...life can be translucent

Menu

is the nosiness ineffective, or inappropriate?

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
Interesting ideas about Yi consultation came up in this thread:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=5694

It starts off as the same old question here about whether it's legitimate to ask the Yi for insight into other people's feelings and thoughts and motivations. (Willowfox and I not only disagree, but I think we agree to disagree; I take issue with her sometimes in some threads for the sake of the querent - I think the querent deserves to know there are different views of using the Yi as a snooping tool.) But people there came up with some interesting ideas.

* The Yi will not reveal information about other people to you that you don't need to know.

* The Yi will reveal to you only the information about other people that is *already* resident in your own mind at some (usually unconscious or faintly perceived) level

* The Yi will reveal information about other people's inner life to you, but that information is not what you really need to know.

Any or all of these render my 'asking the Yi to show you the inside of another's mind or heart is wrong' view a bit beside the point, don't you think? Or maybe not - if somebody eavesdrops on a private conversation I'm having, is that wrong, or merely misguided?

Which of the above views most closely matches your own?
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,779
Reaction score
2,670
I know made my views abundantly clear on the other thread lol but in answer to your question I think theres no disparity between a question being not appropriate and not effective.
If its not appropriate I would say the Yi addresses this fact hence it is automatically rendered ineffective as a question - for the Yi is now addressing itself to the appropriateness of the question. At least i think i have seen this clearly in my own experience.

My view is that the Yi always answers for highest good in any situation, I do not think it aids one in plots to manipulate unless it were in accord with that good.

Its true I suppose no one can judge for another what is an appropriate or inappropriate question and yet its very hard not to sometimes if it looks like straight advantage gaining over another or just plain avoidance of real communication with the other.
 
Last edited:

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
My view is that the Yi always answers for highest good in any situation, I do not think it aids one in plots to manipulate unless it were in accord with that good.

So, if I ask: "What does Trojan think and feel about me REALLY?" and I draw 14.6 that doesn't mean you like/approve of me, it means that by asking that question I'm on the right track?
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,779
Reaction score
2,670
So, if I ask: "What does Trojan think and feel about me REALLY?" and I draw 14.6 that doesn't mean you like/approve of me, it means that by asking that question I'm on the right track?

I dunno thats a trick question :rofl: very clever !! It probably means i want a signed t shirt of you !

Anyway it may well mean i like/approve of you. I never meant it is always inappropriate to ask about others feelings, I do myself on occasion . Its just i think its an area one has to be very careful in for a number of reasons, especially when one is using successive questioning.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
Careful...you might inspire Luis to post a picture of someone in a teeshirt...
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
Hi Dobro,
So you are proposing Oracle police to decide what is a proper question and what an invasion of privacy? I would feel obliged to do such divination just for the thrill of being hunted by this new police force--how would they find the rule breakers, by casting oracles to disclose the evil doers?

More to the point. What is an inappropriate question or Oracle answer? Generally, if the Yi dislikes your question it has its own range of ways to rebuke the you for it.

I have asked impertinent questions and got oracles that disclosed too much information--either using two numbers as a parlor game in a group or in my own wondering why someone was acting so strangely. Like accidentally shining one's magic glasses that reveal through folks clothes and learning what is there. I have never regretted the process overall though I have been obliged to move up in my Junzi development as a result.

Frank
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
81
Careful...you might inspire Luis to post a picture of someone in a teeshirt...

Very tempting but I'm afraid I'd be kicked out of Clarity for indecency... :rofl:
 

rickmatz

visitor
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
"* The Yi will reveal to you only the information about other people that is *already* resident in your own mind at some (usually unconscious or faintly perceived) level"

I believe the oracle only reveals to you what is present within you. It's not friggin' magic!
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
More to the point. What is an inappropriate question or Oracle answer? Generally, if the Yi dislikes your question it has its own range of ways to rebuke the you for it.

Inappropriate: anything that uses the oracle for the sort of manipulation/calculation the ego loves.

Appropriate: anything that uses the oracle to add to consciousness of one's real Self.

Yi cops comin' to bust *your* funky butt toute de suite, Crowley-head!
 

willowfox

Inactive
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
5,530
Reaction score
107
"* The Yi will reveal to you only the information about other people that is *already* resident in your own mind at some (usually unconscious or faintly perceived) level"

I believe the oracle only reveals to you what is present within you. It's not friggin' magic!

So, if I have never meet the other person I am asking about, then where does the information about that person come from?

Well, something here is friggin magic that is for sure, so you decide what or who it is.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
So, if I have never meet the other person I am asking about, then where does the information about that person come from?

Well, something here is friggin magic that is for sure, so you decide what or who it is.

