London Yijing (I Ching) Society

[lexington]

Dear All

I have recently set-up the London Yijing (I Ching) Society.

We have a Meetup account through which dates will be set-up for meetings.

The London Yijing (I Ching) Society has been set-up following a discussion amongst a few friends who have studied the text over decades. It is to be a place for anyone interested in the subject and want to share their ideas and experience. The society aims to inspire people to use the text wisely and effectively or at the very least encourage a serious approach.

Looking forward to getting this project off the ground.

 

[lexington]

Dear All,

I have potentially found a venue (62 – 64 Gower St. WC1E 6ED) for our first meeting and have penciled the 21st of May for now.

At our first meeting I would like to introduce myself and the aims of the Society after which we could have a discussion of our interests in the Yijing and what members would like to gain from the Society and how this can be achieved.

It would also be useful if you could introduce yourself via email before the meeting and express your interest in the Yijing which will enable me to include your ideas, topics and suggestions and help build our discussion. Please email your suggestions and enquiries or otherwise subscribe to our Meetup account in order to participate in our meetings. Email us at londonyijingsociety@gmail.com

We could also have a discussion if you subscribe to our mailing-list. In order to subscribe please send a blank message to londonyijingsociety-subscribe@yjcn.nl

Finally it would be great if people could bring biscuits, cakes or tea or any tidbits to share with others.

I look forward to meeting you all!

You can refer to the website or contact me for more details
https://londonyijingsociety.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/first-meet-and-great-meeting/

 

[hilary]

I can confirm this is definitely on - I'll be there, public transport permitting.

 

[lexington]

I have just posted the summary of our meeting on the website.
https://londonyijingsociety.wordpre...-inaugural-meeting/comment-page-1/#comment-18

 

[Trojina]

•I have created a thread on the Clarity Forum for the Society for us to have a discussion there.

I don't quite understand this sentence ? Won't the society have it's own discussion forum on it's website ?

I believe this is an eloquant expression of a key attitude to have when performing divination.

Do you ? Well it takes all sorts I suppose. But I can't see anything of what Hilary said at the inaugural meeting ?

 

[lexington]

I don't quite understand this sentence ? Won't the society have it's own discussion forum on it's website ?

No, if you know how to build a forum then feel free to set one up for us.

Do you ? Well it takes all sorts I suppose. But I can't see anything of what Hilary said at the inaugural meeting ?

No point just being a smart ass without presenting an argument. Also if you read what I wrote then you'd understand why I haven't written on behalf of Hilary or any other members that were present but it seems you have difficulty understanding simple sentences so Ill point it out to you in the quote below which was mentioned in the first paragraph. All other quotes were copied from actual written correspondences.

Several poignant conversations were had however it will be difficult to express them in a summary. This is partly due to the fact that the conversations were complex exchanges and simplifying them could lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentation

 

[Trojina]

No, if you know how to build a forum then feel free to set one up for us.

Joel Biroco knows how to set up a forum because he set up the 'Dead Posters Society' . I was only trying to clarify why you were using this place for your society's discussion when it appeared you were promoting a particular approach.

No point just being a smart ass without presenting an argument. Also if you read what I wrote then you'd understand why I haven't written on behalf of Hilary or any other members that were present but it seems you have difficulty understanding simple sentences so Ill point it out to you in the quote below which was mentioned in the first paragraph. All other quotes were copied from actual written correspondences.

That's rude. I wrote one sentence and you call me a 'smart ass' ? You call me a 'smart ass' because I implied I am not a Biroco disciple as I understand you are, nor anyone's disciple come to that. I have been consulting for nearly 40 years though so I don't take so well to being insulted by someone who has started a Yi society down the road from me whom I've never seen on these forums before.

You linked here to 'a key attitude to have when performing divination'. I merely asked where Hilary's input was as I heard she expressed pretty much the opposite view you linked to. So when I said 'it takes all sorts' I meant there really are very wide variations in views about attitudes to divination, when one needs to do it and so on. It really does 'take all sorts'. All of this kind of thing has often been discussed here many times. I've been here too long to jump into debate and arguments with you or prove anything to you. I might as well just come to your next meeting

My current impression, which is now much stronger given your reaction to my brief post, is that your society is being founded on Biroco's views as a kind of base line ? Please correct me if that is not so.


