I ching translation

[lightofdarkness]

Martin. the brain does its thing whether there is someone there or not. the WHOLE is unconscious and overlayed with the IC. You can be proactive and extract details using questions etc OR you can be reactive and derive hexagrams from coins etc. BOTH methods aim to bring into the foreground the 'best fit' hexagram.

If you believe that every hexagram you have derived is 100% always 'best fit' then good luck to you and BTW please supply this weeks lotto numbers for Australia - we might as well cash-in on your talent (you obviously have not for some reason....)

Chris

 

[bruce]

And the winning lotto jackpot numbers are (drum roll):

24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

 

[martin]

 

[lightofdarkness]

24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 thunder
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 fire
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 lake
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 heaven

(binary sequence lotto! cool)

 

[hmesker]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I strongly suggest you go back and try and find where I have said this - since I have NEVER said it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Of course not. But when you say here http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/5821.html?1137344783#POST39513

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

hmm.... a very 'traditional' perspective and so, IMHO, missing a LOT<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you at least imply it. If you were really 'including' the material of icplus, in other words add it, you would not find the need to say this. You want us to accept icplus because in your opinion the 'traditional perspective misses a lot'. But the nice thing about the 'traditional perspective' is that it incorporates everything - there is no need for additions/inclusions. All additions are interpretations.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

My posts are that the promotion of the traditional perspective as the only perspective is at fault. YOU promote that perspective as do other 'traditionalists' but in doing so you do the IC a diservice.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Of course I promote the traditional perspective but I never said it is the only perspective. But it is the only perspective that is used as the foundation of other -later- perspectives - like your icplus.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

To bring the IC into the 21st century one needs to include consideration of the last 3000 years of psychology, neurosciences, biology etc etc. YOU fail to do this and in so doing do the IC a diservice.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not 'fail to do that', I just don't see the need. The Yijing already is in the 21st century. I accept the Yijing as it is - a book with hexagrams and texts. And with this it is complete. It is not really necessary that others explain what the book can tell you or what meaning it has to you, or even worse, find the need to interpretate it for you or add material to it. The Yijing already is complete as it is. If you find the need to use it as an oracle, or apply it in another way to gain insights, then it will do the job (as will any other book). By thinking you have to add to it in order to 'bring it into the 21st century' you do the Yijing a disservice.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

s for proof of the brain differentiating/integrating - read the research data material I supply with IDM. If you do not understand the language of the papers that is your problem - find a neuroscience dictionary. I say this since it is obvious that if I translated it for you you would accuse me of lying etc!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If you think it is 'obvious' that I will accuse you of lying, then you are really 'in the box'. And suggesting that I should use a dictionary to understand your website brings me back to the point where it all started with: a quality of religion is that it forces the use of new words/language to understand the dogma's it presents. If your material cannot be described using existing words and necessitates the use of new vocabulary to understand it, then it is truly a religion.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I DONT LEAVE IT OUT - I ADD TO IT AND CORRECT SOME "MISUNDERSTANDINGS". BY THAT CORRECTION SO THE 10century BC model moves into the 21st century AD.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You do not need to shout, I can hear you. I am not saying that you leave out the traditional view - on the contrary, you seem to build your whole structure on the traditional view. That is why I asked, "Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system still point to that meaning?" But you choose to ignore that question. If the answer would be 'yes', then it gets interesting, after all, then you would have objective proof for your assumptions, right?. If the answer is 'no', well, then all your material is just another layer of interpretations based on the same old traditional views.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

You really do need to be careful how you read things HM, your instinctive 'need' for competitiveness does not aid you.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not have a 'need for competitiveness', this is pure entertainment to me. You choose to ignore my questions.