:rofl: You delight me sometimes. lol
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
Yi Oracles have their own patterns unconnected to what is conscious in your mind...

So, if I have never meet the other person I am asking about, then where does the information about that person come from?

Well, something here is friggin magic that is for sure, so you decide what or who it is.

Hi Willowfox,
I agree absolutely and of course the Yi Oracle is friggin magic, to deny that is to misunderstand divination absolutely. Or more precisely--If you haven't seen the magic in your oracles, then you are hobbling your divination. I can't imagine any of us being fascinated by the Yi for more than a year let alone decade after decade--if we didn't feel the magic and see it proved in specific oracles and situations.

Inappropriate: anything that uses the oracle for the sort of manipulation/calculation the ego loves.
Appropriate: anything that uses the oracle to add to consciousness of one's real Self.
Yi cops comin' to bust *your* funky butt toute de suite, Crowley-head!

Hi Dobro,
I don't think so. Such action by Yi cops would be a total yuck. It is the friggin magic of the Yi that commands respect and enforces the Yi spirit. This BS about ego manipulation vs. real Self is just silly.:rofl:
First Crowley seemed to do just fine with the Oracle. More important, in my experience the Yi spirit is very mischievous. It does tricks, kicks butt, works miracles, gets upset and just goes opaque--none for any higher ideal but all just to be a trickster with power.

"* The Yi will reveal to you only the information about other people that is *already* resident in your own mind at some (usually unconscious or faintly perceived) level"
I believe the oracle only reveals to you what is present within you. It's not friggin' magic!
Hi Rickmatz,
What do you think is stored in the human mind that could control Yi oracle casting? And in what form is it stored, and from that storage venue how does it control the casting of the objective positions of the yarrow stalks or coins or computer program?

It is easy to say that the casting of coins from your palm is controlled by the micro-impulses of nerves or other sources of force to change momentum. However, that gets you very little. How does your mind control that momentum in such a way as to determine the position of the coins when they fall to rest?

Generally, physical operations like throwing dice or casting coins are taken to be in scientific terms, purely random results since the complexities involved are beyond analytical abilities. To say, well, the mind just does that from its deep wells of potentiality is to say the mind is very magical.

To present evidence of information about others being already resident in the mind requires a mechanism for non-conscious programming of the mind about folks who may or may not be present at the time. That is pretty magical in itself. Then that programming has to translate into instructions to affect the coins as they fall to yield the oracle lines that will convey that meaning. This involves a double translation from inner mind storage to kinesthetic control of concrete objects to organizing that control for a specific result in terms of how you interpret your Yi oracle.

The best one can do objectively, is to make some form of synchronicity argument, that somehow the timing of casting the coins determines the content of the oracle which is somehow connected to all things at that moment. However, that doesn't limit the knowledge in the result to just what is in your mind, rather to the timing of the Cosmos at this time and place. Denying the occult magic of divination is an irrational belief that cannot be demonstrated objectively.

You can see it is all just a co-incidence and any reliance upon the result is not perfect or even respectable but that only works for those whose faith lies in that denial. Or you can say these oracle techniques can only be a mirror reflecting what you already have in mind, but then what is the nature of the mirror surface and its reflective algorithm?

Ultimately, you are talking magical thinking to avoid accepting the fundamental magic of divination.

Frank
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
81
I believe the oracle only reveals to you what is present within you. It's not friggin' magic!


Some wizards may beg to differ... :D
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
And you're rude.

Hi Dobro,
At least you are systematically dogmatic. Have you no shame about invoking police forces about the private use of Oracle divination? You really think making prejudicial judgments about what is proper and what is evil ego isn't fundamentally and karmically rude to the MAX?:duh:

Oh well, life goes on. I have a better, Yi style alternative for you and Rickmatz. Those of us who find your perspectives peculiar can always to go our divination and ask the Yi for the rude or inappropriate or outside-our-own mind insight into other folks deepest darkest secrets they are denying or avoiding and let the Yi Spirit give us whatever answer its Trickster personality feels would be good, right, fun or just silly for us to get in reply. :stir:

Frank
 

rickmatz

visitor
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
"Hi Rickmatz,
What do you think is stored in the human mind that could control Yi oracle casting? And in what form is it stored, and from that storage venue how does it control the casting of the objective positions of the yarrow stalks or coins or computer program?"

The human mind isn't controlling anything. It's interpreting. It's interpreting based on it's biases, and both concious and subconcious minds.

I submit that the I Ching is only a mirror which is why framing the question is so important.

As to: "So, if I have never meet the other person I am asking about, then where does the information about that person come from?