I guess I view this place, this forum, as the Yi Jing Society because more people come to Yi through this site than anywhere else I think. My confusion is is that there is now this Yi Jing society in London more or less founded by Biroco and you as his student and you are suggesting that society holds it's discussions here at Clarity ?


Well Hilary must have invited you to do so I cannot object. However if you wish to continue being as rude to me as you have been you will need to go to the 'Moderation' section to do it.

Several poignant conversations were had however it will be difficult to express them in a summary. This is partly due to the fact that the conversations were complex exchanges and simplifying them could lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentation

'Poignant' ? You couldn't summarise Hilary's POV because it was poignant ? Are you sure that's the right word ? Oh and that's not me being a 'smartass' it's me puzzled at how poignancy prevented a balanced representation of what was said at that meeting.

 

[lexington]

Thank you for replying.

This Society is not founded on any single view. I have studied the oracle for a limited time and have diverse influences. Which reminds of something I myself wanted to ask members to consider for our next meeting. I have been thinking introducing a new aim to the Society. The aim being that members find their own voice in the oracle which hopefully brings to the table new ways of viewing the oracle which hopefully may lead to a new way of understanding oracle rather then get stuck and lost in historical baggage. This is of course not to discredit the history of yixue. On the contrary in keeping with the history I hope this society will find a new way of interpreting the oracle and if you have 40 years experience please free to attend our meetings and discuss it or discuss it here. I cannot be anymore clearer than this for now.


I cannot summarize anyone not even Joel, David, Don, Hilary or all other members that had a conversation because it was lively exchange that would require a court stenographer, sadly we didnt hire one. I will remind you again that I only quoted members who wrote their thoughts out after the meeting which i quoted in order to stimulate discussion. I can only quote what is written to avoid confusion.

 

[lexington]

I was only trying to clarify why you were using this place for your society's discussion when it appeared you were promoting a particular approach.

This is a Yijing forum is it not? Joel's forum is not a specialist forum. I am expressing my views, this is to encourage discussion and not evangelize.

 

[sooo]

I was going to offer a thought, but since it's already decided that I wouldn't, I won't. Neither is there any point in consulting with the IC henceforth, unless I decide that Biroco's opinion is only his opinion and not a fact. Yes, I think I'll go with that thought. Perhaps it's his illusion, but it's my decision. Perhaps his idea of 'The Way' is not my idea of 'The Way'. But then I'm just a country bumpkin so what do I know? I know this: I dislike it when anyone states their beliefs as facts and claims to know what is unknowable. And this from some guy who once called me smug, from a member of the London Yijing (I Ching) Society. Loddy freakin' dah.

 

[cjgait]

Would it perhaps be possible to have an online component for the next meeting? As limiting as a conference call can be it's better than nothing.

 

[lexington]

Yes CJ I am hoping to give it an online component. For now the website will be the place for it. I will post a summary as detailed as possible for every meeting and post question, opinions and agendas for meetings as well. Feel free to join the mailing list or reply in our comments section for the post.

In a few days I will post the agenda for next meeting.

 

[hilary]

This is indeed a Yijing forum, and I encourage and welcome people to share new Yijing-related ventures here of all kinds.

I dithered about whether to post my response to Joel here or in the comments - could do either. I'll post here and link from there...

One thing Joel and I agree on: talking with Yi comes of wanting something. The flow of desire crystallises into an intention which finds expression through a question. (I'd add that knowing what you want and intend is the single most useful way to ask good questions that give rise to clear answers.)


Where we differ: he is implying that wanting, including wanting to understand, is wrong: a source of confusion and illusion. From which it follows that all divination is the offspring of confusion and illusion, and the Yi itself is - at its core, as an oracle people listen to - an instrument of confusion and illusion. The best thing for anyone using the Yi to do would be to stop, or to evolve to that higher level of consciousness where they lose all desire and all belief in choice and so are capable of stopping.


Lex is eager to put the society's aims into words. It sounds as though the primary one should be the ulimate abolition of the oracle, in the interests of enlightenment.


