Love life

[ewald]

Hi Jesed,

1. I think that the waryness (caution, being on guard) is not the same as worry, but does have a lot to do with it. Worry can easily make one wary.

2. I see. Wilhelm has "In dealing with weeds" for 莧陸. That's a really loose translation for the characters for Amaranth and land, high land, hill or plateau.
I have no idea whether Amaranth is seen as a weed, the dictionaries I use don't mention weed for this character. It is however a highly nutritive plant, of which both the seeds and leaves are eaten. It's also called Chinese spinach. I have actually cooked and eaten Amaranth seeds recently (bought at a natural food store).
I think that if it would in this context be a weed, it would be in some cultivated area, so not on the land or on a hill or something. There is no mention of weeding too, as there is in 25.2.
So the nutritive value of the Amaranth seems to me what's important for the meaning of this line. No danger there.

3. I'm translating the name of hexagram 43 as "Deciding." In my view danger is just one situation in which it is necessary to decide whether to do something or not. This danger theme is there in lines 2 and 4, maybe 6. But line 5 is about needing to decide because there is a particular opportunity, and line 3 because of feeling treated unjustly. Line 1 is about preparation.

 

[martin]

Another view ...

I looked the line up in the manuscript of Nigel Richmond (the one that Steve Marshall aka Biroco offers for download on his site).
He has a different view on it:

" .. here we feel the inactivity of the life force and fear for our ability to act."

He see the cries as calls for activity, or for light in the darkness.("activity is the "light" of consciousness")

" .. but we are armed with the light of the tao - the movement will come when it comes, we need not fear to miss [it] but we will stay alert, that is how we are armed."

Interesting?

 

[jesed]

Dear Ewald

1.- I wrote the way Wilhelm translated (darnel, direct from german to Spanish, beacuse I don't like too much Baynes' translation to English) in second option on purpose, because I know around this forum exist a little prejudice against Wilhelm. The first option (wild green ) belongs to Bradford's translation. And the comment about the wild green as a risk to the cultivated crops also belongs to Bradford and not to Wilhelm (even if Wilhelm's comment and some chinese traditional comments are very similar)

By the way, it would be useful don't atribute to Wilhelm some Baynes' mistakes (if it is difficult to translate direct from chinese, it is worse translate a german translation from a chinese original.

2.- I'm confused... now you admit a) wary is not the same than worry, even if both have a lot to do with each other and b) that there is a danger in line 2?
Then, what was all this discussion about?


Hi Martin
Very good to quote Nigel. ".... but we will stay alert, that is how we are armed" seems pretty close to Bruce's point.


best wishes

 

[jesed]

ps

by the way, now I had take a look to Brandford's Matrix about 43.5. Interesting:

Xian4

wild (edible) greens, herbs, spinach, purslane​

guai4

(to) purge, displace, uproot, eradicate (ing)

Purge, displace, eradicate, doesn't seems actions similar to harvest a profitable spinach; seems more similar to put away weeds from cultivated crops.​

lu4​

(on) dry land, high ground, hilltop

I don't know about cultivation practice is Zhou time/space; but at least in some American regions (where cultures are more similar to chineses, like Mayas and Incas), the cultivation systems take adventage of hills and high grounds to avoid inundations of the cultivated area. But, I'm aware in thislast paragraph, I'm in speculation realm, so I better quite myself​

​

​

​

​

 

[martin]

What I find interesting in Nigel's interpretation is that there is no reference in it to danger threatening from the outside.
It focuses on the feeling of being unable to act. That feeling may cause fear if there is indeed danger, but if I understand Nigel correctly he doesn't even consider that possibility. His view is apparently that the subject of line 2 is merely "afraid" to miss the show.

If you see it that way the advice not to worry gets a very different meaning. It doesn't mean "don't worry, you are safe, nobody can harm you" or something similar. It means "don't worry that you will miss the fireworks, but be alert, then you will not miss it".
What is about to happen (the show, the fireworks) is not seen as an unwelcome threat. It is on the contrary something that the subject desires, he or she longs for it.
And the fireworks - it comes from the inside, not from the outside. The volcano is about to erupt.

Why on earth did nobody call hexagram 43 "Orgasm"? I think that is what it means.