Well, something here is friggin magic that is for sure, so you decide what or who it is."

The second you meet someone for the first time, you make a thousand inferences and judgements. Anything you've interpreted from the I Ching is a reflection of that.
 

willowfox

Inactive
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
5,530
Reaction score
107
As to: "So, if I have never meet the other person I am asking about, then where does the information about that person come from?



The second you meet someone for the first time, you make a thousand inferences and judgements. Anything you've interpreted from the I Ching is a reflection of that.

But when I read for someone on the internet then I have never ever physically met them and therefore cannot form any opinion about them at all, so please tell me how I get my information about them or about another person they are asking about? I guess it just plain friggin magic don't you think.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
Hi Dobro,
At least you are systematically dogmatic. Have you no shame about invoking police forces about the private use of Oracle divination? You really think making prejudicial judgments about what is proper and what is evil ego isn't fundamentally and karmically rude to the MAX?:duh:

Oh well, life goes on. I have a better, Yi style alternative for you and Rickmatz. Those of us who find your perspectives peculiar can always to go our divination and ask the Yi for the rude or inappropriate or outside-our-own mind insight into other folks deepest darkest secrets they are denying or avoiding and let the Yi Spirit give us whatever answer its Trickster personality feels would be good, right, fun or just silly for us to get in reply. :stir:

Okay, call it Trickster. I think you're projecting your own personality onto the Yi though lol. I think you like to think you're in a Trickster role, when more probably you're just indulging your own ego's desire to needle people and get at them. You call my idea BS, but it's not - the ego's famous for trying to manipulate outcomes, and the real Self (did you take the trouble to ask me what I meant by that term before you trashed it?) is famous for not caring much about outcomes at all - it just watches and oversees and centers and IS. So much for your digressions and smokescreens.

To return to my original post though, you seemed to answer part of it when you said: "Generally, if the Yi dislikes your question it has its own range of ways to rebuke the you for it." That view's in line with one of the ideas I described in my first post, and it intrigues me, cuz if it's true it offers me more room to work in. So, instead of going into your irritating pot-stirring mode, how'd you like to make yourself useful and elaborate on 'its own range of ways to rebuke you for it"?
 

ben_s

visitor
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
232
Reaction score
7
I asked the oracle, "How does Frank really feel about readings for other people?" and got 28.1,3 > 58. 28 says the outside edge is fragile, in other words, our speculation is based on appearances rather than Frank's true nature of spiritual inner strength. 28.1 says it's necessary to be super-cautious with a heavy load so the floor or foundation does not break. 28.3 says the roof is about to cave in. In other words, the oracle says that our speculation about Frank gives us nothing to stand on and can't support any sheltering truth. In contrast, 58 refers to "joining with friends for discussion."

This reading conclusively shows that instead of using a reading to speculate about Frank's point of view, we should ask Frank directly in a two-way dialog.

So, Frank, did the trickster oracle say anything accurate about why we shouldn't do readings for other people?
 
Last edited:

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
I asked the oracle, "How does Frank really feel about readings for other people?" and got 28.1,3 > 58. 28 says the outside edge is fragile, in other words, our speculation is based on appearances rather than Frank's true nature of spiritual inner strength. 28.1 says it's necessary to be super-cautious with a heavy load so the floor or foundation does not break. 28.3 says the roof is about to cave in. In other words, the oracle says that our speculation about Frank gives us nothing to stand on and can't support any sheltering truth. In contrast, 58 refers to "joining with friends for discussion."

This reading conclusively shows that instead of using a reading to speculate about Frank's point of view, we should ask Frank directly in a two-way dialog.

So, Frank, did the trickster oracle say anything accurate about why we shouldn't do readings for other people?

Well, you've unleashed Frank-ness upon Frank himself, so there's some ironic justice in that. But consider two possibilities:

* The oracle's telling you about Frank's inner state; it's giving you insider information that you're free to bandy about in an online public forum. How likely is that?

* The oracle's telling YOU that you're going too far with this sort of question and the sharing of information with others. How likely is that?

See, I'm concerned not to abuse the privilege that the Yi affords, so it's important to me to try to understand which of the above two possibilities is the most likely. You know, a lot of people around here, myself included, talk as if they know what's up with how the Yi works, when in actual fact that's not true. I know, I know - there's a really good chance I'm being too serious about this, but it's important to me. It would be great if I could really believe, as some people have indicated in this thread, that the Yi deals with improper or impertinent questions in its own innimitable way. But I need evidence of that before I can stake important decisions on it. Without some basis in experience, using an oracle is just SO susceptible to subjectivity and projection and illusion. And delusion as well, once you start unleashing your own ideas on others lol.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
Okay, call it Trickster. I think you're projecting your own personality onto the Yi though lol. I think you like to think you're in a Trickster role, when more probably you're just indulging your own ego's desire to needle people and get at them. You call my idea BS, but it's not - the ego's famous for trying to manipulate outcomes, and the real Self (did you take the trouble to ask me what I meant by that term before you trashed it?) is famous for not caring much about outcomes at all - it just watches and oversees and centers and IS. So much for your digressions and smokescreens.

