Prediction of Al-Zarqawi's death?

[jte]

When I asked the I Ching on Wednesday night 6/7 for a general reading for my day at work tomorrow. I received 36.2.4.6. Interestingly, I saw the instantiation of lines 2 and 4 in different ways at work, but line 6 didn't seem to show up.

I think line 6 may have been a sort of aside by the Yi, regarding the non-work-related, but nevertheless important event of his death. Al-Zarqawi seems to fit the "mold" of 36.6 fairly well.

So, my conclusion is that his death was what the line referred to. Crossing threads a bit, I think this is an example of what has been discussed in other threads about the Yi being able to predict things that only the deepest/highest aspects of one's own mind would be able to know (or, alternatively, what one's mind would be unable to know, depending on what one believes).

As a prediction of the future, the reading is too general, I think, to satisfy a hardcore skeptic - it's general, it "could mean anything." But I guess what skeptics don't understand is that since the reading happened when and as it did, "it meant what it meant" - a reference to the event. I guess if I was a skeptic, I wouldn't be hanging around here posting as much as I do.

- Jeff

 

[dobro p]

Okay, let's get this straight - all over the planet yesterday, people did a humonguous number of Yi consultations, and you think that *one* line of *your* toss predicted Zarqawi's death. Have I got that right?

Do you also think that my consultation yesterday (9.3.4.6) also predicted Zarqawi's death? Or do you think it predicted something else? If so, what was it do you think? Or do you think that it's only your consultations that predict world events?

 

[martin]

Do you also think that my consultation yesterday (9.3.4.6) also predicted Zarqawi's death?

Maybe yes, maybe no.
It depends, I think, on how important Z's death is for you. If his death doesn't affect you in any way it will probably not pop up in a consultation but if it does it is not only something "out there". In that case it becomes a meaningful subjective experience and there is no reason - a priori - why an oracle would not reflect and predict it. But what it predicts then is not the event out there, it predicts the experience in here.

I believe that it does not matter to oracles - or the corresponding levels of consciousness - if an experience is caused by an objective event or not. Emotions are emotions, ideas are ideas, sensations are sensations, and they are real in themselves. What causes them is irrelevant. To an oracle a snake that bites me in a dream or in a hallucination is not different from a "real" snake that bites me in the "real" world. It hurts, that is all that counts.

So, the question is, would Jeff have recieved that line if he hadn't heard about Z's death? Maybe not.
And would he have received it if he had dreamed that he heard about Z's death? Maybe yes.

 

[rosada]

Jeff was asking for a general reading on HIS day, and 36.6 does seem to discribe Z's death which Jeff did hear about on that day, so I would accept this as a reasonable connection. But has anyone ever been "convinced" that the I Ching sees the future? I find people either get it or they don't.

I have been doing a daily reading in a slightly different manner. As my goal right now is to memorize the I Ching, I decided to start with hexagram 1.1 and focus on one line each day in order. The results have been very satisfying. First of all, I can now remember my life for every day, dating back to when I started this exercise. I can see how one line in a hexagram naturally evolves conciousness to the next. For example, 1.3 talks about being very busy and that night the man's mind is beset with cares.Why would your mind be beset with cares? I found out. On this day I had a long list of things to accomplish. After being very busy all day, that night my mind was eager to accomplish more, and kept me awake going on past my duties and starting to worry about things not my responcibility - thus, I was "beset with cares" because of an over active mind. Line 1.4 Is the dragon waverying over the depths. Why is he wavering? After my previous day of accomplishing so many have to do chores, I now was in the unusual position of being able to choose what I should do next - and I was wavering over just what I should choose. So he's wavering because he is just starting to exercise "free will", or "free intention". And so forth.
Taking the lines in order and applying them to the events of the day has proved to be every bit as syncronicitous as following a random toss.

 

[dobro p]

Jeff was asking a question about his day at work generally the following day. Zaqawi's killing had nothing to do with that, except in the most tenuous way - we're all connected on the planet, so Zaqawi's death affects all of us. But if Jeff's toss predicted Zaqawi's death, then *everybody's* toss *every* day reflects *every* event on the planet, and beyond as well probably. Making the toss absolutely useless, in other words. I mean, I ask for information about work tomorrow, and the Yi gives me a 'prediction' about the assassination of a man I don't know and have nothing to do with on the other side of the planet? Come on, get real.

In hindsight, I believe that the 36.6 that Jeff drew was predicting the fall of his natural intelligence into the abyss of thinking that his toss had something to do with a world event lol.