 

[jesed]

Ah, I see.. thanks martin

 

[bruce_g]

Hi Martin,

Yes, very interesting. Nigel places the meaning in an idealized and philosophical landscape. I very much agree with that approach: working from general to specific application. As Jesed mentioned, Nigel does appear to be making my point. He just speaks to (if you will) a higher level of application: “but we are armed with the light of the tao - the movement will come when it comes, we need not fear to miss [it] but we will stay alert, that is how we are armed." (Only thing I disagree with there is that the tao isn’t necessarily light.)

 

[mudpie]

Oh you men DO go on and on, don't you?

to me this line brings the image of a kansas farmer sleeping like a baby when the tornado alarms go off. he has long since learned to tape up the windows and sleep in the basement during the season. He's not worried nor wary.He is a seasoned farmer. He IS prepared, but that is by virtue of who he is and what he has experienced.

sinbaru doesnt say what the "this" is which is affecting the love life. My take on that line would be the advice not to worry.....even though it may seem that "THIS" could be dangerous or troublesome to the relationship, the foundation is secure. don't get concerned about it. you got what it takes to weather this.

 

[ewald]

Jesed - I object to you calling my views on Wilhelm's translation prejudice. That suggests that my views on Wilhelm are not based on much, while I actually have had a very thorough look comparing the Chinese original to the Wilhelm/Baynes rendering. I have seen countless mistakes in it, like not translating certain characters, adding words that are not accounted for, and putting a twist on the meaning of characters. I have very good reason to take this text as not being a trustworthy translation.

Sure there are some small differences between Baynes's translation and Wilhelm's original German text. Wilhelm's original for 43.5 is:

Dem Unkraut gegenüber braucht es feste Entschlossenheit.
In der Mitte wandeln bleibt frei von Makel.

My criticism to the English version by Baynes also goes for this German text. The Chinese character 陸 for land, high land, hill or plateau hasn't been used in this text! So I regard it as a very loose translation.

 

[lightofreason]

If you take a step back from the singular to the particular, line 2 is 'ruled' by hexagram 07 (uniformity, the army etc) and so the 07-ness of 43 is:

111110 (43)
010000 (07)
--------- XOR
101110 = 49

Spreading the word(seed) (43) expresses 07 through analogy to characteristics of 49 with its focus on intensity in expression as revelation/revolution. The word as such acts to reveal and/or elicit a change in thinking across all who experience it (the 'uniformity' focus IOW 43 elicits uniformity in thought etc through robust spreading of the 'word'). Note the change of the bottom trigram from heaven to fire where with fire we associate the emotion covering issues of acceptance.

For 43 and the 07-ness of 43 (49) the top trigram remains constant as an intensity in expression (lake in top - lake in bottom is more self-reflection; double that to give the intensity element)

The trigrams of fire/water associate with bounding, issues of rejection/acceptance and so 'in' or 'out'. In the singular line 2 comments that 'vibe' is present - 'us' vs 'them'.

Chris.

 

[ewald]

In his matrix translation, Bradford lists a relevant subset of the glosses he collected for a particular character. His complete list for 夬, when I downloaded a copy of L-YiGloss.doc from his site, is this:

(to be) decisive, resolute, certain, committed, resolved, determined, decided, serious;
(to) determine, decide, resolve, commit (to), indict, execute, cut off, censure, displace, purge, uproot, eradicate, divide, part ways, make a breach (s, ed, ing);
(a, the) disclosure, resolution, decision (to), decisiveness, satiety;
certainly, seriously, decisively, resolutely,

To me it seems that for this character, this is a collection of the meanings listed in four different dictionaries (as separated by semicolons).

The dictionary that I trust most is AC Muller's. If it's not in this dictionary, I refer to CCDICT, which seems quite good, better than CEDICT. Having worked for a few months with Bradford's collection of glosses, I have noticed that the glosses at the end of his lists are usually more in line with what the dictionaries I trust say. The glosses in the first half of his lists to me seem to contain quite diverse meanings, that I don't want to put my faith in.
Now the glosses purge, uproot, eradicate are in that first half. I don't want to rule out these being accurate, however I don't know for sure whether they are.