So yes, we differ.


I think the deepest 'want' behind divination is the desire to be fully part of the whole: to be engaged, involved, to belong. (Or to swim well in the river, to borrow an image.) I do not believe this desire to be a source of confusion - nor the desire to serve or understand or grow or enjoy. I believe desire is how we are alive.


I do not find desire clouds awareness - on the contrary, I think awareness is also made of that desire to be part of the whole. Think of the person you are most aware of, or who knows you best, and what that awareness you have of them - now - really is. Awareness of reality is the same - not least as it comes through an oracle.


'Clouded awareness' in my experience comes in the first place from not knowing our own desires, with confusing knowing what we want with 'insisting that we get it' (to quote Jennifer Louden) coming a close second.


The full quotation from Jen is worth including:
'Desire is the flow of life we yearn to swim in, the urge to be one with spirit, and the way to stay in touch with this flow is through knowing what we want without insisting that we get it.'


Oh, and choice is real, and hence guidance from Yi is real, and the great transformations and subtle shifts it creates in people's lives are also real. Readings change our awareness and hence make actions and ways of thinking/seeing/being possible that would otherwise have been impossible - maybe forever, maybe just at the critical moment.


The Yi is not a Daoist book (if 'following the dao' meaning ceasing to desire or choose, it hardly could be). It’s older than Daoism; as an oracle, it's bigger than any set of religious/metaphysical beliefs or practices, and is open to people with any or none. I hope the London Yijing Society will follow suit.


Also at the inaugural meeting were several people who simply use the Yi as an oracle and are interested in sharing and learning more about that. (Many of them kept very quiet.) This is what Yi was made for and has been used for throughout its 3,000 years; I expect it will continue much the same for its next 3,000 years: speaking, responding, connecting, giving swimming lessons. The pronouncements we make here are, from that perspective, not so important. What is important: that people who approach the Yi simply as what it is, as an oracle, are not made to feel like second-class citizens because of their 'clouded awareness'.

 

[lexington]

Lex is eager to put the society's aims into words. It sounds as though the primary one should be the ulimate abolition of the oracle, in the interests of enlightenment.

It is for this precise reason that i refused to quote the discussions at the meeting and only quoted those written out by the members themselves after meeting with permission, however despite my best effort that seems to have failed miserably as well. There couldn't be a better example for misunderstanding and misrepresentation then you putting into words what you think I said.

I am not eager to have aims for the Society this was the wish of some members that wanted more structure. Which i think is fair nonetheless I thought it best to wait for more discussions before pushing forward with this.

Secondly abolishing the oracle? I am not entirely sure how you got this idea. Why would anyone interested in abolishing something go through the effort of forming a society dedicated to the studying it? But I have a hunch at how you could have made this assumption. It is probably when I said that I would like to learn to be intuitive without having to rely on the oracle. These is not to destroy the oracle but what I believe to be an aim in the study of the oracle. This was also not stated as a fact but a personal belief that was put on the table for discussion. Which in my opinion was discussed well but I left it out of the summary because it was impossible to summarize.

Is there anything wrong with seeking enlightenment? This is my personal aim and again it was up for discussion and did not enforce this on anyone neither did I suggest this be an aim that everyone adhere to.

The Yi is not a Daoist book

Did anyone at the meeting make a claim that the Yi was a Daoist book? I believe some people quoted from the Daodejing to illustrate certain attitudes, ethics or philosophy that can be learnt from the Daodejing to apply to the study of the oracle.

Oh, and choice is real, and hence guidance from Yi is real, and the great transformations and subtle shifts it creates in people's lives are also real. Readings change our awareness and hence make actions and ways of thinking/seeing/being possible that would otherwise have been impossible - maybe forever, maybe just at the critical moment.

Is this not a prime example of someone stating their belief as a fact?

(Many of them kept very quiet.)

There were perhaps one or two quieter members who were encouraged but didnt have much to say. Is there a point in mentioning this? Should every one be forced to babble?

What is important: that people who approach the Yi simply as what it is, as an oracle, are not made to feel like second-class citizens because of their 'clouded awareness'.