 

[rosada]

oops, dobro, you are right. Jeff did indeed phrase his question to apply to his work day only.

 

[martin]

I don't believe that an oracle is that specific when it comes to time or place. It's not like it thinks "hey, this will probably happen around 10 pm and he asked about 6 pm, so i shouldn't tell him." or "he asked about his workday so I should not mention that he will meet the girl of his dreams when he has that blind date after work."

When you are indeed about to meet the boy or girl of your dreams that meeting will perhaps already pop up in readings that you have weeks or months earlier. And not necessarily only in readings about your love life. Not that you will understand the message, probably not, but that is another matter.

Events make waves that move backward and forward in time, into the past and into the future. Oracles detect these waves and reflect them. So does our unconscious.
Did you never feel a subtle kind of inner silence in the days before something significant happened to you? If you are a bit sensitive and don't eat and smoke and drink too much you can feel such things coming.

Of course I don't know if that line that Jeff got indeed indicated Z's death or rather Jeff's experience of it. But if Z or Z's death (or maybe terrorism in general) is important to Jeff, if that affects him, it's certainly possible.
That does not mean that the IC or our unconscious picks up everything that goes on on the planet. It only picks up what is relevant for us.

 

[jesed]

Al-Zarqawi seems to fit the "mold" of 36.6 fairly well.

Yes, for many people, this sentence is correct. Altough, for many others, is quite wrong. Remember.. so many people think that he is an heroe.

In any case, why don't we ask Yi Jing itself about jte's interpretation?

I did it. How does the Sages judge jte's interpretation (line 6 of 36 wasn't about his work but Z's death)

The answer was very clear and interesting.

Best wishes

 

[mudpie]

Synchronicity is what it is. A synchronicity doesnt have to be limited to the immediate realm of one's own life. The synchronicity bewteen Jte's reading and the news of the death is either a meaningless coincidence or a synchronistic response.

Who knows how much meaning this may have for Jeff's line of work? Unfolding events may reveal that it had tremendous significance.or maybe even events that happened at Jeff's workplace that day - interactions, etc. - were somehow effected by this death.

Just because you can't attach immediate conscious significance, or maybe would never be able to understand how this was significant in some way, does not make it any less interesting.

For every reading anyone has at any given moment, there may be a whole network of synchronistic events happening at the exact same moment. We simply cant know the scope of such phenomena, and maybe our mental apparatus is too limited to ever fully understand. BUt occasionally we get a glimpse into a larger picture and we acknowledge that we are more connected to this larger picture than we have ever imagined

 

[rosada]

Don't leave us dangling

So Jesed, what did you come up with???

 

[jesed]

Hi Rosada

Due to respect to jte and the Sages, I rather like anybody interesting in this made his/her own consultation.

Best wishes

 

[dobro p]

Gee, that bad, huh?

 

[jte]

Hmmm. Dobro, I will try to answer some of your points directly.

"Okay, - all over the planet yesterday, people did a humonguous number of Yi consultations, and you think that *one* line of *your* toss predicted Zarqawi's death. "

Yes, I feel that this might have been a sort of "aside" by the Yi. Remember, my belief is that the Yi is an intelligence external to myself. So, for me it's not quite so odd to think that, in giving 36.2 and 36.4 as an answer to my question, it might, "while it was in the 36 neighborhood" so to speak, also give line 6 regarding Zarqawi.

"Do you also think that my consultation yesterday (9.3.4.6) also predicted Zarqawi's death? " I don't see it in that particular answer. However if, for example, you had gotten Hex 1, with some lines that "fit" your day *and* 1.6, but 1.6 didn't seem to match your question, then I might think something along similar lines had happened.

"Or do you think it predicted something else? If so, what was it do you think? Or do you think that it's only your consultations that predict world events?" This is pretty clearly sarcastic - I think it would be up to you to interpret your reading, in your context. Why would I think I have some corner on predicting world events? I certainly don't believe that. I think perhaps you misunderstand how I view this reading. I don't think it's a "big deal", just something a bit unusual that the Yi did. It isn't about my ego or how great a diviner I think I am or anything like that. Normally the I Ching does pretty much stick to answering questions as asked, which is why I thought this was unusual and worth posting about.

"Jeff was asking a question about his day at work generally...Zaqawi's killing had nothing to do with that, except in the most tenuous way - we're all connected on the planet, so Zaqawi's death affects all of us. But if Jeff's toss predicted Zaqawi's death, then *everybody's* toss *every* day reflects *every* event on the planet, and beyond as well probably. Making the toss absolutely useless, in other words."