To return to my original post though, you seemed to answer part of it when you said: "Generally, if the Yi dislikes your question it has its own range of ways to rebuke the you for it." That view's in line with one of the ideas I described in my first post, and it intrigues me, cuz if it's true it offers me more room to work in. So, instead of going into your irritating pot-stirring mode, how'd you like to make yourself useful and elaborate on 'its own range of ways to rebuke you for it"?

Hi Dobro,
You make strange absolute statements as if the are Truth and you freak at my making my remarks without lots of conditional qualifiers? Personally, I find your invocation of "more probably" most offensive. The fundamental equations of probability and such all have a factor of 1/sqrt (N-1) which goes undefined for unique events, and every divination is unique, not just one of a million similar casts. So, let me take a moment to calm down from your bad language.

You invoke "police forces" against other folks use of the Yi oracle for question YOU judge to be too much ego? That is big mirror mistake, or more precisely you are letting your ego so blind your situation that the windows upon everything outside turns to mirror.

You wonder why I don't ask about your notion of real Self? That would be a grossly impertinent question to raise? We each operate upon various circumferences of concentric circles of Inner Self. The Real Self is the center of those circle, not upon any circumference and ineffable. If you think you have a clear VERBAL statement of that geometrical (symbolic) absolute Center, you are confused, mistaking one of the inner rings.

What you see as my irritating pot-stirring mode, is more likely just my natal timing (horoscope) where I automatically tend to expose folks more vulnerable spots--it isn't anything conscious or even personal to me, just my planets making themselves clear. Though I have benefited greatly by the results.

Your final request, the great debate between the traditional Saturn rulership for the Occult and the new Uranus rulership, BTW focuses upon whether we need to censor or protect divination from possible terrible results or are there intrinsic safeguards. I am strongly of the new camp--Let the chips fall where they may--compared to global warming and blind globalized profiteering you can't do anything with 3 pennies to really cause real problems.

Look at the judgment of hex 4, there is a clear statement that the Oracle makes its own decisions upon what to answer and what to handle in other ways. "Make myself useful"? Is that like taking my bones to make bone meal to add to cereal for minerals?:eek: What a nasty thing to say to a Taoist type?

Let me move along, and hopefully you will be able to glean from my remarks what you are seeking as useful (cf. Lao Tzu poem 11).

Hi Ben-S,
Your interpretation of hex 28.1.3>> 58 is purely YOU and has nothing whatsoever to do with me. You might note this as your result is exactly what you want to say, given prior posts and has no connection to anything I have ever felt.

However, as an exercise for the thread hex 28.1.3 >>58--
Hex 28--process with everything personal (4 core lines which from the nuclear) focus while the roots in prior reality and the transition to the Next are open Yin. The third line, personal passion is expressing and exhausting itself while the open Space in the first line place or Roots is becoming focus. The result of this change in the timing results in hex 58, which by the Confucian Image commentary deals with the benefits of community discussion.

As to how this might relate to me as a person, or to your impertinent oracle, I suggest you follow up your divination with another on the order of "What is going on with me that I am using Yi oracles to simply reflect my own personal opinions?"

As my contribution to this thread let me pick up my coins and ask the Yi what it wishes to add to this discussion--- hex 24 without moving lines... Interpret as you will...

In my perspective, this is the hexagram with only the first place of the roots from the prior reality focus, all else is open Yin space. Things are just beginning to develop. Relax, reflect, don't try to get away anywhere things will develop in due course in the ineffable ways of the Tao.

Frank
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
You wonder why I don't ask about your notion of real Self? That would be a grossly impertinent question to raise?

Hm? You call one of my most useful ideas BS, but you have scruples and qualms about checking my terminology before launching an attack? That is so screwed up. You're not only rude, but you lack basic strategies for successful communication.

What you see as my irritating pot-stirring mode, is more likely just my natal timing (horoscope) where I automatically tend to expose folks more vulnerable spots--it isn't anything conscious or even personal to me, just my planets making themselves clear.

