Multiple Lines

[Tohpol]

This is a great thread. I'd like to comment on the whole idea of leaving ''something'' up to fate, and not merc's particular situation, which he/she is being very dodgy about what it is, exactly. Something about a relationship, right?

Anyway, it seems to me that either everything is fate or nothing is fate. Either you have control or you only seem to have control. It's the whole free will vs. determinism argument again.

So, my question to all you lovely people is: When I ask a question of the Yi and throw the coins, is my answer fate (pre-determined) or have I taken control of my fate by asking the question? Another way of putting the question might be: Is fate imposed from outside, or is it found within?

I think its a bit of both. There are only choices and possibilities. Do we follow the creative or its opposite? There is really no right and wrong - just choices.

I see the concept of fate being loaded with far too much and religious and cultural baggage. Destiny is a better fit imo.

Imagine that our particular life is a canvas. Fate determines that we have one pot of paint and one colour to daub that canvas.

Destiny on the other hand is more fluid. We have an infinite number of paint-pots and colours with which to paint our unique and individual canvasses. In other words, many possibilities within a particular allotted "blueprint."

In one sense, I think we have very little free-will as 99.9% of us are not aware of much past our own desires however refined they may appear to be. Therefore, there is a self-limition at work barring us from a wider field of awareness and a set of more conscious choices. I guess that goes with the lessons we need to learn. Can't skip the steps after all. But we can honour another's free-will and allow each other to choose and not abridging the concept of free-will with our own needs and wants.

It's a really interesting question...Mercury is certainly not alone in his/her predicament its a profoundly universal question.

topal

 

[miakoda]

I used to ask What should I do? all of the time and found the answers to be very, very cryptic (leading to sweaty hours of what did that mean???). My new approach is to first ask for an open reading about any situation (thanks Jesed). I then ask two (and sometimes more) questions for how to proceed:

What effect will doing A have on my life (or relationship)?

and

What effect will doing B have on my life (or relationship)?

By following this pathway, I assume responsibility for coming up with the possible solutions. I find the Yi Jing is surprisingly clear in its answers and in the end I make the choice of the action. So far (I haven't been doing this for very long) the informed decisions seem to be more in the flow of the world around me. In a sense it's been leading me to follow fate/destiny/whatever while always retaining free choice--and it prevents me from imposing my will in a way that makes life more difficult than it needs to be.

Miakoda

 

[Tohpol]

In a sense it's been leading me to follow fate/destiny/whatever while always retaining free choice--and it prevents me from imposing my will in a way that makes life more difficult than it needs to be.
Miakoda

This is how I'm slowly deepening my relationship with the IC system of knowledge. It requires that we be open and prepared to learn from the counsel and I think the type of formula you highlight does seem to fit very well into the notion of free-will and "response-ability."

Thanks for putting it so clearly Miakoda.

topal

 

[mercury]

I've also found it useful, in my limited experience, to use multiple readings to get a more precise view of a particular question...there've been many times when I've gone back to the original reading which confused me and suddenly I understand it much better, or my mind has opened enough during the subsequent readings to consider things I hadn't before.

Still trying to navigate between willful action and going with the flow -- aacting in accordance with "fate". The root of it for me seems to be impatience, frustration in waiting for the right time to act in the way I'd like.

(And getojack, yes, of course it's a relationship question...philosophy had to have been invented by some guy with a difficult love life.)

 

[Tohpol]

Still trying to navigate between willful action and going with the flow -- aacting in accordance with "fate". The root of it for me seems to be impatience, frustration in waiting for the right time to act in the way I'd like.

Ah, well you're not alone in that particular struggle - I can assure you of that!

topal

 

[mercury]

Hi topal, yeah, I know I'm not the only one standing in the impatience line.

BTW, I asked yi how I could best move toward accepting my situation...I got 54.4 > 19. I used Karcher's TOTAL I CHING and it was as if the oracle had been reading this thread. Uncanny.

 

[mercury]

Answering myself -- I'm out in California, so everyone may be out for the night -- but I'm on a roll. I asked yi another question: Why must I lose what I have lost in this situation? I got 34.5 > 43. I'm all ears...

 

[miakoda]

Hey Mercury:

Change your driving strength to fluid imaginative power. Go with the flow. You won't be sorry about it....says Karcher in How to use the I Ching.

Same answer, don't you think? Watch out or you'll end up getting 6.6>47... Been there, done that!

