I Jim Oracle

[heylise]

In the "New supervisor" thread Jimnammack said: With my I Ching the basics are the same and so is the structure. Mine is different in that the meanings of the hexagrams and moving lines are more relevant and easier to understand.

Jim, is your I Ching the I Ching or isn't it??? Your answer does not make it clear at all. How much different? How more relevant? Could you give us some examples of a few "more relevant and easier" meanings of hexagrams and lines? I am really curious now. With 15 years of work on it, I think it could be interesting for all of us.

LiSe

 

[jimnammack]

Hi. I just saw your note. I do not frequent this part of the website too much.

What I use is the I Ching to me. I call it the I Ching. If someone else does not want to call it the I Ching, that is fine with me too.

I cast three coins six times to build a hexagram in the same way that everyone else does. That is pretty much all I have to say about it. I use different hexagram meanings and different moving line meanings, and it gives me much better readings than I get through Wilhelm. With my version, there is practically no guess work involved in trying to figure out what it means. And so, there is much less possibility of making mistakes of interpretation when doing readings with it.

I think it's pretty cool.

I have an I Ching book that is a translation from the Chinese in which the I Ching is used to do medical diagnoses. As with mine, none of its hexagram meanings or moving line meanings match those of the traditional I Ching. But as far as I know, no one has any problems with calling it the I Ching.

If you have any more questions, I will be happy to respond. From now on, I will check in with this web page more often. For the next three days, however, I will be out of state and away from my computer. I'll check back in Sunday night.

Jim

 

[rosada]

Could you give us an example? Like what do you have for Hexagram 1?

 

[jimnammack]

Who is "us?"

I don't mind giving you some of my haxagrams and moving line meanings, but I do not understand what purpose it would serve. It would be more helpful to me if you could just tell me exactly what it is that you do not understand.

If I ask a divinatory question, and do one reading with Wilhelm, and one reading with my I Ching, I will get similar answers, except that mine will usually be a bit easier to understand. The gist of each reading will be the same, but the perspective will be slightly different because the Universe (or whatever you choose to call the cosmic power that is activated whenever we do divinations) will be speaking through a different language system.

The exact same principle would be involved if we used two different tarot card decks to answer a question. If I ask a divinatory question and use the Crow's Magick Tarot to do a reading, and I also use the Robin Wood Tarot to answer the same question, the two answers will be the same. The card meanings that comprise those two readings will be different, but the overall meaning of the two readings will be the same.

The same is true with cartomancy, playing card divining. I have several books on playing card divining, and no two books define the fifty-two cards the same way. But, if you use one system to answer a question, and then you use another system to answer the same question, you will see that even though the parts are different, both readings will still add up to the same thing.

Is that what you meant?

Jim

 

[jimnammack]

In regard to my future participation in this website, I'm outta here. It is just not what I had anticipated it would be. It has turned into sort of an Alice in Wonderland experience. Too many Mad Hatters here for me, and that is just not my cup of tea.

So, Rosada, I will not be available for any further discussion after all.

Best of luck to one and all.

Jim

 

[Sparhawk]

Well, I don't blame you, really...

Best,

 

[bruce_g]

Sorry we're not you're cup of tea, Jim, but it's not unusual for folks to come and go when they don't receive immediate gratification and recognition. Perseverance furthers, brother.

Yes, mad hatters aplenty here, for sure. Please excuse me now, I'm late for a very important date!

 

[hilary]

*still asleep in the teapot*

 

[Grandma]

Be on the look out for these symptoms:
"Hatters really did go mad. The chemicals used in hat-making included mercurous nitrate, used in curing felt. Prolonged exposure to the mercury vapors caused mercury poisoning. Victims developed severe and uncontrollable muscular tremors and twitching limbs, called "hatter's shakes". Other symptoms included distorted vision and confused speech. In advanced cases, hatters developed hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms." www.hgtech.com/Information/Mad Hatter.htm
I don't get it, Jim said he would answer questions and about his process and then said it wouldn't do any good if he did. The questions on this thread to him seemed respectful. "Us" is obviously the board in general, not a conspiracy. "What do you have for hexagram 1?" Well...what's so hard to answer there? Even if he intends on publishing he could still answer that question and then say I intend on publishing and I don't want to answer any more specific questions but this is how I got here. Instead he accused everyone of being crazy. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Grandma]

Sorry, he said "too many mad hatters here", not everyone. My mistake.

 

[hilary]

I'm identifying myself firmly with the Dormouse (though I occasionally feel more like one of the flamingos), and it seems Bruce may be the White Rabbit. Odd, I'd never really seen him that way. There could be a whole new typology - not to mention a system of user titles - to be had here.

I thought LiSe's request was an excellent one - so much so it's finding its way into 'the rules'. Instead of jumping all over reading threads asking where ideas came from, we could all just go to a central thread to discuss Jim's method for developing his system, whether it's sufficiently close in meaning to a certain old Chinese book to be called an I Ching, look at examples, compare and contrast, give his ideas lots of publicity, and generally do that 'discussion' thing we came for.

 

[Sparhawk]

I'm identifying myself firmly with the Dormouse (though I occasionally feel more like one of the flamingos), and it seems Bruce may be the White Rabbit. Odd, I'd never really seen him that way. There could be a whole new typology - not to mention a system of user titles - to be had here.