Hmmm. I don't draw that conclusion at all. As I wrote, I view this as an unusual event on the Yi's part. Something that it, in a way, opted to do. In fact, numerous people report the impression that the Yi *occasionally* doesn't answer their question, but addresses some other issue instead (although normally this issue is more important than the question, which doesn't appear to be the case, at least subjectively, here).

"In hindsight, I believe that the 36.6 that Jeff drew was predicting the fall of his natural intelligence into the abyss of thinking that his toss had something to do with a world event lol." Perhaps that's a plausible, if insulting, interpretation as well. Odd though, that the Yi itself would have caused this "fall" by giving the line. Still, that sort of thing can happen, I shouldn't think that I'm immune.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address some of the others who posted on this thread, I read the news frequently during lunch at work, and am often shocked and distressed about what I read that is going on in Iraq (mass murders having become essentially a daily occurence there). So, I suppose the events generally have an indirect impact on my day at work, at least at an emotional level. Naturally, I did read the news about Z. that day at work, too. However, it's perhaps worth pointing out that I saw the announcement about Z. as soon as I turned on the TV in the morning, before going to work.

- Jeff

 

[dobro p]

Jeff, what you describe as sarcastic or insulting questions and responses on my part are the sort of questions that arise naturally out of your assumption that the Yi chose to predict Zarqawi's killing to you, Jeff, among all the people consulting the oracle on that day, despite the fact that you were asking a question about something completely different. I see that kind of thinking as really sloppy, hopelessly self-centered, and completely misleading for people who are learning how to use the Yi.

But here's another question: Let's say that the Yi *was* predicting Zarqawi's downfall to you, Jeff, before the rest of the world (or Zarqawi, for that matter) learned of it. What's the point? What was accomplished by that? How could you have possibly extrapolated from 36.6 that Zarqawi's time on this planet was up? You couldn't. Which makes it completely useless.

So on the one hand, the approach you're taking means that the Yi dishes out useless stuff (an idea I object to), and on the other hand the approach you're taking suggests that the Yi is dishing out information about events that have nothing to do with the question the querent is asking (an idea I also object to).

I think you're way off track. I doubt you'll agree, but I'm writing for more people than just you here.

 

[martin]

Dobro, you make it sound as if Jeff believes that he is the chosen prophet to whom alone the death of Z was revealed in advance.
I think it's obvious from what Jeff writes that he doesn't believe anything like that.

Let me ask you a question.
Do you think that none of the readings of those who did a daily reading on 9/11 - and who later saw the events unfolding on TV - showed what would happen that day in one way or another?

For many of the people who saw it happening on TV it was a shocking experience that affected them profoundly.
Why would an oracle - be it the I Ching, the Tarot or any other, that supposedly can "see" the future more or less - remain silent about this when it is consulted about the coming day?
And that is the point that I earlier tried to make: it's not so much the event that is predicted, what is predicted is the subjective experience.

 

[dobro p]

Martin, I pretty much disagree with everything you said, but I'll break it down bit by bit so you can follow my thinking.

"Let me ask you a question. Do you think that none of the readings of those who did a daily reading on 9/11 - and who later saw the events unfolding on TV - showed what would happen that day in one way or another?"

No, I don't. I think the Yi responds to the question the querent puts to it. I think the Yi is question-specific. Having said that, it's my experience that the Yi sometimes doesn't respond directly to the question, but directs my attention to aspects of the situation that I hadn't been considering. But it does that WITHIN THE SITUATION BEING ADDRESSED. That's my experience. Your mileage may vary.

"For many of the people who saw it happening on TV it was a shocking experience that affected them profoundly."

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean the Yi reflected those feelings in consultations on that day.

"Why would an oracle - be it the I Ching, the Tarot or any other, that supposedly can "see" the future more or less - remain silent about this when it is consulted about the coming day?"

I answered this. The Yi responds to the question put to it by the querent. Now, imagine one of those people who worked at the WTC in NYC had consulted the Yi on the morning of 9/11 and asked: "What do I need to know about my upcoming work day today?" and had drawn 28.6 - well, I think *that* would have been significant. But Jeff asking about his upcoming work day and getting, among other lines, 36.6 and then thinking that it applies to something beyond the question he asked... well, that's just bad thinking. By the way, I agree that 36.6 pretty much describes the Zarqawi death. But for Jeff to suggest that his drawing 36.6 as part of the response to his question about his upcoming work day somehow 'predicted' Zarqawi's death? Nah, I don't buy it.