I doubt anyone intended to make anyone feel like a second class citizen. However if that feeling arose during the meeting I cant help it. It was as far as I can tell a jovial and friendly environment where everyone was equally treated with utmost respect. This is as far as I can tell is your imagination and I am not pandering to it.

I am no longer willing to discuss on this thread or forum. All are welcome to our meetings and welcome to email me should you like to discuss anything. For those abroad I will as stated above post as best I can on the website.

 

[anemos]

he is implying that wanting, including wanting to understand, is wrong: a source of confusion and illusion. From which it follows that all divination is the offspring of confusion and illusion, and the Yi itself is - at its core, as an oracle people listen to - an instrument of confusion and illusion. The best thing for anyone using the Yi to do would be to stop, or to evolve to that higher level of consciousness where they lose all desire and all belief in choice and so are capable of stopping.

There is some truth in those assumptions and Yi has the potential be such an instrument. clouded awareness, or doubtful awareness, it's not about being a second class citizen or belonging to the elite. It's about being human.

I'm not familiar with Joel's ideas, so can't say I agree or disagree, yet he makes and interesting point that, imo, worth to be discussed.

 

[Trojina]

You are missing the point. This is about the YiJing society in London and what it purports to be.

Joel Biroco is also known as Steve Marshall who wrote 'Mandate of Heaven'. I'll give you some links as I'm surprised you aren't familiar with his work. This is his forum where you can explore more fully his ideas
http://coronzon.com/deadposters/ because it's his forum. Will link to his other sites too.

 

[canislulu]

Why are people so threatened by other people's thoughts and ideas?

 

[Trojina]

This isn't about his ideas which may be worthy of discussion here or elsewhere. It is specifically about the Yijing society in London and what it stands for. You have missed the point entirely.

Why don't you go and start a thread here all about discussing Joel's ideas and let us discuss the Yijing Society and what is it here. Please do go and start a thread all about it. Maybe I'll go and do it for you because you obviously don't know what this thread is about.


Here you are http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/frie...as-to-you-heart-s-content&p=207613#post207613 it is a thread where anyone can discuss Biroco's ideas.


This thread is about the London Yijing Society.

The point is, that is the point which is actually being discussedin this thread is ....is the London Yijing society for everyone who consults Yi OR is it fro disciples of Biroco. That is what we are discussing. I imagine it mainly concerns those who are thinking of going, that is those who live in the UK.

. This has nothing to do with being threatened by other's view, In fact the view that seemed supressed was Hilary's. Can't you even see that. Re read the thread....try to understand it. Well try to understand it if you are going to comment on and tell people, no idea who you are aiming at, to 'be kind'.

 

[Trojina]

Here http://www.biroco.com/ I am fairly familiar with Joel's ideas as I read the journal sometimes and enjoy it sometimes.

it's not about being a second class citizen or belonging to the elite.

Well it is when we are speaking of what the London YiJing society is. If all it really is is the Joel Biroco Society fronted by his young assistant Lex then is it really an Yijing Society ? I say this because Biroco's thoughts were linked to reverentially as if they were some kind of creed while Hilary's views were not represented at all although she was there...and the whole thing is being partly promoted via her forum Lex has answered fully me on this point and told me this isn't the case. I sort of believed him, thanked his post.....but then I saw his somewhat immature response to Hilary and I'm now thinking he is just the front man/puppet for the Biroco Society. Not that I'd have anything against the Biroco society but why call it a Yijing society when fundamentally your core message is that those who consult are misguided.

One thing Joel and I agree on: talking with Yi comes of wanting something. The flow of desire crystallises into an intention which finds expression through a question. (I'd add that knowing what you want and intend is the single most useful way to ask good questions that give rise to clear answers.)

Well I guess any action at all comes from wanting something. He wants a Solero, he goes and buys one. Without wanting he'd be dead, we'd all be dead. I think you included wanting understanding in 'wanting'. Often people consult in order to gain insight rather than achieve a specific aim . I think you said somewhere you'd agreed wanting insight or understanding was included as a 'want'.