The character 莧 is not in L-YiGloss.doc, as it only occurs once in the Yijing, so I don't know whether the wild (edible) greens would be in that first half too, but I suspect that that is the case. CEDICT is quite precise about what it means: Amarantus mangostanus (CCDICT says Amaranth). Compared to that, wild (edible) greens, herbs sounds less precise. My guess is that the author of the dictionary that says wild (edible) greens, did know this was about wild greens, but didn't quite know which one exactly. Later it was found what greens this was about, namely Amaranth. With that in mind, it would be my choice to not translate this character with wild greens, but with Amaranth.

The Yi has several instances where there are two of the same Chinese characters in succession. (The Sijing also has several.) Having examined these, I've decided to translate both with the same word in each instance in my translation. It is in my view unlikely that two clearly different meanings of the same character follow each other. So I don't believe that in 43.5 夬 夬 means "Determined to uproot," as resolution or determination and uprooting are too different things (and as said I also don't quite trust to uproot as a meaning).

 

[lightofreason]

ic+ 43.5

Line 5
A skillful ruler escapes quickly - perhaps too well?

this reflects an action of 'uprooting' with an implication of knowing when to do it - IOW having received word and so pre-empting an issue.

From the particular realm, line 5 is ruled by hexagram 08 "with devotion comes control".

the 08-ness of 43 is:

000010 (08)
111110 (43)
-------- XOR
111100 (34)

34 covers the concept of invigorating someone/thing into action - and so how 08 is expressed through 43. IOW the unconditional attraction, admiration, of 08 is expressed through 43 as an act of invigoration.

The 'spreading (and so receiving) of the word' nature of 43, applied to the line 5 nature of the 'passive' ruler/court elicits action (a warning received).

We can map 43.2 with 43.5 to give us the 29-ness of 43 (29 covers issues of containment/control) where the analogy is to:

010010 (29)
111110 (43)
-------- XOR
101100 (55)

Control issues are reflected in 43 by analogy to 55 - the abundance, the presences of diversity in spreading 'words' (lots of riches and so lots of crooksm lots of 'truth' and lots of 'con').

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hi Bruce,

Nigel writes (I quoted it in my earlier post) "activity is the "light" of consciousness".
So I think that his phrase "the light of the tao" should be read as "the action of the tao".
He probably didn't mean to say here that the tao is always light.

 

[ewald]

Just for the record, Nigel Richmont has simply left out the character 莫, that makes translation of this line difficult, from his rendering of 43.2. Similarly, he has left out 夬夬 from 43.5. In fact, I have yet to encounter a line where he didn't leave out some character.

43.2:

Warning, cries at night.
Armed, no fear.

43.5:

Ground-clinging plants.
The middle way is free of blame.

 

[martin]

I have no way to know, Ewald. My Chinese is far from excellent, to say the least.
But Nigel tried to rebuild the I Ching from scrap, so to speak. He relies mainly on the structure of the hexagrams and much less on the original text.
He has added translations of the text in his manuscript but they are absent in the book that was published earlier.

Based on his analysis of the structure of hexagram 43 Nigel apparently concluded that it represents a natural process, that doesn't need much effort, determination or willpower.

From the book:
------------------------------
Nature
The lake has risen,
it must flow out
and water the land.

Human
A time of accumulation reaches its peak.
The time for giving out has come.
There is power enough.
-------------------------------

The process has already all the energy that it needs.
And the only question is: will we resist it or will we allow it to happen?

Line 5: "He accepts his flowing along emotional paths".

Nothing about determination here, Nigel sees it as giving up resistance.

 

[jesed]

Hi Ewald

1.- If you read closely in Bradford's matrix translation, 夬 in 34.5, appears twice.. the first one, with the meaning of resolution (linked with all the others meanings in the glosary) and the second one with the meaning of uproot (linked to the other meanings in the glosary, that I quoted). So, even if in the glosary the same character appear with both meanings (resolution and linked, and uproot and linked), I guess you follow this aproach of 2 diferent meaning in this line (resolution and uproot), because otherwise, you cann't say that the spinach is uprotted=harvested.

Even more, 夬 as the name of the hexagram, links resolution to censure, displace, purge as the theme, isn't?