I thought LiSe's request was an excellent one - so much so it's finding its way into 'the rules'. Instead of jumping all over reading threads asking where ideas came from, we could all just go to a central thread to discuss Jim's method for developing his system, whether it's sufficiently close in meaning to a certain old Chinese book to be called an I Ching, look at examples, compare and contrast, give his ideas lots of publicity, and generally do that 'discussion' thing we came for.

I'm the Chesire Cat...

IMO, yes, he should have stood up to scrutiny and have a thicker skin; on the other hand, he's not the first nor the last one here to have their own system of interpretation of the Yi but the way he's been scrutinized makes it sound like he found an apocryphal version of the Yi in his back yard and everyone else thinks he's full of it. Considering it, I think he was quite civil... In his shoes, Chris would have buried us with a few treatises worth of information and a few Aussie accented curses...

Astrology and Tarot has been discussed in conjunction with the Yi and nobody thinks much of it. Chris has the Galactic Empire version of the Yi and no one here thinks much about it and is just another contributing member. But of course, Chris has the skin of a rhino...

When the guy mentioned that what he had was his own organized interpretation of the Yi, that was enough information for me. Welcome to the forum and give it your best shot. I may disagree with most of it, agree with some, but I cannot expect him or anybody to interpret the Yi the same way I do. For me, that's a sacred tenet. The best I can do is to read him with interest.

It is a real shame he left, but, not everybody likes to play defense the whole ball game...

 

[getojack]

"And hast thou slain the Jimnammack?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

~ Llorrac Siwel

 

[hilary]

Chris would be another candidate for a sig file with a link. I can't imagine him objecting to that, somehow .

I was never sure whether Jim's version was another "interpretation of the Yi", or a set of wholly unrelated concepts attached to the same hexagrams; I think that's what LiSe was hoping to clarify. Of course this is a grey area the size of a whale. Who (as Jesed might ask) decides which concepts are related?

I was thinking of you as the Cheshire Cat. Who's the Caterpillar?

 

[bruce_g]

"And hast thou slain the Jimnammack?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

~ Llorrac Siwel

Thought Lewis Carroll wrote Jabberwocky.

 

[bruce_g]

I'm identifying myself firmly with the Dormouse (though I occasionally feel more like one of the flamingos), and it seems Bruce may be the White Rabbit. Odd, I'd never really seen him that way. There could be a whole new typology - not to mention a system of user titles - to be had here.

My avatar is white dog, but then he never speaks. I have much to learn.

 

[Sparhawk]

Thought Lewis Carroll wrote Jabberwocky.

Get a mirror, quickly!!, and put it in front of the screen...

 

[Trojina]

Lewis Carroll wrote Jabberwocky, but this other chap wrote Jimnammacky - a completely different poem see .

 

[bruce_g]

 

[rosada]

Maybe Jim's version gave him more power than he could handle. I mean,
I asked him to give an example, using Hexagram 1.

Wilhelm translates 1.1:
"Hidden dragon, do not act."

Well, in trying to handle my request Jim not only didn't act, he disappeared!

 

[heylise]

When it took quite some time before Jim answered, I thought he did not want to. So I did not look here the past days.
Me also surprised. I was happy that he did answer, and his first post seemed ok, and suddenly he was angry.

It surprises me anyway, the reasons people can find to feel attacked. Rosada's post was respectful. It makes me very curious how that works. Is it reading meanings into it which are not there? Insecurity which makes everything look threatening? A defense mechanism which makes one strike before the other might have a chance to strike?



LiSe

 

[jesed]

Of course.. all those people feeling attacked won't say anything about "us", only about "them".
Insecurity.. yes.. that's the reason.

 

[Tohpol]

Maybe Jim's version gave him more power than he could handle. I mean,
I asked him to give an example, using Hexagram 1.

Wilhelm translates 1.1:
"Hidden dragon, do not act."
Well, in trying to handle my request Jim not only didn't act, he disappeared!

I think the power of his own image is what Jim was cultivating. The IC was just a means to that end imo. That ole dragon will getcha every time...

Topal

 

[Tohpol]

It surprises me anyway, the reasons people can find to feel attacked. Rosada's post was respectful. It makes me very curious how that works. Is it reading meanings into it which are not there? Insecurity which makes everything look threatening? A defense mechanism which makes one strike before the other might have a chance to strike?

My guess is Jim's "system" was threatened so he had long since given up any ability to be open about it simply because it was part of him. So any constructive criticism was perceived as an attack on his carefully constructed self-image. I suspect under this "civility" he was seething which is why he was "outta here."

Topal

 

[hilary]

Or maybe he was a Zen master here to swat us with a big stick. Or one of these -

(Or maybe it was just as he said, and he didn't understand why people were asking for an explanation. For some of us wanting to understand where things come from is natural, for others less so.)

No way to tell - and no Jim to ask.

 

[bradford]

It was a Dick Cheney Yijing, a black ops super secret version that couldn't be shared.
Even the Library of Congress can't get one.

Technically, only the version that was canonized in the Early Han can be the Yijing,
since Jing refers to that specific edition, with the 10 Wings. There can be other
Yi's, like the Mawangdui manuscript, the Yilin, the Guicang, etc, but even these
versions are not the Yijing.