Best,

Miakoda

 

[mercury]

Been doing plenty of imagining, Miakoda -- if I can just get the going with the flow part down, I'll be home free. Thanks!!

 

[lightofreason]

...Anyway, it seems to me that either everything is fate or nothing is fate. Either you have control or you only seem to have control. It's the whole free will vs. determinism argument again.

Once one understands the neurology etc there is no more argument (in fact, understanding the binary order of the IC makes the point!)

From a genetics perspective, and so one's history, all is determined. From the moment of birth, and so no history, all is 'free will'. As we age so the dynamics of our genetics combine with our ability to make choices and from that emerges our unique history.

To see this manifest in the I Ching consider the process aspects of the earth/mountain trigrams and their role in five-phase. They both come under the five-phase category of EARTH and act as FILTERS.

The earth trigram filter covers unconditional rules of behaviour derived from outside of consciousness, either by genetics or by social rules. There is no questioning of these rules, and with genetics there is often no awareness of such, we are driven by instincts - all is determined.

The mountain trigram filter covers conditional rules of behaviour where we, as conscious, context-sensitive, beings, refine the rules derived from outside with our experiences as conscious beings - we CAN question, we CAN be context sensitive (or be context insensitive - by choice, not instinct).

The mountain trigram brings out learning from suffering where we use that to derive our sense of quality control -discernment.

Our inability to hold in awareness more than 7+/-2 things at one time (a) limits our awareness of the choices we have access to but (b) encourages dropping some to see if there are others (in the IC there are 64 basics available at any moment and all sortable into best-fit/worst-fit order by the local context)

The persona typologies used in Psychology bring out properties of our SPECIES membership (i.e. specialisation in a social species). These categories do no cover our singular natures just our particular natures.

Our singular nature, individual consciousness, is the source of 'free will' in that it has available all possible choices out of which it can sense 7+/-2 for selection of one.

Note that or singular nature includes the choice of being 're-born', to be able to 'start again' within one's lifetime - this broughtout in fundamentalism and being able to emmigrate, change one's name, remove one's history. This is a CHOICE but it is also tied to influences of our particular nature - the genetic side of things where context can push that and behaviours are predictable IN GENERAL.

Since the I Ching is a metaphor used to represent "all there is" so it contains such issues as the free-will/determinism dichotomy ;-) - what is it a metaphor for? what our brains deal with, patterns of differentiating/integrating, differences/sameness.

The earth/mountain trigrams and their association with EARTH/FILTRATION show us the dynamics involved in filtering, it is determined or there is choice or there is a mix.
It comes down to how you use the needle in accupuncture or the interest rate adjustment in capitalist economics; you can manage flow or you can let it manage you or you can be context sensitive and CHOOSE when you manage it and when it manages you (or for you).

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

and then, in the context of free-will/determinism consider:

"Despite these claims, free will as a concept is still unlikely to be eliminated. Clearly free will is a prerequisite for moral agency, and for society to run smoothly, we all need to believe that we are in full control of our actions. Not surprisingly, some have tried to find a middle ground in this argument. For example, Raine has entertained the idea that free will should be viewed along a “dimension rather than a dichotomy” ([31 <http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103#journal-pbio-0050103-b031> ], p. 320), while Gazzaniga has argued that “brains are automatic, but people are free” ([52 <http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103#journal-pbio-0050103-b052> ], p. 98). Is it reasonable, however, to posit that some people are more free than others? For example, few can dispute the fact that brain diseases such as schizophrenia and Huntington disease reduce the ability to act freely. Nonetheless, most juries may never have explicitly discussed the concept of free will [52 <http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050103#journal-pbio-0050103-b052> ]. Neurophilosophy may play an important role in understanding and updating the intuitions concerning free will and responsibility that may implicitly underlie juror deliberations."

The point re our singular nature is that being singular, unique, the issues then are, given our particular, social, nature, on personal freedom. The Science of personal freedom is called Ethics. Here we move into the role of consciousness/reason as regulators of our species instincts, our emotions etc. and so integrating our 'random' selfs with our history-linked particular nature as species-members.

An issue here is on the TRAINING of frontal lobe/PFC dynamics rather than letting it all 'run free'. If it all runs free then (a) we maintain our primate natures and (b) utilise those natures at whim - something that ethics is not in favour of (consider the lack of training in mental skills etc, arguement/logic etc where our asymmetric skills are still dominated by the symmetric and so LESS precise, stereotyping realm)


Chris.

