless' prolongs the war. But asking for a straightforward prediction to me does somewhat imply an attitude of powerlessness, otherwise you would ask 'what can I do to help it stop.'


All that happens with this kind of question seems to me people filter their personal opinion through 36,1 to speculate how the war might be concluded Why ?

(Cgait, I think, was discussing something similar, about who asks the questions in another thread today)

BTW Rosada I must be clear I have absolutely no problem with you posting any question you want for discussion here with others I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just telling you what i think as i thought you seemed a little bit miffed with Lagunader's point with which I agreed.

To clarify my point, you say the issue of how closely one needs to be involved in a situation to get a valid answer is totally up to the one that asks the question - well okay, but what I'm trying to say is when asking a big question you are kind of asking on behalf of others - and this 'other', myself is saying mmm, "no that answers for you, not me".

 

[ewald]

I see the light or brightness in 36 (Ming 明) for the individual as the light of consciousness, one's aliveness, one's energy. I find it hard to express extending that to groups or states, but I think Brightness Injured, or Darkening of the Light has a lot to do with weakening of that individual, group or state.

"Brightness injured during flight" means that this weakening happens during an act of moving somewhere ("having somewhere to go"). It results in wings that are lowered, which is the visible manifestation of the injured brightness, the weakening. The troops and the US state are weakened by this war, as I described before.

Not eating for 3 days, means that one is giving up other necessities in order to put one's energy and recources into the pursuit of this goal. There's a very large amount of money and other resources going into this war (an astronomical amount in fact to an inhabitor of a small country like the Netherlands).

 

[rosada]

Hi ewald,
I'm looking at Wilhelm who translates 36.1 as "Darkening of the light during flight," which I'm understanding to mean that the superior man voluntarily is darkening his light, like a pilot turning off his lights to slip in under the radar. You are translating the line as "Brightness injured" which suggests someone who is forced against their will to dim their light. So that's where our difference in understanding comes in. I don't know how to translate Chinese so I am dependant on the translations of others. Anyway, I don't think our interpretations are mutually exclusive. The Hawks can be worn down while the Doves quietly go about their peace fasts.
Hmm..thinking about this a little bit more though. 15 in Wilhelm's Judgement says, "Modesty creates success. The superior man carries things through." Now wouldn't that mean the superior man is NOT worn down?

 

[willowfox]

Hi rosada,

Hmm..thinking about this a little bit more though. 15 in Wilhelm's Judgement says, "Modesty creates success. The superior man carries things through." Now wouldn't that mean the superior man is NOT worn down?

Yes, the president carries on with the war, but I certainly don't think that he is being modest in his approach to the Iraq conflict, quite the opposite in fact. America and its people are being worn down everyday with this war, so many people are fed up with it, the pointlessness of it, its a no win situation and America and its allies want out. But, how to do it without looking like a loser? Its good money thrown away on a people who have now grown to hate the west. The bad news which we hear from Iraq everyday is wearing us down, so we want it to end. This business with the war on terror is never ending, the muslim people have found a cause to fight for, even though it is utterly pointless and fanatical. Let Iraq sort its own problems out.

 

[willowfox]

The "darkening of the light", the statue of liberty's light has been dimmed. America's/Bush's reputation has been injured both at home and abroad.

 

[ewald]

Hi ewald,
I'm looking at Wilhelm who translates 36.1 as "Darkening of the light during flight," which I'm understanding to mean that the superior man voluntarily is darkening his light, like a pilot turning off his lights to slip in under the radar. You are translating the line as "Brightness injured" which suggests someone who is forced against their will to dim their light. So that's where our difference in understanding comes in. I don't know how to translate Chinese so I am dependant on the translations of others.