Of course, the point is: wich one of the several meanings of a dictionary do we chose to use this time. (And, at a deeper level, is the question about validity of translation based on dictionaries... in this, I'm absolute with Lindsay... it would be wise apply to Yi's translation the tools developed to translate Greek's or Bible)

2.- That leads us to the next point. In linguistic studies about translation as a way to understand a text, there are two mayor aproaches: the one that seeks literal translation, "word by word"; and the one that seeks transmit the same meaning. Of course, the literal meaning is the base of the transmition of meaning. But in this second aproach (I belong to that aproach from profesional formation, far before knowing the Yi), not using some literal words is allowed when doing that helps to transmit better the meaning. Example: if one people send me a letter saying that he is "east of the Sun and west of the moon", the translater from english to spanish can say me the literal translation (se encuentra al este del Sol y al oeste de la Luna), or just explain me the sense of what my friend is facing.
Of course, in this aproach one must be very aware of the risk of infidelity.

Now, we know that Wilhelm used this second aproach: So, say that his translation is untrusty because he changes some literal words, without aknowledge his aproach and without probe that this entire aproach is untrusty (the important is transmit the meaning and not the word-by-word translation) , is a little unfair.

At this stage, we can end in a endless circle: a) he lack of transmit the meaning because he changed some literal expresions that modify the meaning (but how do we know?, if we don't know the meaning in that time/space), b) he really transmited the meaning, even if he changed some literal expresions (but, how do we know?, if we don't know the meaning in that time/space)

My point is: is not probed that the second aproach (the one Wilhelm used) is an untrusty aproach; neither is probed that it is a trusty aproach, neither is probed that a literal translation is a trusty aproach, neither it is not a trusty aproach.

It would be fair to recognice that I have an aproach, beacuse I think is the best, but that not necesarly disqualify other's aproaches.

3.- About biasis against Wilehelm; I was not talking about you personally, but about a general sense I have in this forum. And not because translation issues (I recognice improvements in literal aproaches, that's why I use so much Bradford's and Lise's works). I notice the biasis against what is see as moral conclusions and chistianity of Wilhelm (not always recogniced aplicitely, as any biasis do; but some times recogniced explicitely, that's why I value so much Buce's comments on this).

I hope I can express myself better: seems like a moral aproach is wrong by default; and a Chistian background is wrong by default to understand the Zhou. So, no matter how much one can recognice the work of Wilhelm because of it's historical importance of how much books it sell, at the end (not always say it in this words) is wrong by default.

But of couse, this is beyond both the original thread and tranlational discussion

Best wishes

 

[bruce_g]

I hope Lindsay doesn't mind if I re-post this. It's too relevant to this topic not to.

“First of all, a translator of the Yi has to realize there is not just one Yijing, but several. There is the elusive Zhouyi, the Han Yijing, the Song Yijing, the classic literary Yijing, the popular Chinese divination Yijng, the Western counter-culture I Ching, and many others. We may not like this version or that one, but they all exist for good reasons and all claim legimate attention. Coming up with the "correct" or "pure" or "accurate" translation is not possible without specifying what Yi you are trying to translate. And translating one version of the Yi well may have no bearing on how other versions are translated.

Second, the Chinese language, like all living languages, is in a constant state of flux. Characters are constantly shifting, adding and losing meanings. We can point to the Odes and say that "yellow skirt" is a plausible translation based on evidence more or less contemporary to the Yi. But we cannot prove it is the right translation for 2.6. Nor can we prove that "beautiful yellow" or "handsome old man" is the wrong translation. In history, it is almost impossible to prove a negative.

Third, the Yijing is a living document in the sense that our ideas and opinions about it are constantly changing. Not only that, but the Yi is in constant use throughout the world. Any attempt to freeze it into an Official Version would be harmful to its true value as a protean, shape-shifting, organic world-cultural phenomenon (I really need one of those wonderful German compounds here). All ideas should be welcomed into the marketplace of divination. The good ones will survive.