 

[bradford_h]

Ya know-
One of those things that came much, much later in the Yi's history, 500 years after the original Zhouyi was written, was the notion of Yin and Yang, or Rou and Gang, or any other dichotomy as somehow metaphysically or existentially fundamental to the nature of things, or the Yi. Sure there were dichotomies, notably before and after, decrease and increase, etc., but these were specifically and pointedly regarded as epiphenomenal, not central to anything. And sure there was a whole vs broken graphic that indexed the divination system and inspired images in the minds of the authors, But that was about as far as it went. All theories suggesting that the ultimate root or core of the Yi is in dichotomy or recursion fail in the light of this understanding.
I don't even think you need to know Chinese to know this.

 

[bruce]

Brad, that sounds so peculiar to me to think that yin/yang as the apple's core wouldn't be essential/fundamental to the building blocks which rest upon them. Even if the yin/yang symbol hadn't yet been conceived, how is it that something so primitive as polar opposites could be less than central to ancient Chinese thought?

The same for trigrams coming after hexagrams. Makes no sense to me.

 

[hmesker]

Bruce,

I know it sounds odd what Brad says, but he has a point. Consider this: the text of the Yi does not talk about Yin & Yang, only centuries after the proposed writing of the book do we find these two words used in a philosophical sense. It is very well possible that before that time the Yi, and its use, were different from later ages. Personally I would have expected that if Yin & Yang played a role from the beginning that it would also be mentioned in the text. The fact that it is not mentioned could be an indication of later implementation. I think.

Harmen.

 

[bruce]

Harmen,

Yes, I'm not questioning Brad's accuracy or yours in stating those findings. I'm only questioning how it could be so, not that it isn't so.

Let me ask you (plural) this, what role did gua 1 and 2 play in the development of the Yi, if not as a central dichotomy?

 

[hmesker]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

what role did gua 1 and 2 play in the development of the Yi, if not as a central dichotomy<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Personally I do not have the impression that hexagram 1 and 2 played a role in the development of (the rest of) the Yi. Even stronger put: at the moment I hardly see a link between the text of the Yi and its hexagrams. Sometimes (as in the case of hexagram 58, see http://www.i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipity/archives/51-The-salient.html) I do see a link, but this could also be coincidence. To be honest, I am not sure.

Harmen.

 

[bruce]

Thanks, Harmen. There's something of a missing link here for me then, if the phenomenal world, which the Yi represents, does not have male/female ? father/mother at its core. No disrespect intended, but it seems even a child would figure that much out. That's why it mystifies me when historical records seem to defy logic, and it's also why I don't lean on historic evidence as conclusive, where understanding the Yi?s meanings are concerned. At least not yet. All it takes is one archeological dig to change our understanding, from an exclusively historical perspective.

 

[martin]

Well, being aware of the difference between male and female is one thing, but reading the "whole" lines on tortoise shells as "male" and the "broken" lines as "female" is another.

I have of course no idea what actually happened but I could imagine that back then the people who saw certain images (on shells) and interpreted them as signs didn't break them down into lines. They saw a "gestalt" and that suggested something to them. Mountains, trees, animals and so on.
Only later people (former incarnations of Chris?

) looked more closely at these images and said "hey, this is whole-broken-whole-whole ... let's make a theory!"

 

[hmesker]

Yes Bruce, it indeed is mystifying, and it is tempting to cling to one side ('the Yijing = yin & yang') or another ('because the Yijing does not talk about Yin & Yang it does not play a role in the book'). Although I have a view about this I try not to choose. I often find myself murmuring things like

- what if the Yijing does not represent the phenomenal world but was intended to be something else?
- what if if it does represent the phenomenal world, but does not talk of father & mother - what implications would this have for our view of the world as we know it?
- is the traditional view of the Yijing correct?
- are the traditional interpretations of the names of the trigrams correct?
- do the images that are connected to the trigrams play a role in the text?

etc. I often prefer doubt before answers .

Historical evidence is often far from conclusive, and when it concerns the Yi the few archaeological finds we have do not quite give us a better understanding of the book. But when it concerns the use of the book it does not really matter, I think.