This is the first part of the Chinese for 36.2:

明 夷 ，夷 于 左 股 ，
​

which Wilhelm/Baynes renders as:

Darkening of the light injures him in the left thigh.
​

As you can see, the character 夷 is there twice. Wilhelm translates it with "injures" the second instance, it's the same character that he renders with "darkening". I decided on "Brightness injured" on the basis of this, rather than "Brightness obscured" (though I have "hidden brightness" in 36.5). I don't see the causal relationship that Wilhelm has (it's an enemy that injures him in the left thigh, not a condition of the person himself), and have for this part:

Brightness injured.
Injured in the left thigh
​

So this is not voluntary, it is a result of being injured. In 36.1, not eating and pursuing that goal is voluntary, but the result of one's light being darkened (or brightness being injured) is not.

 

[rosada]

Okay, i'm getting receptive to the idea that Darkening of the light is a sign of injury. I think your referance to the light of liberty is quite apt, Willowfox. That would mean the damage this refers to is not the damage caused by the weapons of war, but rather the damage to trust created by the Bush adminsitration's ham-handled attempt to connect 9-11 with Iraq to get us into a war. The "darkening" happens at the very beginning, during the "flight" - the original lies told in order to fly the troops over there damaged our position from the get go.
"Lowers his wings" Lowering expectations?
"The superior man does not eat for three days on his wanderings but he has somewhere to go." The lack of success and the single minded focus on the goal?
""The host has occasion to gossip about him." The host country of Iraq critical of our presence? Or could this be middle America quessy about Bush and all his war has done to undermine American values - illegal wire tapping and torture?

Now how does all of this lead to 15, Modesty? Well, I guess Modesty could be read as the ability to talk reasonably and analytically about things. To me, 36.1 says the war cannot be won because the reasons for going to war were based on lies to begin with. For there to be any kind of resolution there will need to be the sort of honest reasonable discussions characterized by 15. Perhaps this line also refers to a leader emerging that all can trust?

 

[jte]

"All that happens with this kind of question seems to me people filter their personal opinion through 36,1 to speculate how the war might be concluded Why ? "

Interesting. Certainly this happens a lot more often in life than just with general Yi questions. We filter most everything we experience though our personal views/perspective, no?

To wit...

"...although this is The Land of the Free, it is actually not safe to question the president. He will use what ever means necessary to silence the opposition."

Huh? I haven't heard of CIA operatives or gangs of jack-booted conservative thugs dragging people out of their homes just for expressing their opinions (at least not in this country). Or is there something I've been missing going on?

Yes Bush fights back, and a lot of it is somewhat underhanded, but that's how the game goes in Washington: it's certainly nothing new. And it's hardly at the level of "anything and everything". And yes, the government arrests people who are actually planning to do things like terrorist acts, but hey, that *is* their job.

I think Bush is much more about letting other speak their mind and then ignoring them, even when the advice is good. I see a lot of *that* going on.

"Rather it seems the quiet persistance of those who refuse to support war will be the deciding factor. 15 suggests a feeling of, well, if not winning, at least peace, and not defeat. So again a sence that ultimately the war will only be resolved when people who oppose it refuse to support it."

Also an interesting perspective. Quite honestly, while I respect the views of "peacenik" types, I don't think they matter much politically, esp. not to Bush and other conservatives. Those types are "written off" politically by far right. And, with the possible exception of Cindy Sheehan, there have been no figures with anything close to the social clout of a Ghandi in the recent peace movement.

I think the people are who *do* matter (at least somewhat) to Bush and his circle are the "great middle" of people who's opinions of the war can swing one way or the other. And I think those folks *are* influenced by "deprivations", such as watching people they know go to Iraq and not return home, seeing that we're spending hundreds of billions and yet the situation continues to deteriorate, and hearing that there's more risks from terrorism than ever. I think the far left "helps" by giving those middle folks a sounding board and a community to turn to when their opinions eventually change and they start "refusing to participate".

In my personal opinion, Bush's main problem is that he's inflexible: he makes bad decisions (like going to war in Iraq in the first place) and then won't adjust quickly when things go poorly. He's "the decider" as he said, and that's ultimately the problem.