Fourth, a hundred years of consensus does not mean the consensus is ideal. My favorite example is Line 3.2. My 15 authorities tweak 3.2 this way and that, yet there is general agreement on the broad meaning of the line. However, there is only one truly brilliant translation of 3.2, the recent translation of Bradford Hatcher. Bradford's inspired use of the word "babies" for zi4 suddenly reveals the full meaning of 3.2 more clearly than anything the established experts could come up with. I have rarely seen anything so obviously superior to all previous efforts. I mention this only to make the point that translating the Yi is an ongoing enterprise, and there are still many opportunities to trump established views with a better vision.

Fifth, the Yi is, because of its practical nature, a personal document. It has to make sense to its users, even if that means departing from Chinese tradition or sprucing up the text here and there. A diviner who does not understand the meaning of the text is not going to be successful. Understanding is more important than scholarship. Not that Ewald and Rosada and I necessarily agree on what 2.5 means - but each of us must have some idea how to interpret the line in order to use the Yi at all. This personal understanding of the Yi, however one manages to cultivate it, is the single most important asset in divination. To achieve this, principles of translation may be completely irrelevant.

Sixth, there is no agreement on what a good translation is. Some people think being 'literal' is everything, so you get translations like "See (the) dragon in (the) field. (It is) beneficial (to) see (a) great person." This is ridiculous nonsense. What a Chinese speaker reads in Chinese is as smooth and coherent in his or her mind as a grammatical English sentence is for an English speaker, not choppy and disjointed. It is an absolute and pernicious superstition that Chinese characters must be translated in a slavishly consistent, one-to-one stilted idiom of English words. The same character may mean several things in English depending on context, and many characters have no simple one-word translation into English. Some translators forget the point of language is communication. If the translation of a standard Chinese text reads like nonsense in English, then it most certainly is nonsense, and the translator has failed.

At the same time, a translation can be too free by intoducing a lot of ideas or sentiments that are not present in the text. Here translation becomes interpretation, even editorializing. This can be hard to spot unless you have access to the basic text, but it is more common than you might think.

Finally, and worst in my opinion, a translation can be indecisive. Some translators offer you lots of choices of meaning without offering any guidance. The Ritsema and Karcher "translation" is notorious for this, where the authors essentially abdicate their responsibility as translators to make sense of the texts. As a reader, I can do as much as they do with a good dictionary - but why should I have to this? They claim to be the experts, not me - and yet they offer me no expertise at all. Why? My opinion is they have none to offer. No written work, not even the Yi, can be so amorphous that every character may have a dozen or more possible meanings in each specific context. One looks to a translator to make intelligent and informed choices.”
----------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t a question of disrespect or disregard to historical record or intelligent reconstructions, it’s a matter of making the Yijing “living” in the present, while at the same time remaining true to the intended meaning. Intended meaning isn’t just using the same words, it’s also gathering the same spirit, even with different words.

 

[ewald]

Jesed,

1. I get the sense that you are pointing something out to me that I already said I noticed and explained I didn't agree with. Yes, in Bradford's text for 43.5 he translates that repeated character differently each instance, and I said I don't agree with that approach. As I see it, in all instances where there is a repeated character in the Yijing or Shijing, it means the same thing in each instance. It's not one meaning in the first instance, and another in the second, but like "decide, decide," or "uproot, uproot" (if to uproot is a valid meaning).

Sure to purge may be implied in resolution. So are all kinds of other things.

2. I wouldn't have mentioned these things if I thought Wilhelm would still render the meanings correctly. I think that he changed too much of the meanings in the process.

 

[sinbaru]

I've been following the discussion on the reading with interest. I guess, whatever the meaning of the text, it can at least be summed up with: It's not having a positive influence on my love life and is causing some worry.

 

[lightofreason]

I hope Lindsay doesn't mind if I re-post this. It's too relevant to this topic not to.
<snip>
It isn’t a question of disrespect or disregard to historical record or intelligent reconstructions, it’s a matter of making the Yijing “living” in the present, while at the same time remaining true to the intended meaning. Intended meaning isn’t just using the same words, it’s also gathering the same spirit, even with different words.

bruce, you are working from the position of the singular. At the level of the particular each hexagram has a unique, clear, meaning BUT it is vague or more so universal and so contains a lot of 'singulars' - as many as there are people on the planet.