 

[jesed]

(a) we maintain our primate natures and (b) utilise those natures at whim - something that ethics is not in favour of

Well, this statement seems to have lack of precise-ness and be a stereotype, since there are diferent points of view about ethics; there is no ONE AND ONLY UNIVERSAL ETHIC SCIENCE (and certainly, the "ilustration's ethics" is not universal).

You can see that Daoist ethics is in favour to we maintain (even return to) our (lost) primate nature, instead of training in argument/logic skills



Best

 

[bruce_g]

Ethics (to say nothing or morals) is a peculiar thing. Not saying right or wrong, but it definitely seems to be a layer, exclusive to humans, which has no natural grounding.

 

[bruce_g]

On the other hand, a wandering alpha lion kills the family's leader, then kills all their cubs, and then screws the dead alpha's wives. That is a form of ethics too, I suppose. It has high ethical value, in that it ensures the gene pool of the species' future.

 

[mercury]

Ethics (to say nothing or morals) is a peculiar thing. Not saying right or wrong, but it definitely seems to be a layer, exclusive to humans, which has no natural grounding.

I always wondered about how yi fit into the notion of a reality not limited by societal notions of morality or propriety -- but then I realized that so much of the yi is about recognizing and negotiating 'established rules'. It seems to me to take full account of the "ethical layer" which people lay on top of neutral reality in a practical, levelheaded way.

 

[lightofreason]

Well, this statement seems to have lack of precise-ness and be a stereotype, since there are diferent points of view about ethics; there is no ONE AND ONLY UNIVERSAL ETHIC SCIENCE (and certainly, the "ilustration's ethics" is not universal).

You can see that Daoist ethics is in favour to we maintain (even return to) our (lost) primate nature, instead of training in argument/logic skills

.. and that is an issue re the evolution of consciousness. There IS a "UNIVERSAL ETHIC SCIENCE" - it is currently called moral philosophy. The issues with Taoism cover the LACK of understanding of how 'in here' works and so the logical conclusion that, given the strifes that come with consciousness, to go 'back' to more determined times. This may have been fine 3000 years ago but does not help now - it can help in part but not in whole. (the limits of the perspective are in the fact that it has not dominated the species. As such its evolution has shown it to be a specialist perspective rather than generalist. To get the idea of this, see any texts by anthropologist E.T.Hall where he covers the differences re development issues in a three tier format from basic instincts to social learning through mimicry, "show me", to science-driven precision)

For all religions, they serve as specialist perspectives and as such each 'lacks' something.

The development of frontal lobes/Pre-Frontal-Cortex dynamics in all of us elicits consciousness as an agent of mediation where it can mediate reason that has developed to mediate emotion that has developed to communicate cognitions across a social species.

The issues are that with Science the focus is alway on a PAIR, we focus on comparisons to identify difference/sameness that we can then use to communicate/order etc etc. (and so a bias to conversion of difference-to-sameness and that leads to conversion from the asymmetric to the symmetric and so to metaphor. With that comes a lack in precision through the symmetric interpretation of logic but the benefits are on the establishment of instincts/habits that act to conserve energy. The stereotyping comes in with a lack of education re differences as differences rather than the instinct to make them 'same' and the rejection of them if that is not possible.

On the other hand, with the development of individual consciousness, and so person points of view, UNIQUE points of view, any scientific perspective comes with issues in that it can get close to a perspective but not cover it totally.

The emphasis in ethics is on the issues of individuality in a social context; if we were not social beings and all out for ourselves then there would be no focus on ethics, the concept would be meaningless... but wouldnt that bring out dynamics of our primate narture? (See such books as "Demonic Apes" to cover the raw aggression of one group to another as being traits of our 'primate' natures)

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

I always wondered about how yi fit into the notion of a reality not limited by societal notions of morality or propriety -- but then I realized that so much of the yi is about recognizing and negotiating 'established rules'. It seems to me to take full account of the "ethical layer" which people lay on top of neutral reality in a practical, levelheaded way.

Yes, well put. But I'm not so sure (as per my lion example) the layer is as superficial as I once thought it was. What I mean is this: If ethics is a result and function of survival of a species, then it becomes more than a superficial layering over nature; it rather is an intrinsic organic development within a given species. Most dictionaries treat ethics and morals as synonymous. So let's take what appears to be a superficial, human imposed layer, called religion. A given religion does provide a moral or ethical matrix, which at least for a given period of time holds together that given group of people. It's also true that changing the form of government brings good fortune, once that sub-group has evolved beyond the need and purpose for said religion, along with its moral/ethical structure. But these mores becomes embedded deeply in our psyche, and they don't shed easily, and not without some determined effort to evolve.