I believe this so far as it goes, except in one particular. If you know it's the effect of your horoscope at work, then it's not completely unconscious, and to the extent that you're conscious of it, you're responsible for it.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
I can't imagine any of us being fascinated by the Yi for more than a year let alone decade after decade--if we didn't feel the magic and see it proved in specific oracles and situations.

Well, I'm studying the Yijing for about 25 years now and I have never seen any 'magic' in it (what's the meaning of that word anyway?). It would worry me if it would contain or use 'magic'. I see magic as something extraordinary, something which seemingly is in contrast with what we perceive as 'normal'.

But the Yi is about the ordinary. It tells you what the essence is of the situation, helping you to see what matters and what doesn't. It tells you about what is at hand, not about what is far away. What it gives you can easily be seen but often we blindfold ourselves for different reasons. If we were able to follow the Dao we would regard everything as obvious, as natural. We would not see things as 'magic', such categorisation would not be necessary. The answers of the Yi would be obvious, not remarkable. Yet the Yi can teach us to follow the Dao. In that way the Yi exists to make itself superfluous.

Harmen.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
Well, I'm studying the Yijing for about 25 years now and I have never seen any 'magic' in it (what's the meaning of that word anyway?). It would worry me if it would contain or use 'magic'. I see magic as something extraordinary, something which seemingly is in contrast with what we perceive as 'normal'.

But the Yi is about the ordinary. It tells you what the essence is of the situation, helping you to see what matters and what doesn't. It tells you about what is at hand, not about what is far away. What it gives you can easily be seen but often we blindfold ourselves for different reasons. If we were able to follow the Dao we would regard everything as obvious, as natural. We would not see things as 'magic', such categorisation would not be necessary. The answers of the Yi would be obvious, not remarkable. Yet the Yi can teach us to follow the Dao. In that way the Yi exists to make itself superfluous.

Harmen.
{bold added}

Hi Harmen,
Your remarks show how the Yi speaks to each of us in our own terms. Clearly you don't like the magic part of the Yi, and it kindly gives you what you seek and ask for, the ordinary that isn't generally available to us without its intervention or the focus upon what is essence rather than other stuff.

Personally, I find the Yi Oracle quite amazing and awesome and its ability to make such sophisticated and varied replies in the term of each person casting the Yi quite magical.

My own oracles I would describe as magic since they display an analysis of meaning and process that isn't available objectively. Those who are open to magical answers can get them from the Yi, even on their first casting the oracle. Those who don't want such stuff, just the brilliant analysis of what is truly essential and ultimately ordinary from the perspective of the Tao itself get that.

Hi Dobro,
Hm? You call one of my most useful ideas BS, but you have scruples and qualms about checking my terminology before launching an attack? That is so screwed up. You're not only rude, but you lack basic strategies for successful communication.
"ego manipulation vs. real Self" is one of your most useful ideas? OK, I just disagree totally with your premises then. Real Self is a traditional philosophical term and generally considered a private matter. You have a personal definition in contrast to yucky "ego" that is your thing. I did research on Ego in terms of Freud, I don't find any use of the terms anything but fiction. Different strokes for different folks.

Yes, of course I am responsible for everything connected to me conscious or unconscious or external and extraneous--that is basic Karma. My remarks were not about evading responsibility (a strange notion entirely), but noting that what you projected upon me as my faults and badness were actually your interaction with my remarks, having nothing to do with ME, myself or any variant of Ego-I-Self. It was a polite and hopefully kindly way of pointing out in general that you are letting your 'ego manipulation' fantasies run wild and blaming me for what you are doing to yourself.

Frank
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
Frank, I've tried a couple of things in this thread to try to find out more about you, find out more about how you deal with things, and here's what I've found:

* It's really hard to keep you on-topic. You offered very little in answer to my original question in this thread, and when I challenged you on it, you offered even less.

* It's pretty easy to provoke you - all I have to do is challenge your thinking. It's like pushing a button.

This means that for my purposes, you're not very much fun, and you're not very useful to me, in the sense of a person it's useful to bounce ideas off. You're mostly a lot of words.

Here's something else that might be useful for you to know, though. Although I think you get things wrong sometimes, I don't think you're stupid. And although we disagree about lots, I don't dislike you.

And the postscript: if you base your psychological understanding on the work of Freud, then you won't begin to understand people like me who base a lot of their understanding on the work of Carl Jung. When I talked about the Self, it referred to something very much like the Self described in Jungian literature.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
Frank, I've tried a couple of things in this thread to try to find out more about you, find out more about how you deal with things, and here's what I've found:

* It's really hard to keep you on-topic. You offered very little in answer to my original question in this thread, and when I challenged you on it, you offered even less...