Thus, for example, 43 is about 'expansive bonding' (sharing of space with others 'outside') in a context of 'expansive blending' (wholeness by pouring outwards).
These qualities come directly from our neurology processing information and as such are universals in that they are fixed and apply to all contexts, anywhere, anytime.

The traditional IC grounds these qualities in ancient China and uses associations to local context, be they real or focused on legends/myths of the time, to aid in that grounding.
Alternative translations/interpretations focus on some singular competing with others to give a 'better' translation/interpretation but always LOCALLY.

In so doing it is easy to 'drift' away from the point, especially if the 'vague' point is not understood.

43 can represent a quality of irrational number operating in a context of a whole number, or represent sexual love operating in a context of aggression ('robust seeding') - IOW the qualities of numbers in Mathematics, and the qualities of emotions, are isomorphic to the IC trigrams etc since they are all products of our brains differentiating/integrating.

Thus 'intended meaning' is an artifact of differentiating/integrating - the categories pop out of the self-referencing of yin/yang with no intent involved, they are artifacts that go on to make a world of their own but these are FIXED in meaning, but also GENERAL in meaning and so cover a LOT.

Look at the generic elements - some sense of bonding, of sharing with another, of replication of 'something' and that is operating in a context of perseverence, of aggressiveness, a sense of 'whole' competing with others. THAT generic vibe then seeds interpretations (and so the notions of robustness, breakthrough, seeding etc etc that then get singularised into each individual's contribution to meaning)

These generic qualities span the species in that they come out of the neurology as by-products of self-referencing. As such their meaning is 'beyond question' at the universals level.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

Dear Ewald

Are you saying that each ideogram must be translated only with one word? That doesn't seems to happen even in word-lenguages today (in contraposition of ideographic old lenguages).
Don't you think?

But well, I guess we cann't usefullness go futher in this; so I stop about this thread


Best wishes

 

[martin]

At the level of the particular each hexagram has a unique, clear, meaning BUT it is vague or more so universal and so contains a lot of 'singulars' - as many as there are people on the planet.

I think it depends on what one sees as the "true" or "real" I ching.
Is it the hexagrams or is it the text that has come down to us? Or both in a not necessarily equal mix?

One approach is to start with the hexagrams and their structure and (re)build the I Ching from there. This is what you and Nigel do in different ways.
Another approach is to start with the original text and try to figure out what the original authors intended to say.

Although I see value in both approaches I'm not sure which is best when we want to find the "real" I Ching.
For divinatory purposes it may not matter that much if we assume that what is behind the oracle takes our understanding or the lack of it into account. But how far does that go? So far that even a "totally wrong" translation or interpretation is not necessarily an issue?

And what is "wrong"? Some of the interpretations that Nigel gets with his method are so different from what (hopefully more or less "right") translations say about it that a choice for the one or the other seems unevitable. Either Nigel is right and the original authors were wrong or the other way around.
In his manuscript Nigel shows great respect for the authors. He never says that they were "wrong" and he always finds a way to bridge the sometimes glaring differences.
But recently I got an answer from the I Ching that makes little sense if I interpret it according to Wilhelm or Legge while Nigels interpretation hits the nail on the head.
Now I don't know if Wilhelm and Legge made errors in their translations here (hexagram 16 and especially line 1) but could it be that the original authors were simply wrong?

What did you say? Blasphemy?

 

[ewald]

Are you saying that each ideogram must be translated only with one word?

No.

 

[jesed]

dear Ewald

You are right, I misunderstod your comment... you say same meaning when the ideogram is repeated... sorry my mistake

Best wishes

 

[ewald]

Jesed - Thanks for acknowledging that.

 

[jte]

"For divinatory purposes it may not matter that much if we assume that what is behind the oracle takes our understanding or the lack of it into account. But how far does that go? So far that even a "totally wrong" translation or interpretation is not necessarily an issue? ...
But recently I got an answer from the I Ching that makes little sense if I interpret it according to Wilhelm or Legge while Nigels interpretation hits the nail on the head.
Now I don't know if Wilhelm and Legge made errors in their translations here (hexagram 16 and especially line 1) but could it be that the original authors were simply wrong? "

Maybe not wrong, but perhaps synchronicity > "dogma"? (That's the mathematical >, btw, and dogma is only for lack of a better word in the context here.)