So in context, I think you're right - Yi does recognize the temporal and transient nature of morals and ethics, without ignoring the significance of them. Good observation.

 

[lightofreason]

In the context of a 'return' to the past, that is a return to small, local, primate groups are STRONGLY focused on stereotyping and so 'stranger danger' dominates - but then that is common in small towns as well!

the focus on ethics stems from the development of consciousness and its singular nature and so a focus on difference operating WITHIN sameness (our species nature). As such the focus on pack behaviours (rape, murder etc) gives way to the chance of one bringing up the ethics issues (should I do this? should we do this? The degree of concern reflected in one's education of those frontal lobes ;-))

SInce the development of frontal lobes reflects a self-referencing process so the IC reflects (mirrors) all categories and that includes issues covering/representing ethics. Thus training in the IC can implant or 'bring out' ethical concerns re should/should-not and so set down foundations for focus on (a) unconditional filtering (rules come from outside) and then on to (b) conditional filtering (we become more context sensitive etc)

What a return to the primative does is make the groups small and so reduce the 'globalisation' of conflicts where such is possible if there is no education of frontal lobe/PFC areas of our brains. The 'price' of freedom as such, without education, is the release of primate emotions at maximum expression and no control; free expression may appear as creative but it is also promoting Virgina Tech, Columbine, Port Arthur etc etc etc

Training in such areas as the IC in its GENERAL form, opens up paths in our consciousness to set-down basic qualities of meaning covering the full range of possibles as compared to education that is specialist from the start.

Chris.

 

[mercury]

Hi mercury

Jusnt in case the comment could be useful

43 is a time for resolute action. Started in Heaven (between May 1st and June 16, 2006) and would end in Lake (between March 17 and April 30, 2007).

So, this is something that has root in the past, and the oportunity to take resolute action is almost ending by now.

Jesed, I've been meaning to ask you more about this... I asked "what is it that I need to do in this period? What kind of action is needed? I got 63.1.3 > 8. I've been trying to imagine the significance of these dates in my situation, and I come up pretty empty...do you have any wisdom to offer? The 63.3 was pretty interesting...there's a reference to a difficulty taking 3 years to overcome, and that kind of made me go "whoa!"

 

[jesed]

Hi Chris

I forgot that tehre is only one true religion (SCIENCE) and Chris Lofting is his Prophet

Now, empirical fact: taoism as an ethic system (like it or not, useful or not) exist nowadays. So, you have at least two ethics existing: the one you like and the one you disrespect. But, since there exist 2, there is no ONE UNIVERSAL ethics.



try to get out of the box of ilustration's religion of science for a while.

 

[jesed]

I've been trying to imagine the significance of these dates in my situation, and I come up pretty empty...

Hi
Widsom? me?, no... but just in case the comment could be useful

Those are not 2 separate dates; but one period FROM one date TO the other.

So, if you can feel that the situation has been stagnated at least since half a year before, not improving but acumulating troubles like the tension before a thunderstorm... there you have your 43-time: a dangerous acumulation of tension that needs a resolute action to be solved.

Best wishes

 

[lightofreason]

Hi Chris

I forgot that tehre is only one true religion (SCIENCE) and Chris Lofting is his Prophet

Now, empirical fact: taoism as an ethic system (like it or not, useful or not) exist nowadays. So, you have at least two ethics existing: the one you like and the one you disrespect. But, since there exist 2, there is no ONE UNIVERSAL ethics.

what you have written above makes no sense. It shows you are not thinking enough. What we are dealing with in the context of consciousness and the core qualities derived from our neurology, that are relabelled in different contexts to become specialist perspectives, are issues covering our determined nature as genetically-dependent, social, species, and our singular natures as unique humans.

What seeds all meaning are the patterns derived from differentiating/integrating aka yang/yin. One cannot step outside of that. As such one will interpret 'all there is' from within that and in so doing can experience paradox.

The patterns derived from yin/yang (just to stay in the context of the I Ching) are GENERAL forms of meaning dependent on local context to colour them. These forms represent 'all there is' and as such represent any specialist perspective, be it taoism or communism or I Ching or quantum mechanics or fundamentalist islam or Ethics.