 

[hilary]

It is for this precise reason that i refused to quote the discussions at the meeting and only quoted those written out by the members themselves after meeting with permission, however despite my best effort that seems to have failed miserably as well. There couldn't be a better example for misunderstanding and misrepresentation then you putting into words what you think I said.

I am not eager to have aims for the Society this was the wish of some members that wanted more structure. Which i think is fair nonetheless I thought it best to wait for more discussions before pushing forward with this.

My misunderstanding, I'm sorry. It was my impression from where I sat a little way down the table that discussion of aims was your initiative; I didn't realise you were representing other members' requests. But then, why not have explicit aims?

Secondly abolishing the oracle? I am not entirely sure how you got this idea. Why would anyone interested in abolishing something go through the effort of forming a society dedicated to the studying it? But I have a hunch at how you could have made this assumption. It is probably when I said that I would like to learn to be intuitive without having to rely on the oracle. These is not to destroy the oracle but what I believe to be an aim in the study of the oracle. This was also not stated as a fact but a personal belief that was put on the table for discussion. Which in my opinion was discussed well but I left it out of the summary because it was impossible to summarize.

Ah - I've made a leap of logic in an attempt to keep my post short. The syllogistic version is more like this:
'Joel says the oracle is an instrument of confusion and delusion. Lex quotes and expresses admiration for this point of view. If the oracle is an instrument of confusion and delusion, then it should not be used as an oracle - it should be abolished. Therefore if a) Lex agrees with Joel's view and considers it 'a key attitude to have when performing divination' (ie that one is always necessarily deluding oneself in doing so) and b) Lex wants the Society to have aims, then one of those aims might naturally be the abolition of the oracle.'

In other words, I was talking about the logical conclusion of the views Joel expressed, not of your own. I have more sympathy for the idea that consulting might for some people lead to the development of intuition such that they no longer need to consult. Though I don't see a reason why this would be a better state of affairs than consulting.

Is there anything wrong with seeking enlightenment? This is my personal aim and again it was up for discussion and did not enforce this on anyone neither did I suggest this be an aim that everyone adhere to.


Did anyone at the meeting make a claim that the Yi was a Daoist book? I believe some people quoted from the Daodejing to illustrate certain attitudes, ethics or philosophy that can be learnt from the Daodejing to apply to the study of the oracle.

Indeed. That's excellent. In future meetings, people might also quote from their practice of chaos magic or tai chi or acupuncture or astrology to illustrate what can be learned and applied from these areas. I look forward to it. My point was only that a Yijing society isn't the same thing as a Daoism society.

Oh, and choice is real, and hence guidance from Yi is real, and the great transformations and subtle shifts it creates in people's lives are also real. Readings change our awareness and hence make actions and ways of thinking/seeing/being possible that would otherwise have been impossible - maybe forever, maybe just at the critical moment.

Is this not a prime example of someone stating their belief as a fact?

Completely. That's how it was intended - the whole of my post, likewise. I'm wholly in favour of people stating their beliefs and experiences as fact - Joel, myself, anyone else. It leads to good debates. My intention with this post was to continue the debate started at the meeting and continued via your blog. (Another way of saying that: I am assuming you quoted Joel's view as a way of inviting debate.)

There were perhaps one or two quieter members who were encouraged but didnt have much to say. Is there a point in mentioning this? Should every one be forced to babble?


I doubt anyone intended to make anyone feel like a second class citizen. However if that feeling arose during the meeting I cant help it. It was as far as I can tell a jovial and friendly environment where everyone was equally treated with utmost respect. This is as far as I can tell is your imagination and I am not pandering to it.

I'm sorry. The meeting was very friendly and welcoming, and well-hosted under sometimes tricky circumstances, and with excellent biscuits to boot. I'm getting ahead of myself and expressed myself badly. You're right, this is my imagination.

During this first meeting, there was some talk along the lines of 'those who use the oracle for divination are deluded,' but I have no evidence that anyone who does so actually felt belittled by this. When it's just the expression of one member's view - albeit the most knowledgeable member - then there's no reason why they should. But if that view were to come to dominate our discussions, to be something everyone was supposed to subscribe to... then I can imagine (verb chosen carefully!) that those who still find value in their experience of divination would indeed feel 'second class'.

