PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
So, if I understand this right, what you are presenting here and in the other thread, are your own meditations and conclusions based on the text of the Shuogua?I'm talking about the two pre I Ching editions, an oracle and a book. My primary source is Shuo Kua of I Ching: to Heaven they assigned the number three and to Earth the two. From these they computed the other numbers ... this is why The Book of Changes have backward moving numbers.
I'm talking facts and math. Everyone of You can count the order shown of the hexagrams.
Too bad, I am more interested in the names of the trigrams than in maths. I have a paper by Julie Lee Wei, "The Names of the Yi Jing Trigrams: An Inquiry Into Their Linguistic Origins" (Sino-Platonic Papers No. 161, September 2005) in which she links the pronunciation of the names to similar words in Indo-European languages like Welsh, Gaelic or Irish. It is fascinating material, but she uses the Confucianist meanings of the trigrams, instead of the more older ones. That makes me doubt the validity of her assumptions.the trigrams have non-chinese names and I have found where they came from, but I only want to post the math of the hexagrams, because then all can count if my theories are right or wrong?
I do not know Julie Lee Wei, but the earliest record of the ancient Oracle in my research is from southern Great Brittain dating ca. 2600 BC. English archaeologists are digging the rigth place at the moment so maybe we will get some usefull answers this authum?Too bad, I am more interested in the names of the trigrams than in maths. I have a paper by Julie Lee Wei, "The Names of the Yi Jing Trigrams: An Inquiry Into Their Linguistic Origins" (Sino-Platonic Papers No. 161, September 2005) in which she links the pronunciation of the names to similar words in Indo-European languages like Welsh, Gaelic or Irish.
I don't know, you tell me. Show me your research, show me some facts, instead of just some wild statements. Where can I check your findings?the earliest record of the ancient Oracle in my research is from southern Great Brittain dating ca. 2600 BC. English archaeologists are digging the rigth place at the moment so maybe we will get some usefull answers this authum?
Ah, that explains it all, I guess.I am a diviner not a scientist. I do my research to make better predictions.
No, you haven't. You only have given some wild ideas without proper backup. I mean, you say things like "Some clever Shang diviner wrote the first Book of Changes by reverting the Lien Shan oracle and changing the coloured trigrams into black hexagrams more suited for writing", " The clever Shang diviner too reverted the trigrams, so the Fu Shi order of the trigrams was invented ca. 1150 BC." and "Kuei Ts'ang was one single book kept in the library of the Shang Court. When the Chou king Wen conquered the Shang capitol, he loosend the thongs, placed 3 Heaven before 2 Earth, mixed the other slips, and fastened the thongs again", but nowhere do you explain or motivate what you say. It seems you have a vivid imagination but really do not have sources which validate your assumptions.Wild statements? I've just shown You the 64 Kua in the original order to be counted both foreward from 1 to 64 and backwards from 2 to 65.
But what do we know about the Lianshan? Nothing, only that it started with with hexagram 52. And where can I read about this 'village of the people that build Stonehenge', and how is this linked to the Lianshan?30. january 2007 archeaologists found the village of the people that build Stonehenge I. The ancient Oracle had 56 Kua with different colour and shape plus 8 Kua with matching colour and shape (I Ching no. 1 - 2 - 29 - 30 - 51 - 52 - 57 - 58). Try placing these 8 as totem poles in a smaller circle inside the big circle of 56 aubreyholes. Until today no one has been able to explain the use of Stonehenge I, but try compare with the structure of Lien Shan?
No, I can't. Because you give me nothing but wild guesses. You don't give your sources, you don't tell how you derived at your conclusions, you are just giving wild statements. Or I must be stupid and fail to see any connection between what you say and what we know.The facts are down under them big stones, that have been placed upon the eight holes in the middle of Stonehenge. There You can check my findings
Ah well, Bruce, It is just fun, that is all what I can say about it. I can't take it all too seriously.Harmen, I can't even imagine what this place must do to the heads of the likes of Brad, Lindsay or yourself. Do be careful, it'd be a shame if you pulled out all that spiky blond hair!
bollocks.I Ching has 6 changing lines because I Ching has no math structure
Bulls Eye, sparhawkWhat you offer is interesting and colorful, and you may fully believe it,
but, as presented, doesn't travel farther than yourself.
Very limiting.Hi lightofreason (and others)
My primary source is I Ching / Shuo Kua:
To Heaven they assigned the number three and to Earth the number two.
From these they computed the other numbers.
I have shown You that the 64 hexagrams are 64 numbers from 2 to 65
starting with Earth counted as two and Heaven counted as three.
It's your counting method that isn't described in I Ching ... show me 0 and 1 in Shuo Kua ???
I am talking about Lien Shan and Kuei Ts'ang. You are defending I Ching? The Book of Changes is not only I Ching.
I Ching is only the third Chou edition. And it's a fact that the Duke of Chou later on changed the very first edition.
Rubbish. Jung used THREE dichotomies, two covering categories of structure (Thinking/Feeling, Sensing/Intuiting) and one covering a function (Introvert/Extravert). These dichotomies came out of analysis of the psyche and overall persona and formed aspects of Analytical Psychology.Hi lightofreason
Very limiting? I checked your sites and arrived at this one:
The eight personality types were invented by C.G. Jung inspired from the eight trigrams,
.lienshan said:In the C.G. Jung system the first (top) line was either broken (introverted) or whole (extraverted)
The second (middle) line was either broken (feeling) or whole (thinking)
The third (bottom) line was either broken (intuition) or whole (sensing)
No. Your are getting confused with the dichotomies and especially the I/E. You can mix them like this but you will not get precision due to them leaving out P/J and including I/E
Dont get distracted by the dogma - most have no idea how 'in here' deals with dichotomies and so come up with all sorts of variations!
Sure - but also out of date and so one needs to understand the consequences of the methodology used to interpret reality. Jung wrote a lot but had to focus on expressions since he did not have access to essences as covered in neurosciences. His speculations were good but not definitive.C.G. Jung is no holy cow to me, but I really like to read his thoughts. Wise and clever. Respect!
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).