"And that is the point that I earlier tried to make: it's not so much the event that is predicted, what is predicted is the subjective experience."

I disagree with this, too. I think the Yi is objective within the paramaters of the question put to it. The question that you or I ask is subjective in that it applies to our personal situation and our personal desires and fears connected with that situation. But the Yi gives a response which is an objective description of what the situation *really* is that we have to know about.

Finally, before now I've compared using the Yi to using sonar on a boat or ship: just as sonar shows you the non-evident contours of the situation you're in, the Yi shows you the non-evident contours of the situation you're in. Now, for Jeff to suggest that his question about his upcoming work day triggered a response from the Yi that hinted at Zarqawi's death is the same as somebody consulting the sonar equipment on his sailing vessel, and the instrument gives him information, not about what's under his vessel, but about what's happening on the ocean floor on the other side of the planet. Useless, in other words. Now, if you want to subscribe to that kind of belief about how the Yi works, that's your business, but I think it's faulty to the point of being ridiculous.

 

[jte]

Hi, Jesed –

I think the point you make about subjectivity/objectivity here is interesting:

“Yes, for many people, [Zarqawi fitting the mold of 36.6] is correct. Altough, for many others, is quite wrong. Remember.. so many people think that [Zarqawi] is an heroe.”

Whatever high-minded ideals Z. may have started out with, recently he’s been advocating the mass-murder not only of Americans and Europeans, but even of Shiite muslims generally, on the grounds that historically and currently they “betray Islam” by cooperating with occupying powers. He also apparently wrote statements to the effect that anyone (i.e. Sunni muslims) who doesn’t agree with his view is either ignorant or deliberately aiding the Shiites. Reading between the lines here, given his history, he seems to essentially be saying that he’ll kill anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

While there might be some who saw Z. as a hero either because they hadn’t heard his latest views or because they are amenable to such a deranged ideology, I think that perhaps one could assert that *objectively* this guy was, essentially, an enemy of humanity. Thus, perhaps, he was *objectively* a case of 36.6. Certainly he objectively intended to directly and indirectly murder many, many people, perhaps even millions if he truly had free reign…

Not sure if your beliefs on subjectivity/objectivity are open to this view. But it’s something to think about…

- Jeff

 

[jte]

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Dobro:

“… your assumption that the Yi chose to predict Zarqawi's killing to you, Jeff, among all the people consulting the oracle on that day…” “…Let's say that the Yi *was* predicting Zarqawi's downfall to you, Jeff, before the rest of the world (or Zarqawi, for that matter) learned of it…”

As, I tried to make clear in my second post, I don’t believe that it was necessarily me and only me who received this information. There may be many who found out, particularly among any who asked more directly about Mideast events. I’m not sure why you keep returning to this idea that I think I was somehow singled out for special knowledge. This is not even implied by what I originally wrote, and I further explained my viewpoint (or tried to, at least). This is coming completely from you.

“What's the point? What was accomplished by that? How could you have possibly extrapolated from 36.6 that Zarqawi's time on this planet was up? You couldn't. Which makes it completely useless.”

I agree that I could not have extrapolated Z.’s death specifically *in advance* from 36.6. However, when I heard the news, I realized that it seemed to match the line. I’m not at all convinced that this was useless for me. For example, (assuming I am right) in retrospect, Z.’s death becomes an object lesson in how far a 36.6 situation can go in a modern context. It reminds me of the dangers those in a leadership position (I lead projects at work) can face – the consequences of “going negative”. It helped to prepare me for what I experienced during the day – perhaps to focus on and learn from it. The principle expounded in the line gives me hope in seemingly bleak circumstances that in many cases terrorists will “create their own end.”

“the approach you're taking means that the Yi dishes out useless stuff… [and] …information about events that have nothing to do with the question…”

Again, I’m not convinced it was so useless. I think it’s widely recognized that the Yi *occasionally* provides information other than the question. So, again, I’m not convinced that you’ve eliminated the possibility here.

(From your other post) ”…But [ the Yi answers questions] WITHIN THE SITUATION BEING ADDRESSED. That's my experience. Your mileage may vary.”

I see you’re sounding a bit more flexible here. Perhaps for some reason “mileage varied” in my case?

“Jeff, what you describe as sarcastic or insulting questions and responses on my part are the sort of questions that arise naturally…I see that kind of thinking as really sloppy, hopelessly self-centered, and completely misleading for people who are learning how to use the Yi. … I'm writing for more people than just you here”

Well, Dobro, over the years on this forum I’ve certainly seen interpretations that I felt met the description above. However, while I may defend myself when directly attacked on occasion, I’ve never turned poor interpretation into an excuse to bash people who post with a sincere motive.