 

[hmesker]

There is one simple but for me interesting fact which we find in the other Yijings that are dug up from the earth:

In the Mawangdui, Fuyang and Chujian Yijing the yin lines are written as / \ instead of -- --. Why did they do that, did it mean anything, and why was it changed in later ages?

Murmermurmer.....

HM

 

[bruce]

Harmen, I appreciate these views, and share them. I too am in a state of unknowing, or of 'before completion', about these things.

Observing this discussion has been fun. Miners mining in different sectors of our head. Is the code inside the bones, or are the bones themselves the code?

murmermurmerstoo

 

[bradford_h]

Harmen Harmurmering-
I'm sure you're aware of the observation that /\
looks like Ba (number 8). Of course that falls apart if you want ___ to look like Qi (#7)

Bruce-
I guess I'm saying that Yin-Yang and most Xiangshu (image and number speculation) have a legitimate place in Yijing and Yixue, but not in Zhouyi. But they can't be considered fundamental if they (or dichotomies in general) were specifically thought of as bu zhong, off center, or bu dao, off the path.
Most of Xiangshu, including Chris's work, is then apocryphal, and consists merely of the exploration of the properties of binary systems, "under color" of Yixue. It may even be suitable as an algorithm in Wing and Yiweishu exegesis (interpreting later commentary), but it does nothing to legitimately account for the origin of the Zhouyi text.

 

[bruce]

Brad,

Only speculating here, but isn't the Yi referred to as 'the book of sun and moon', in Zhouyi?

 

[bradford_h]

Hi Bruce
No, it isn't referred to in this way. That concerns speculation on the etymology or component parts of the character Yi. LiSe talks about this character on her site. It also means lizard, change and easy. It doesn't really mean sun and moon, but of course there's an association with change in the four seasons and the moon's phases.
The Yi only refers to itself, in a few places, as "I" and "me".

 

[lightofdarkness]

The moment you make a distinction you make a cut and form a dichotomy of A/NOT-A (NOT-A being 'all else' (the many) or the opposite of A (the one))

Our brains are driven to make distinctions. There are two forms, symmetric and asymmetric. The forms of representation are immaterial, be it yin/yang or 0/1 or /\ etc etc etc

What these represent is the issue and the IDM material covers what comes out of the brain dynamics that forces the self-referencing of dichotomies. Bradford's and Hermen's comments are comments from a position of ignorance re what is going on 'in here' and so excusable but their dismissal of all else should be taken as an example of a refusal to move on in IC development.

The traditionalists can be ignored, bypassed, in the development of IC understanding but that is unfortunate since it introduces an un-neccessary rift.

The XOR work etc covers material NOT present in the traditional work and Harmen's refusal to even try and understand what is going on using recursion indicates to me an issue re having to change his perspective.

There is no 'doubt' about the XOR work and what it does for hexagram analysis etc but the traditionalists have to face the fact that, if they accept it, they have to accept the fact that the traditionalist perspective has missed as lot due to its ad hoc methods - IOW their claimed expertise is severely lacking and it required a focus from outside of the traditionalist box to show the limitations of that box.

Chris.

 

[matt]

Hi Martin, just a little off topic, Im a couple of pages back reading this thread, but I skipped forward to ask you if you could post your planet system? I have a great interest in astrology, and would appreciate it if possible, thanks.

Ok 'back' button

 

[bruce]

I don?t doubt Brad?s, Harmen?s or your expertise, Chris. I follow my own path and learn from those of others.

 

[martin]

Hi Matt,

There is a discussion about (one version of) this planet system (starting with a modification by Pagan) in this thread.

Feel free to ask if anything is not clear. We can start another thread about it, if you like.

Game over, press any key ...

 

[hmesker]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

No, it isn't referred to in this way. That concerns speculation on the etymology or component parts of the character Yi. LiSe talks about this character on her site. It also means lizard, change and easy. It doesn't really mean sun and moon, but of course there's an association with change in the four seasons and the moon's phases.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Since this topic is about Yijing translations I would like to let you all know that Steve Marshall has placed a review I wrote of Chung Wu's The Essentials of the Yi Jing' on his site: http://www.biroco.com/yijing/chungwu.htm. This review also mentions the misconception that yi is made of 'sun' and 'moon'.