My two cents,

- Jeff

 

[Trojina]

Jeff yes of course all is subjective, thats my point. Asking on behalf of the whole world presupposes some kind of objective answer that will hold true objectively for everyone. I think the Yi addresses our situation. If one person decides to ask a question on behalf of the whole world that makes no sense to me. To me the question is Rosadas question about Rosada and the war - it has nothing to do with me. 36.1 as thrown for this question has no validity for me. When we help with readings in the friends area we are helping someone with their subjective reading of their question, but discussing this question theres this strange idea that the answer one person receives will be the right one for the world ? Well I find it strange. Like I said though some clearly see it differently and if they want to discuss it its fine by me.

The second quote about the land of the free, I can't see where that is here or who said it.

 

[rosada]

The priest at our church in Berkeley joined a peace ralley to protest "The School of the Americas" training foreigners in methods of torture several months before our invasion of Iraq. It was a symbolic protest, the school has been in operation for years, and every year the churches held a protest ralley. In the past the protestors have been tolerated, perhaps a few symbolically arrested and then released. Bush was intent to show this was an illegal protest, claiming that America does not believe in or support or promote torture. So this year the protesters were arrested and jailed. Our priest, Father Bill, 77 years old, was sentance to a year in prison. He died a few months after being released. I could go in to more detail about the whole episode but I can't stay calm enough to hit the keys. Anyway, this is why I say it's not safe to protest what our president does.

 

[rosada]

Rereading your last post, Jeff, it occurs to me that the "great middle" could be what I Ching refers to with 15, and thus it tells us the war is resolved when as the war proves to be unwinnable, and the Great Middle demands withdrawal.

I'm seeing 36.1 as meaning the war ultimately comes to be seen as a disaatrous miscalculation. But as Trojan suggests, can we know from such a general question, who's the perpatrator of the miscalculation? Ben Lauden? Hussein? Bush? The Hawks who thought it would be easy? The Doves who thought it would never happen? Doesn't matter I guess. I think the I Ching is predicting the war will be resolved not by victories and defeats, but when people on all sides are worn down and don't want to fight anymore. Wonder how long that will take...

 

[jte]

Hi, Rosada -

"it occurs to me that the "great middle" could be what I Ching refers to with 15, and thus it tells us the war is resolved when as the war proves to be unwinnable, and the Great Middle demands withdrawal. " That's what I was thinking about with 36.1.

"I'm seeing 36.1 as meaning the war ultimately comes to be seen as a disaatrous miscalculation ... I think the I Ching is predicting the war will be resolved not by victories and defeats, but when people on all sides are worn down and don't want to fight anymore."

Yes, that's more or less what I'm seeing there, too...

I'm sorry if my post opened an old wound for you, that certainly wasn't my intention. It does sound to me like your friend was the victim of poor decision making and some measure of deliberate/vindictive heavy-handedness at the local level. Perhaps it was more than that, too, hard to know...

Best wishes,

- Jeff

 

[rosada]

thanks, Jeff.
Rosada

 

[Danubegal]

It's 2017, I've just come back from Iraq, and this war has never been resolved, only gotten worse. It is probably the case that Bush was sincere, considering he wasn't very bright and probably actually though he was doing the right thing. Now look what a mess we have. I think in the case any confusion over the reading came from the term 'resolved'. So I agree with Jeff above: Isn't this a pictue of an optimistic/idealistic endeavor which simply doesn't work out (the "hostile fate"). In continuing, the actor (the US) "suffers deprivation" - the negative consequences of this war. Because it still isn't over and may never be.

 

[rosada]

Thanks for this, Danubegal.

Gosh, I re-read my posts here. 2006! Ten years ago! I had such outrage, such enthusiasm back then. Now I am one of the worn down ones.
Sigh.
Looking at 36.1 - 15 again I now would interpret it to mean that 36.1 refers to all those who originally opposed the war and who, like me, with grandiose resolve thought we could change the course of world events only to discover not only did not everyone agree the war was wrong, but those who did were criticized and threatened to the point where to survive one had to keep their anti-war sentiments hidden.

Perhaps 15. Modesty here means each person must do what they can to create balance in their own corner of the world, not think they can do more, and perhaps that is what will ultimately create resolution..

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me."