This means that for my purposes, you're not very much fun, and you're not very useful to me, in the sense of a person it's useful to bounce ideas off. You're mostly a lot of words.

Here's something else that might be useful for you to know, though. Although I think you get things wrong sometimes, I don't think you're stupid. And although we disagree about lots, I don't dislike you.

And the postscript: if you base your psychological understanding on the work of Freud, then you won't begin to understand people like me who base a lot of their understanding on the work of Carl Jung. When I talked about the Self, it referred to something very much like the Self described in Jungian literature.

Hi Dobro,
I am gratified you don't think me stupid, though I did write an early paper upon the great esoteric ideals of "stupidity" and "ignorance." I am pleased you don't dislike me. I am even more grateful we disagree a lot since I find many of your positions truly horrible.

I am still waiting for an answer to my inquiry of just how much do you agree with Nazi philosophy. The folks I met in Europe studying the Cathars were either survivors of the Nazi occupation and resisted as they could-- who found the subject important for them to understand, or younger folks who truly believed their philosophy was a good idea and even accepted the arbitrary use of mass murder as OK when done for the good of society--So where is your Cathar interest? Are you just funning about police powers to enforce your notions of what is proper Yi use, or do you have dreams of...

If you are interested in me or how I deal with things, ask--don't make weird conclusions based upon my reactions to your remarks--I will answer more under Freud and Jung.

As to being useful, to you--that is a Taoist no-no, one should always be useless to discourage those in power (or thinking they are) from using you-- which is universally considered Yucky...

In terms of your original question, "It never ceases to amaze me how many people here see nothing wrong with using the Yi to invade somebody's privacy. If you want to know how a person feels about you, then ask them. If they don't want to tell you, then you have no right to know. Using the Yi to find out is no different than tapping their phone line or reading their mail."

I thought I had answered that before, maybe not in this thread, etc. Let me do it again for your ease... Using the Yi to explain other folks secrets to you privately is one thing, telling them that your interpretation of some oracle is their inner thoughts you have found out is offensive--in general and certainly to me, just for the silliness of it--since most folks doing that aren't really interpreting the Yi oracle very well at all, just themselves--Ben-S take note please!:eek:.

So the whole issue of objective judgment of some kinds of Yi oracle about other folks misses the point...It isn't asking the Yi that is any problem, it is running around mouthing off about your brilliant interpretation which is offensive. If one picks up a party line telephone whatever the reason and hears inside information, one is expected to be polite and not yell out on the line--Wow, what a juicy tidbit;);).

I have used a variant of what you say should be verboten (forbidden by Prussian moral authorities) as a parlor trick or to simplify the process of meeting folks better than asking their sign (such as slippery when wet or hammer and sickle). That was to ask them to say two numbers 1-64 or use coins to cast the same oracle question. The results were always intriguing--though I did have one person recently say,"Well, of course, but you may have just sent an army of investigators to interview my entire family to get the same result."

I have found the results useful and proper. I don't claim I have interpreted what was in their minds particularly, just commented upon the implications of those two numbers as a Yi oracle.

As to your remarks about me allegedly, I find them interesting projections of your ego rather than any notion of any Self mine or yours, but I formally, categorically deny them as having anything Truthful in them at all (the son of a pair of distinguished trial lawyers in me).

Which brings up who am I, (which you say you seek for your amusement?)
I was raised in a family deep into intellectual, legal, scientific, and Freudian discussion . As I wondered why Luis got so upset when I didn't want to read his extensive and unavailable articles, I realized that I had enough involvement in these family discussions at age 3 and 4 before I learned to read, but with my older siblings spelling things to give me a hard time, that when I did get to reading I was disappointed in what it couldn't do better than folks talking. They claimed it was so :cool: but it was just words. I have always been suspicious of what folks claim is to be found in the literature ever since.
Another example, my parents took me, when I was about 12, to a lecture by Jean Piaget speaking in his native Swiss French with a translator. In that one lecture, he explained his whole theory of developmental stages including his his research far better than the numerous vast, cumbersome volumes of English translation in my library.

He also expressed himself in a way that irked me. I spent a number of years trying to find the problem with his work, eventually realizing that he was just being an academic, and the "academy" was based upon medieval nonsense about the unique wonders of Plato and his PTSD disabled mentor Socrates.

My disdain for what was picked up only by reading text was compounded when my father took me to meet a friend of his, a famous experimental chemist, who told me to get involved in the actual research first--before you read the literature, or your creative mind will be hamstrung by what is conventional wisdom. His first and most remarkable breakthrough discovery came from his not having read the literature and learned it was impossible--so he just went into the lab and did it.