So perhaps somebody was answering your question (in advance of you asking it, even ;-) ). Perhaps...

- Jeff

 

[lightofreason]

Martin, as I have said before, I find no issue with Nigel's perspective - it is still within the ballpark if a bit out of left field. One needs to carefully consider his 'glossary of terms' to 'get' his perspective.

BUT to 'get' the realm of the particular perspective one needs to focus on the mother of all ballparks - the neurology. At that level all ballparks share common elements and so 'sameness' across all unique expressions.

That sameness is in the particular-general realm where the qualities derived from self-referencing a dichotomy are the same for all specialist, singular, perspectives, that then get 'coloured' by the local context.

Thus ALL base lines of hexagrams fall into one of two categories, yin or yang. EACH hexagram has unique interpretations of that line when viewed from the level of the singular in that, once the hexagrams were completed, the Duke assessed those lines WITHIN the context set by the HEXAGRAM not the LINE.

As such, the line comments reflect more the extension of 6 lines to 12 where the first 6 lines give us STRUCTURE without comment whereupon the COMPLETION of that structure then allowed for self-referencing in the form of singular interpretations of line meanings etc.

ICPlus does not start with hexagrams, it starts with IDM and neurology and ITS self-referencing. Given the qualities that come out of that we find isomorphism to IC qualities indicating the roots of the IC in our brains - it is a specialist, local context, metaphor for what our neurology deals with.

Thus XOR-ing covers the STRUCTURAL perspective on the IC, and so all base lines reflect issues of '24-ness', all lines 1 and 6 reflect issues of 27-ness etc. This sort of detail on structure etc is not considered in the 'traditional' perspectives since they have not focused too much on what is BEHIND the IC - our brains at work categorising.

The realm of the singular is the realm of absolute difference, of unique expression and so beyond compare - it is the realm of our consciousness that allows for all of the different interpretations of the IC. OTOH the realm of the particular is about sameness across differences and is open to Science etc through comparisons of qualities, categories, and so into taxonomies etc

Thus the realm of the singular gives us 'novel' interpretations, finer detail, but it needs grounding in the particular-general elements to be able to be truely innovative.

Thus the blending, bonding, bounding & binding categories apply in general, to then be localised through qualification (expansive blend vs contractive blending), then comes further qualification 'vertically' in the form of raw-to-refined, general-to-particular distinctions - and so we differentiate 'expansive blending over expansive blending' to become singlemindedness (heaven - perseverence - doubled gives us singlemindedness)

From there come all sorts of singular perspectives applied to the particular/general of hex 01 that is itself a product of decision making through steps of integrating/differentiating (in this case extreme differentiating).

All of the singular perspectives will be founded on this base, this generic, qualitity that comes out of the general and into the particular and on into seeding the singular.

THEN we realise that, given the XOR material, so ALL hexagrams are expressed, contribute to the expression of, any particular hexagram. As such it is possible to confuse an aspect with the thing itself (metonomy/metaphor confusion at work)

Chris.

 

[martin]

The question is here if the authors of the Yi indeed derived the meanings of the trigrams and hexagrams in the way you do it (or Nigel) or in a similar way.
As far as I know there is not much in the original text that suggests that this was their method. If the authors applied this or a similar method consistently they must have had some awareness of it, I think, even if they worked for the most part intuitively and without really understanding what it was all about. Then why do they say so little about it?

Certain general categories of meaning, such as the 4 B's, that perhaps correspond to how our brains are wired, are to be found in any book. The Yi is no exception. But when we present a subject that doesn't know anything about the Yi with drawings of the trigrams and ask her to match them with "expansive bounding", "contractive bounding", and so on (and let's assume that she does understand what those words mean), what will happen?
Not much, I guess, "umm, errr, uhh, .." probably. Unless we at least tell our subject how to READ these drawings. If we want her to decode them she needs a KEY.
Which key did the ancients use, knowingly or unknowingly? And if they used a key, did they use it consistently?
It sometimes looks as if they either had no key at all or used one key for this trigram/hexagram and another for the next.