I am no longer willing to discuss on this thread or forum. All are welcome to our meetings and welcome to email me should you like to discuss anything. For those abroad I will as stated above post as best I can on the website.

(I'll email Lex to make sure he sees this. The poor man is doing his best to herd Yijing-interested cats into a real-world society, and so far is doing a very good job and has assembled a tremendously interesting group of people and guided the first meeting with some grace. It's perhaps a bit much to expect him to deal with full-on online debate as well.)

 

[lexington]

My point was only that a Yijing society isn't the same thing as a Daoism society.

This is neither here nor there. What on earth was the point in making this point. Why not say this is not an acupuncture society or a taiji society or a photographers society or a Greek society or a writers society. All these point of views and philosophies were discussed.

It's perhaps a bit much to expect him to deal with full-on online debate as well

The discussions on this thread are very off-putting. This is not an online debate and I have lost interest. This is childish mudslinging based on assumptions and poorly thought out responses. Feel free to shutdown this thread and deactivate my account.

 

[hilary]

There is some truth in those assumptions and Yi has the potential be such an instrument. clouded awareness, or doubtful awareness, it's not about being a second class citizen or belonging to the elite. It's about being human.

I'm not familiar with Joel's ideas, so can't say I agree or disagree, yet he makes and interesting point that, imo, worth to be discussed.

Yes, absolutely. The Yi can certainly be used in such a way as to foster or perpetuate delusions. We know some hexagrams about that. However, what Joel's saying (scroll down the post a bit to find the quotation) is that all use of an oracle is delusional, because it all stems from desire, which creates delusion, and it all relies on a belief in choice, which is delusion. There is, in this view, no non-deluded way to consult. And it does tend to create a 'hierarchy' of spiritual development, with those who talk with oracles at the bottom.

I agree with anemos. I feel that Joel's ideas are a fertile ground for discussion. I must say that I understood them in quite a different way from what I've seen mentioned here so far.

I do not mind that he expressed his "opinion" as fact. Don't most people do that? Why are people so threatened by other people's ideas? Don't we believe what is true to our experience? And don't we all have different experiences? I personally enjoy hearing views that are different from mine. How else can one learn?

Hear, hear.

I think that part of the problem is the limitation of language. "Reality" cannot be articulated in a sentence or a paragraph or a word. We could spend a lot of time attempting to understand the concept of "choice." For me, it is useful to sit with the question, "Do I make choices? Or is 'choice' an illusion? One can learn a lot from such queries and verify things for oneself.

There was something that Joel said about potential. To me I felt he was saying that "choice is an illusion" but that we have the potential for "choice". But I really need two words --- because the choice that is an illusion is not the choice that is our potential (and perhaps forgotten birthright). But I suspect this small paragraph I have written is nonsense to many. It would take me a long time to find the words I need to articulate my understanding and belief.

Not nonsense to me, but - I would guess - probably nonsense to Joel.

Do I choose to have gallstones? Is so, can't I choose not to have them?

Is it possible to choose to be open and kind?

Quite. There's choice and then there's choice. But if you take the view that there is only one path and the other things you imagined doing have no reality, then there was no choice - not about kindness any more than gallstones.

Today I came across this tremendously moving article by a woman who has stage 4 cancer. Its third paragraph is relevant -

I mean live well - vibrantly, consciously, taking your place in the story, fully engaging with what is happening to you, planting your heart in the people you love, grieving the closely-guarded desires you had for your future and remaining the author of your destiny even in the face of your unassailable loss of control.

Now she is making choices.

This isn't about his ideas which may be worthy of discussion here or elsewhere. It is specifically about the Yijing society in London and what it stands for. You have missed the point entirely.

Why don't you go and start a thread here all about discussing Joel's ideas and let us discuss the Yijing Society and what is it here. Please do go and start a thread all about it. Maybe I'll go and do it for you because you obviously don't know what this thread is about.


Here you are http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/frie...as-to-you-heart-s-content&p=207613#post207613 it is a thread where anyone can discuss Biroco's ideas.