Does the above mean you’re starting to see yourself as some sort of self-appointed guardian around here? As if other readers can’t think for themselves? As if there was any actual danger in the questions raised in my post or my “sloppy” interpretation or in the democratic approach taken in this forum? As if you know with such certainty when an interpretation is off or that the Yi works the same way for you as for everyone? If this is the case, maybe you should reconsider who’s starting to become “hopelessly self-centered” here…

“I think you're way off track. I doubt you'll agree”

My interpretation might be off track. I started this thread with the intent of being open to criticism. I’ve looked at the specific points you raise and found some merit in a few of them.

- Jeff

 

[jesed]

Hi Jeff

Let me put it in other way.

Do you think that "objectively" Harry Truman is another case of 36.6? Probably a mayor one, because his decision about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "objectively" killed much more people than Z?

My point is not to defend Z, neither terrorism. Just to remember that, as Phils Collings say: one need to hear "both sides of story" before afirm that anybody is a case of 36.6

About objectivity and subjectivity... well yes, I think there are some objective truths; and many subjective understandings of those truths

 

[mudpie]

There have been many posts on this board, and a few I can remember posted by Val, where she described a seeming synchronicity between her Yi throws and subsequent world events of significance. Jeff is by no means the only one who "subscribes to that {belief} about how the Yi (can) work."

The I Ching absolutely has the potential to override a specific question with information about something else " in the ether" which is imminent. No doubt about it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually subscribes to the idea that the yi works AT ALL can dispute this. It sounds like Dobro got an instruction kit with his copy of the I Ching and it read:

all questions will be answered directly.

The Yi will never refer to anything outside of your immediate scope of experience so long as you asking about your immediate scope of experience.

Any similarities between your responses and events unrelated to your question should be discarded as ridiculous.

hmmm, I never got that disclaimer.

 

[luz]

Dobro,

why do you have such a problem with jte's interpretation of his own reading???
does 326.6 describe Zarkawi's death yes or no?
Well, to him it does. And that is all that matters.
All interpretations are subjective, no?

Same for Jesed.. do you think the Yi will only give 'objective' answers? why??? We all experience reality in different ways, is there such a thing as objectivity? And, if so, why would the Yi talk to me in such a language when I much better understand what is relevant and subjective to ME, the questioner??? If rain makes me happy, wouldn't the Yi tell me I will have a happy, rainy day?? Why should it coment on flooding on the other side of town?

If a world event makes you happy or unhappy, anxious, sad, peaceful, etc...
If a world event makes your boss or your co-workers happy, sad, etc and that affects your interactions at work...
If a world event makes a large group of people happy, sad, etc and prompts them to do demostrations and affect traffic or whatever else in your environment...
does it not become a part of your daily experience?
Wouldn't the Yi give you a hint of what is to come on a daily reading?

Why do you have such a big problem with that? Do you feel like Jte is claiming to be better than you because you did not get that prediction? Maybe it's not that important to you or maybe it has more influence on his day than on your day, why not???
Why would a person asking about their daily reading not get information on something like 9/11? What about the person that had to evacuate one of the buildings? or the person that had a panic attack on the way to work just listening to the news? What do you know about how things can affect different people? Objective, world-wide events become subjective. Why not? Why do you think the I Ching would refuse to comment on such things???

I really have a hard time understanding what it is you disagree with in Jeff's own daily reading. I can only guess that you feel he's trying to claim 'preferred' status or something like that. I don't think he is. He's just sharing his reading and his interpretation. It has as much merit as anybody else's. Relax.

 

[jte]

Hi, Jesed -

Yes, I see your point about Truman. For me, he wouldn't be a 36.6 type since he was (supposedly at least) attempting to end the war swiftly, rather than just kill lots of Japanese people for the sake of subjugation. Also, Truman did not "create his own downfall" in any way that I can discern. However, I can understand how a Japanese person who lost civilian family members in one of the bombings might see it quite differently.

"About objectivity and subjectivity... well yes, I think there are some objective truths; and many subjective understandings of those truths"

Yes, I basically see things this way too - a good way of phrasing it.

- Jeff

 

[dobro p]

I've read what people have said in response to my posts in this thread, and it's my belief that they're/you're way off track. If you want to live in a Yi world where every line you draw can refer to anything at all, then go ahead and lose out. Wishy washy. That's what your approach is.