Okay, now you can say: I used my key and look, what I get with that is admittedly rather vague but it does come pretty close to what these people wrote, isn't it?
Well, maybe, that is open to interpretation. In any case, I wouldn't use the word "isomorphism" here (as you did in your post).
If it was that clear and people were convinced that you or Nigel had found the key to the Yi they would not need to go through all the trouble of deciphering these old texts and having lengthy debates about right and wrong translations.
They might still do it, just for fun, but that's another matter.

That's the thing. It's not clear what the exact link is between the line figures and what is written about them in the text of the Yi.
I think that many people who are interested in the I Ching have in fact more or less given up on trying to understand how the text relates to the trigrams/hexagrams. It's all a bit too fuzzy.
They focus nearly exclusively on the text (and correct translation if they go deeper) and see the text as THE Yi.
The trigrams and hexagrams? Oh well, nice drawings.

 

[martin]

Maybe not wrong, but perhaps synchronicity > "dogma"? (That's the mathematical >, btw, and dogma is only for lack of a better word in the context here.)

So perhaps somebody was answering your question (in advance of you asking it, even ;-) ). Perhaps...

I think so, Jeff. The question was answered, even in advance.

 

[lightofreason]

The question is here if the authors of the Yi indeed derived the meanings of the trigrams and hexagrams in the way you do it (or Nigel) or in a similar way.
As far as I know there is not much in the original text that suggests that this was their method. If the authors applied this or a similar method consistently they must have had some awareness of it, I think, even if they worked for the most part intuitively and without really understanding what it was all about. Then why do they say so little about it?

You seem to be stuck at the level of consciousness, as if all intent comes from that position. ALL meaning is SEEDED by the unconscious where the basic categories come out of the neurology dynamics. Our consciousness has been naive in understanding what has been going on and so perspectives develop in an ad-hoc manner.

Over time, through Science, we find that the seemingly 'different' in fact share sameness, all operating unconsciously.

The originators of the IC responded to their context with their brains, made arbitrary labels for qualities, for feelings, elicited by the context - We all have a sense of wholeness, partness, etc but local context determines what we associate those senses with, how we label them.

The originators of the IC worked off conscious experience of LOCAL activities working on their sensory systems. Their sensory systems feed into the brain in the form of pattens of frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes. As conscious individuals we are unaware of any of this OTHER THAN as 'feelings' that 'resonate' with the environment and to which we then attach labels to ground that resonance and communicate it through symbols.

Have you researched the "Chaos Game"? type that into Google and work through what you get - or how about the emerging interference pattern in EPR experiments (Quantum mechanics - that pattern is present in the IC - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html)

The focus is on the structure of what emerges and that structure is rooted in self-referencing (binomial theorem (A + B)^n)

ANY sensory system capturing NOISE will, over time, lead to the 'emergence' of information flow in that structure of self-referencing. Included in that set of sensory systems is our brains as they encapsulate noise to derive information.

Consciousness will not be aware of this - development of meaning will be ad hoc, filling in the 'dots' until a pattern starts to appear showing that all of the 'ad hoc dots' are in fact linked - as shown in the XOR work ;-) It is SCIENCE that brings these patterns out - the realm of the particular-general. GIVEN that it can be a singular that comes up with an interpretation of the particular-general patterns - as I have in figuring out what XOR 'means' when applied to IC hexagrams etc ;-)

As for them not 'saying anything' - they had no idea what they were dealing with. No one had until recent times where we focus on the Science of self-referencing etc etc.

To date I have not found reference to my XOR analysis of self-referencing but I know from others that it works. You wont find '27-ness' or '22-ness' in traditional material but that does not mean it is 'wrong' - it means 'they' did not realise what was going on! - YOu dont find maps of Mandelbrot sets on the sides of ancient pottery! YOu DO find patterns indicative of self-referencing at work but no formal work in those areas since none was done.

The mapping of the binary ordering in 11th century AD analysis of the IC did not take things further and so a lot was missed, including the encoding of purpose into these forms.

The traditional methods, and even the singular methods, of deriving meaning in the IC are distinctly ideosyncratic, and/or ad hoc. Through analysis of the realm of the particular-general we start to 'link the dots' and so discover a lot of stuff at best intuited by the ancients and exploited as such. NOW things change in that we are getting details never before realised in the material we have had to do research on the properties and methods of the IC.

Chris.