Oops. Possibly my posts should be transferred there. Or possibly we shouldn't worry too much about threads that migrate between topics. It's in the nature of the animal, I find.

This thread is about the London Yijing Society.

The point is, that is the point which is actually being discussed in this thread is ....is the London Yijing society for everyone who consults Yi OR is it fro disciples of Biroco. That is what we are discussing. I imagine it mainly concerns those who are thinking of going, that is those who live in the UK.

. This has nothing to do with being threatened by other's view, In fact the view that seemed supressed was Hilary's. Can't you even see that. Re read the thread....try to understand it. Well try to understand it if you are going to comment on and tell people, no idea who you are aiming at, to 'be kind'.

Oh, I'm sure it's for everybody, and no suppression was or is intended. Joel is an expert on the Yi, so naturally when he speaks about it, we listen. And also, Joel is Lex's teacher, so naturally when Joel sends him some text to post he posts it and doesn't go out of his way to ask anyone else for a counter-balancing view to include in the same post. I do mean 'naturally' (in case this should be mistaken for sarcasm, which it isn't) - why should he? He does, after all, have a comments section on the blog (and a Clarity thread) where such views can be posted freely.

Is there some risk of the 'divination is for the delusional' view coming to exclude all others? Not much, I would think, and certainly not as a matter of policy. There was certainly no question of anyone's view being quashed at the meeting. Inadvertently? Perhaps - but I doubt it. Certainly not at any meeting I attend .

 

[hilary]

(crossed posts with Lex.)

 

[lexington]

Joel sends him some text to post he posts it and doesn't ask anyone else for a counter-balancing view to include in the same post

Joel did not send me his texts. I asked him for it.

Your replies are rife with assumptions which are very misleading. Please stop. Above all please stop making remarks on my behalf. It has gotten me into enough trouble already. I do not want to be hanging around here worrying that people are going to be saying things on my behalf.

 

[hilary]

OK, sorry, stopping now.

 

[Trojina]

Sorry ? What is there to be sorry for. You tried to have a very rational and polite discussion.....but with an immature person seemingly incapable of returning the same.

Joel did not send me his texts. I asked him for it.
Your replies are rife with assumptions which are very misleading. Please stop. Above all please stop making remarks on my behalf. It has gotten me into enough trouble already. I do not want to be hanging around here worrying that people are going to be saying things on my behalf.

No it's that you are incapable of discussing these points at the same level as Hilary is. I cannot see that you have the level of maturity required to found or run a Yijing society. That is if you cannot engage with this discussion with Hilary, how would you fare in other more heated or acrimonious exchanges ? I would have thought the capacity to engage with opposing views without complete meltdown would be essential for someone in your role.

 

[lexington]

No it's that you are incapable of discussing these points at the same level as Hilary is

Hilary back-peddled her initial responses. Go back and look at them yourself. They were product of a narrow and uninteresting imagination.

That is if you cannot engage with this discussion with Hilary, how would you fare in other more heated or acrimonious exchanges ?

What you consider "heated or acrimonious exchange" is nothing but name-dropping and character assassination. Dont expect me to entertain such talk. I have already let myself get dragged into you petty rhetoric and regret it. This is my final response on this forum and hope the moderators take down this thread. I do not want anything to do with this forum any longer. Wish you both best of luck with your endeavors.

 

[hilary]

Sorry ? What is there to be sorry for.

I'm sorry for implying criticism of how Lex ran the meeting - which I never intended to do - and for misrepresenting how Joel's words found their way to his blog. Not sorry for speaking clearly in opposition to Joel's views, or for pointing out what they imply.

Since Lex is disengaging from the forum, I'll close this one now.

(Just to mention for 'posterity' - we do in theory have a 'no personal attacks' rule here. Yesterday I was busy having food poisoning or something, so by the time I got to this thread today it was a bit late to enforce it in practice without turning the thread into a Swiss cheese. Normally I would move all the posts in breach of the rule to 'Moderation', but since I have a request to end the thread anyway, closing it seems a better solution.)

Note added after reflection -

The disadvantage of closing the thread is that it can't be used for clarification. If anyone wants to talk about any of this with me privately, just click my name above this post to send me an email or private message.