HM

 

[hmesker]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The moment you make a distinction you make a cut and form a dichotomy of A/NOT-A (NOT-A being 'all else' (the many) or the opposite of A (the one)) blahblahblah etc.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Chris, I cannot take you serious if you ignore my points/questions.

HM

 

[bradford_h]

Hi Harmen-
while were back on topic, have you seen the "Complete I Ching" by Tien Cong mentioned earlier?
I've still only seen that one line.
b

 

[hmesker]

Hi Brad,

I have missed when this book is mentioned earlier on this board, so maybe I am saying things that others have already mentioned before me.

No I have not seen it, I know he published it privately through Authorhouse. A very small sample can be found here: http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~11830.aspx

He says

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

This interpretation aims at interpreting the Book of Change as a book that talks about the Way. We do not think that the sages, who were the authors of the Book of Change, wrote the Book of Change to talk about, for example, "traveling" or "marrying maiden". "Traveling" is explained as "traveling to or seeking the Way" and "marrying maiden" as "man coming to the house of the Way". All 64 hexagrams and 386 lines are interpreted as images and words of the Way.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Interesting take, but not something that I am interested in.

HM

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen wrote:

"...you at least imply it. If you were really 'including' the material of icplus, in other words add it, you would not find the need to say this. You want us to accept icplus because in your opinion the 'traditional perspective misses a lot'. But the nice thing about the 'traditional perspective' is that it incorporates everything - there is no need for additions/inclusions. All additions are interpretations. "

The XOR material alone is not an interpretation, the material is a direct product of the method used to create the hexagrams using recursion of yin/yang. The fact that you cannot understand that shows your limitations in understanding where the traditional material has come from - the brains of our species LOCALISED to 'ancient china'. Universal patterns linked to local conditions and labelled locally.

With the XOR material identified by ICPlus, so for the first time we have access to details of a hexagram not thought of possible in traditional texts etc (in all of the printed texts referenced in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html you will not find the full spectrums etc of hexagrams listed as they are in the ICPlus pages - why not? because they had no idea such material was available).

I have seen you and other traditionalists struggle in trying to flesh-out meanings of hexagrams due to the limitations imposed on the traditional IC by a lack of undertanding of the methodology.

PRIOR to current work in neurosciences etc the generation of the traditional IC and its variations in interpretations where done in an ad hoc manner; given the work in neurosciences we can map out all POSSIBLE qualities we will use in deriving/communicating meaning and so reveal the 'full spectrum' of the I Ching and its elements.

Are you suggesting that the XOR material is not a part of the universal IC? If so then I suggest you spend a bit more time trying to understand what is going on here since by achieving that understanding you will, IMHO, find yourself rediscovering the IC.

Chris.

 

[hmesker]

Chris,

You still don't answer my questions, and you ignore most of the points I have made in former posts. Topic closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Harmen.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen,

I have answered your questions but most likely with replies you cannot deal with - so you ignore then and continue with the 'you still dont answer my questions'! LOL! ... and there there is the perspective where your points are not worth answering since they are obviously 'poor'.

BTW - YOU have still not commented on the XOR material suggesting that it is too sensitive for you since by accepting it you are faced with having to re-adjust your understanding of the IC... and my work in particular.

Chris.

 

[matt]

Chris, just a reccomendation - try to portray your ideas with a little more clarity. I have been through the pages on your site many times and even printed out lengthy copies for extended analysis, and whilst I understand all of your ideas, it is apparent that your writing style doesn't express them effectively. You may say that you are not focused in the 'realm of expression', but any theory or idea is best understood when the realm of expression gives your audience more levity to interpret it. Or said in another way - Try to speak of your ideas as if you were talking to a 5 year old, then your work is far more accessable to everyone. At the moment the language you use is more complex than the system itself.