If the people who put the Yi together had seen this thread they would have laughed.

 

[luz]

"If the people who put the Yi together had seen this thread they would have laughed."

You must be right.. Well, if I had known that you knew these people so well, I would not have argued with you in the first place!

 

[dobro p]

Well, when I posted that, I was thinking that they'd be laughing at me as well.

 

[jesed]

Hi lightangel

do you think the Yi will only give 'objective' answers?

No, I had never said that. Actually, what I had textually said is:
An "hexagram" is a microcosmical description of a manifestation wich includes the way some Subject interacts with some Objective situation http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=2998

And
each hexagram is a complex of various meanings: quelity of the objective situation, queality of the subjective situation, "spiritual" situation, "worldy" situation, past causes, future effects; recomendations for action, cosmologic time, AND CALENDARIC time frame.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=491

why would the Yi talk to me in such a language when I much better understand what is relevant and subjective to ME, the questioner???

Yi Ching "talks" with hexagrams that points to Subjective situation + objective situation+ spiritual situation + cosmologic time + calendaric time because of it's inner laws.

Why do you have such a big problem with that?

I had no problem at all with subjectivity in the interpretation of Yi Jing's answers. Please quote any sentence where I had say (or show) that I have any problem with that

Do you feel like Jte is claiming to be better than you because you did not get that prediction?

Not at all

Even more. I had no problem to publically say that I had learn a lot from jte, since at least one year visiting in this forum

Why would a person asking about their daily reading not get information on something like 9/11?

I hadn't give my opinion about this.
If your read carefully, that's dobro not jesed.
I only gave my opinion about Z as "incarnation" of 36.6; and sugessted anybody interesting in jte/dobro crosspoints of view ask directly to Yi Jing about jte's interpretation (by the way, had you do that?)

Objective, world-wide events become subjective. Why not? Why do you think the I Ching would refuse to comment on such things???

I belief than any hexagram shows the interaction of Subjects with objective situations; so, of course I beliefe that I Ching comments objective situations that can be relevant to any subject.
Even more, I have an entire blogg about Yi Jing's answers on political world-wide issues
http://changesonpolitics.blogspot.com (English version)
http://elmandatodelcielo.blogspot.con (Spanish version)

Please quote any sentence where I had say that Yi Jing refuses to comment on world-wide situations

I really have a hard time understanding what it is you disagree with in Jeff's own daily reading. I can only guess that you feel he's trying to claim 'preferred' status or something like that.

I don`t believe he is trying to claim that.

Relax.

Thanks for the advice.
Ditto (Using Cris' dixit, it seems that this objective/subjective thing had pusshed some inner resorts in you)

Best wishes

 

[luz]

Hi Jesed,

Sorry about the confusion. I was mainly talking to Dobro and only included you in the second parragraph of my post and it's because of what you said in your other post:

"My point is not to defend Z, neither terrorism. Just to remember that, as Phils Collings say: one need to hear "both sides of story" before afirm that anybody is a case of 36.6"

What I understood from that quote of yours was that how could he know that this was "a case of 36.6" (objectively)
And the point I was trying to make was that it was 36.6 for *him* (subjectively)

I'm sorry you had to reply to all those other things I said. I only thought Dobro needed to relax, not you.

 

[jte]

It seems that what’s emerged from this thread is that there are folks out there with relatively stricter and looser interpretation styles. For the stricter, dobro being an example (and no doubt there are others who think as he does), interpretions like the one I made are wrong on principle. For them, the I Ching more or less shouldn’t work that way, for reasons that dobro has mentioned and that he feels are valid. And taking this stricter approach has a certain set of advantages (and disadvantages).

Others, such as myself, listener, and martin (and no doubt others) have a relatively loose interpretation style which leaves us open to possibilities such as my interpretation of 36.6. For us, the I Ching more or less should and does work that way. And no doubt we perceive advantages in this type of approach. (And should be aware of its potential disadvantages, too.)

I don’t see any *definitive* reason for saying that one style is right or wrong. I suppose it boils down to a matter of preference or what one feels works best. There’s been a lot of talk of the I Ching adapting to the interpretation style of the questioner. *If* that truly is the case, it may not matter overly much which style we have.

As for those who put together the I Ching, well no doubt the original authors would hardly recognize the text of their creation today, with millennia of additions and commentary. I rather think that, rather than laughing at this thread, many of those who have contributed to the I Ching might smile knowingly – recognizing a debate very similar to one that they themselves had participated in in their own time…

- Jeff