My background in Freud is from my father's belief that Freud was a great scientist and his taking me to an informative luncheon with Eduardo Weiss (of Freud's very inner circle). I always thought Freud's views a bit more fantasy than science which I documented in working on my doctoral thesis that his theories were all fiction and misunderstanding of his own childhood issues. Turns out the Oedipus complex actually refers to Wilhelm II and WWI and to hopes of Freud's to win wealth and fame by answering just one question.

As to Jung, I found his roots in his experience with Freud (like all others in the field in the first half of the 20th century) rather colored his thinking. Friends of mine in Europe who were close to the Jung family and other esoteric connections to the man noted he was very Western with a prejudice about the notion of Westerners truly getting involved in Eastern ways. So, I took it that there was a very different undercurrent to his work than what he stated in his published books. All his exotic allusions covered a rather conventional 19th century European materialist with his own flair for writing for the crowd.

I don't find anything of interest in Jung's notion of Self--he lacks any basis in meditation which is all that could allow any insight into the Self. Let's just leave it at-- I don't understand your beliefs at all or find them useful --or in my terms I have more inside information about you from your expressing and exposing yourself than I have any use for, but I am trying to be polite and not dump it back out on you. I don't think you are stupid either, I don't dislike you, but I do have questions about your moral compass (see above).

You think you challenged my thinking? I thought you were just reacting over and over by reflex and I was trying hard to not react to what was clearly more of a sneeze than a philosophical reply. My apologies for not appearing better in your mirror of Ego and Self.

So, you seem more in tune with Ben-S remark:
So, Frank, did the trickster oracle say anything accurate about why we shouldn't do readings for other people?

You both think you are discussing why "we" shouldn't do readings for other people? Where is the option that doing readings for anyone, yourself, others, total strangers are pretty much on an even playing field although making moral judgments about what other folks should do or how they lack your sophistication of understanding (while exposing the serious limits in your own sophistication--to all who bother to notice) are more humorous than anything else.:rofl:

So, play on Falstaff you are being useful yourself as an exemplar of philosophical comic relief, though apparently not very conscious or friendly about it.:D And with a dark undercurrent (trigram k'an not hexagram K'an)

All the best, Be of Good Cheer. :)
Frank
 

ben_s

visitor
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
232
Reaction score
7
Frank,

In an attempt to add a bit of levity to a rather ponderously serious discussion...
(which, perhaps, should have stayed in a most sombre mood, undisturbed by my pursuit of humor through irony)...
I thought it might, perhaps, be humorously ironic to ask the Yi about the person who vigorously says it's inappropriate to ask the Yi about other people.

I really did use a random technique to get the lines shown, it really was my first ask of the question, and I really did interpret it according to my current, limited but hopefully growing, understanding of the oracle.

I really was ready to attempt to learn what the oracle had to say about the situation. I really did not look for a way to read my own assumptions into the reading. I really did have an absence of assumptions about whether the Yi would encourage or discourage its use reading for others. I really did have an absence of assumptions about whether your opinion about the Yi was accurate.

Of course, I can't prove my state of mind then, least not to you. So if you want to say this is a bunch of self-serving B.S., you could, of course, judge my mindset in that way. And you would, of course, be wrong to judge my mindset that way.

And I found it ironically humorous that the oracle seemed to say that what I was asking was exactly the kind of impertinence that you'd railed against.

I think I've already made a few posts that show that I separate my personal point of view from what I believe the oracle said. Now I admit I might misinterpret the oracle. But I really don't try to use it to blindly justify and confirm my point of view. Again, I'm sure I can't adequately prove my sincerity to you, so I won't bother trying to do so any more.

I am interested in your opinions, and I'd appreciate you respecting my sincerity even when you disagree with my opinions - which is, after all, what my reading seems to confirm the Yi says I should do about you!
 

ben_s

visitor
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
232
Reaction score
7
My own follow up question to the oracle was a bit different than the one Frank recommended to me, as his question includes an assumption about my attitudes & motivations which I don't share.

I asked:
What is there for me to learn from Frank's accusation that I only use the oracle to try to justify my own self-serving preconceptions?

I was fully ready to read a clear lesson about the need for the querent to apologize for bad behavior.

I got:
8.2,3 > 48 union > well

8 "Inquire of the oracle once again whether you possess sublimity, constancy, and perseverance; then there is no blame."
I take this as showing that Frank is right that it is useful for people to ask the oracle about their own character and state of mind & heart.

8.2 I interpret this as showing a need for discernment in evaluating whether or not to follow advice provided by others. Following a true leader, who calls one to moral greatness, is praised. On the other hand, "if a man seeks association with others as if he were an obsequious office hunter, he throws himself away. He does not follow the path of the superior man, who never loses his dignity."