Thus the specialist perspective of Ethics is represented in the I Ching, be it as trigrams or hexagrams or dodecagrams and so THERE is the Universal. Whats more, that universal is shown to be metaphor derived from a more generic universal, the patterns derived from our neurology in the processing of information.

Since the I Ching is a LANGUAGE it can describe anything and it does so using QUALITIES associated with CATEGORIES rather than letters. As such, ultimately one does not read the I Ching, one feels it (recall blend, bond, bound, bind? ;-))

As such I can see Taoism in the I Ching as I can Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism etc etc etc. These SPECIALIST metaphors are interchangable at the GENERAL level, LOCAL context may colour them, introduce some particular not covered in some other, but overall they all say the same thing(s).

Cleary has come up with a few I Ching books covering Taoist IC, Buddhist IC, Business Organisation IC etc and as such the ethics of these specialist perspectives are contained in them and so described by them in the I Ching. (and I recall one version of the IC rooted in quotes from the Bible and so covering Judaic/Christian perspectives and I am sure we can come up with the Socialist's I Ching!)

Since I can map PROCESS into the I Ching in the form of the flow of production to consumption so I can map the IC to socioeconomic dynamics and the issues of Political Economy and its focus to the FILTRATION realm of the flow - and THAT covers issues of Ethics - we can in fact take, from the hexagram level, 16 core hexagrams to reflect upon in the context of Ethics, of determining what is 'kosher' or not - what we put into our 'mouths' - a rule of control of EARTH five-phase on WATER.

I think your issue is in focusing too much on EXPRESSION and so missing out on what is BEHIND it all - there IS levels of determination as there are novelty in choices given contexts. We are in a position to map all of this out down to 64 or 4096 'ethic forms' and the focus on fitting them to the 'right' local contexts given circumstances.

If you choose to LIMIT yourself to one form of expression that is up to you, but we are now able to remove such limits, flesh out the generals that cover all specialisations, and then CHOOSE which one we need to 'fit' into some context.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

No, we are dealing with your statement that ethics is against our "primate nature"

That has lack of precision, since some would say (his/her) ethics is against it; and some would say (he/she) ethics is in favour.

Simple... but again, when reality confront you, you hide within abstaction.

Best wishes

 

[lightofreason]

No, we are dealing with your statement that ethics is against our "primate nature"

Our primate nature is driven by genetics, not consciousness.
Our primate nature is SOCIAL and so rooted in social hierarchy dynamics, pecking orders, etc etc - there is no 'freedom' as such, there is always some social dynamic going on and not by choice, by decree (genetic decree)

THAT is the reality of our primate natures. If you think that life is better then I suggest going to live with apes and so how you go! We cannot walk away from our consciousness due to the sense of futility that can come with current conditions. We have to move on, refine consciousness, uses its skills in regulation/control and all done by training consciousness. If you dont train it then it cannot regulate what it is supposed to and so the emotions etc dominate and that is not good for a still evolving species. The FACT that consciousnes regulates emotions shows us a FACT of evolution, it is beneficial to regulate emotion. The excitement of freedom hides that benefit; not educating consciousness on regulation is akin to not educating children re toilet training - and so we spend as lot of time ******** in our own nests, figuratively speaking! ;-)

Ethics ONLY applies to individual consciousness and the 'battles' of each individual, still containing their primate urges etc, and how they try to be 'free' in a context that more often demands otherwise. The development of consciousness is a development that can benefit the species but it can also destroy it if not trained in ethical issues covering SOCIAL responsibilities and issues of SOCIAL irresponsibilities (i.e. to recognise individual freedom etc)) - There is NONE of that going on at the moment but the present state of the species suggests there is a need for such training in the GENERAL, thats all that is needed since it will seed, ground, the particular.

The set of POSSIBLE interpretations applicable to ethical situations are covered in the IC and all metaphors of like kind, it is the specialist representations that can block understanding of that.

All of the metaphors I mentioned before are interchangable BUT that includes one based on the HARD CODING of our brains and so indicating the hard coding of metaphor creation/use. Understand THAT form and all other forms are easier to deal with and we dont get caught taking the figurative literally.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

yes, yes.....

 

[mercury]

MORE multiple line confusion?

Okay. On the off chance anyone's still reading, I asked another question: would action on my part bring the people involved in the situation closer.

I got 3.3.4 > 49. It kind of makes sense to me, but the 3 and 4 lines of hex 3 seem to directly contradict one another, unless I'm not thinking deeply enough. Could time be an issue here, or am I just thinking too literally?