So, perhaps my attempted use of levity in a serious discussion was undignified.
If that's the case, I apologize.

Not sure if this lack of dignity, in my quest for irony, actually is the case; if Frank's determination of my character flaws is a laudable guide to my behavior, or if exploring his concerns about me is acting like an "obsequious office hunter."

2.3 seems to clarify: "You hold together with the wrong people."
In other words, as Frank hasn't had the opportunity to know me in depth, merely to peruse a handful of comments in an online forum, he's not in a position to judge me. There's no need for me to attempt to win him over.
Or, perhaps, Dobro's libertine ways are a bad influence on me?

48 the well, seems to me to symbolize a nourishment provided by a constant source of life. I believe this refers to my focus on moral decision-making as guided by universal principles and spiritual truth within my own conscience, rather than by whether or not Frank's upset at me today.

Now, I admit this might be a hopelessly self-serving bunch of BS, but it really does seem to me that the oracle is saying I needn't fear for my character merely because of Frank's disputations.

Or, Frank is right that I can't learn anything from the oracle because it only shows me my own preconceptions. But what is the way out of that, if the oracle itself seems to say this isn't the case?
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
57
I am still waiting for an answer to my inquiry of just how much do you agree with Nazi philosophy. The folks I met in Europe studying the Cathars were either survivors of the Nazi occupation and resisted as they could-- who found the subject important for them to understand, or younger folks who truly believed their philosophy was a good idea and even accepted the arbitrary use of mass murder as OK when done for the good of society--So where is your Cathar interest? Are you just funning about police powers to enforce your notions of what is proper Yi use, or do you have dreams of...

I'm confused about the reference to the Cathars; I don't know about them, so I doubt that I have an interest in them. Weren't they some sort of group in the Pyrenees in the Middle Ages who were accused of heresy? Dunno...

As for my Nazi tendencies: I don't think I have any. I do think that it's possible to misuse the oracle however, in exactly the same way that it's possible to misuse the written word, or misuse gunpowder, or misuse sex. I think it's possible to misuse anything, if it's used in ways that harm people. If I criticize somebody for misuse of some sort of technology or power, then I don't think that makes me a Nazi, do you? And I see using the oracle to get private information about people as an infringement of people's privacy, in exactly the same way that I see eavesdropping or opening people's mail or snooping through their desk at work as a privacy infringement. If I criticized Luis for going into my desk and reading my personal diary at work, would you call me a Nazi? If you did, you'd be very mistaken, I think.

Now, what do I think of the seriousness of using the Yi to get private information about people? I don't think it's very serious, actually. I think it's more along the lines of misguided - most people don't *need* to know that information to make good decisions. And when you said that you had no compunction about asking about the inner working's of another person's life, I wasn't particularly bothered by it, and when you said you wouldn't make public what you found, I was reassured.

You asked: "Are you just funning about police powers to enforce your notions of what is proper Yi use, or do you have dreams of..."

Funning, of course. That's why I used silly language in that post to you.

The bit of autobiography you posted was interesting - thanks for the insight.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
19
In an attempt to add a bit of levity to a rather ponderously serious discussion...
(which, perhaps, should have stayed in a most sombre mood, undisturbed by my pursuit of humor through irony)...
I thought it might, perhaps, be humorously ironic to ask the Yi about the person who vigorously says it's inappropriate to ask the Yi about other people.

Hi Ben,
As far as I know, Dobro is the one objecting to folks doing readings for others. My position is that it is fine to cast the Yi for any purpose at all. Where did you get the notion cited in the above quote and put into bold? Such a total misunderstanding of what is being said rather limits further discussion. Can you find any quote of mine indicating anything close to thinking there is anything inappropriate about asking the Yi about other folks? Or did you mistake some of my Dobro quotes for my statements?

As for humorous irony based upon a mistaken premise and interpreted as the inner beliefs of anyone--NO. It wasn't levity, it wasn't ironic and it was offensive--My Yi says your inner beliefs are like this, don't you agree--ha, ha, ha.-- NO, NO very bad.

My original comment to Dobro was:
Those of us who find your perspectives peculiar can always to go our divination and ask the Yi for the rude or inappropriate or outside-our-own mind insight into other folks deepest darkest secrets they are denying or avoiding and let the Yi Spirit give us whatever answer its Trickster personality feels would be good, right, fun or just silly for us to get in reply.

How did you get from what I said to what you did? :confused:
The rest of your two posts I cannot even begin to relate to at all. They seem to be more oracle interpretation which belong to your private life and I certainly will not comment upon them at all.

Frank
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top