...life can be translucent

Menu

Probabilities for getting unchanging vs. changing hexagrams

Status
Not open for further replies.

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,051
Reaction score
81
And just to add another example of how there is no probability involved in our readings:

About five years ago I had a plan.
I asked Yi if it was a good plan and received 17.5.
Six months passed and I procrastinated about starting work on that plan. I asked the exact same question and received 17.5 again. Another six months went by, and for the third time the same reading came for the same question

The 'probability' for that is very very very very very very very very very small. A mathmagician would be as surprised as I was.
Excellent example!

But actually, the probability for that is incalculable because you can't enter 'asking about the same plan' in a calculation of probability anywhere.

I just asked trusty spreadsheet to do this for my journal, and unchanging readings are 18.01%, 1,823 out of 10,122 entries of type "Yijing Reading".
Hooray, maths works where you are, too! (The odds are actually marginally under 18% - 729/4096 - so perhaps you could say Yi is simplifying things for you just a little :mischief: )

What's also fascinating is how Yi manages to agree with theoretical probability in this instance and talk to me meaningfully, that is, give me unchanging readings when I need them.
...and Yi works where you are, too. :)
(Also, Hilary, I don't know if I've ever heard you say you're not good at math, but you are henceforth not allowed to say it. I've had a bit of university-level statistics and gave up on David's question. :bows:)
I'm exceedingly bad at mental arithmetic, but can remember enough 'O' level maths to know how to work this one out. ('O' Level = exam at 16, since replaced by the GCSE. Possibly with your university-level statistics you're a little over-qualified for this?) Also I have a secret weapon in the form of a mathematically-minded husband, who'll work out 0.75 to the power 6 in his head if I ask him nicely.

That exactly. And yet I bet if you calculated the percentage of times you've received 17.5 > 51 out of all your readings, it would hew to the expected mathematical probability. :eek:
Precisely. Probabilistically speaking, nothing remarkable happened in Moss Elk's example at all. The interesting part starts where the maths ends.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
Possibly with your university-level statistics you're a little over-qualified for this?
Er, no :eek: this is a thing we were supposed to learn, so, the opposite, it was entirely wasted on me :bag:
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
But we are missing the point. The odds dont change depending on the Yi, While MossElk points out the very good point of getting the same reading 3 times in a row one would have to know the details of how he did his casting, so as to eliminate the possibility of "influence", other than ascribed to the Yi. which as an inanimate object has no Influence whatsoever.

The maths are indisputable. The "probablity" of getting "changing vs unchanging hexagrams" is 1 in 64. Unless there are other influences at work. As the Yi itself has no influence the influence can only come from ourselves in one way or another.

It is rather over simplistic to be suggesting that one gets more unchanging readings because one needs a single Hexagram. Something else is going on.
As Hilary says "The interesting part starts where the maths ends"

The maths says it is a 1 in 64 probablity so if everyone is getting 11.39 times more unchangin hexagrams then either there is something going wrong in our casting or something is influencing the readings considerably.
As I have laready pointed out as regards the mathematics there are 4 possibilities, all T's, all H's, 2H's with 1T and 2T's with 1 H. Nothing else, unless one is using another method that alters the actual odds. 1 in 64.
One can also, for each Hexagram, work out the possibilities of all the moving lines for that individual Hexagram, there are 63 combinations that have moving lines, equating to the possibility that every Hexagram can change to any other Hexagram, leaving just 1 that has no moving lines. 1 in 64.

So if anyone is getting 11 times more than the mathematical probablity then there must be either a major error in the method or some huge influences affecting things.
The Yi has no consciousness of its own to influence our castings, so the influence must come from ourselves. Part of that might possibly be down to the expectation that knowledge of the Hexagrams might impart or it might be down to our belief that a single Hexagram is in some way clearer than one with moving lines, or that we know subcoinsciously that we dont understand what the lines really mean, especially when one is suggesting a positive outcome and the next line is say danger, and so prefer Hexagrams with no moving lines.

11 times more than is statistical probalbility is one huge influence and the reason for that should be actually known, as if it is not anythin to do with method errors then without knowing what is influencing the readings so much it might just be that despite what we wish to believe, we are not getting accurate readings and it might be a possibility that it is possible to interpret almost anything into a Hexagram. This might be a very good chance to find out.

If anyone is using the internet the methids used for calculations seem to be even worse off. Clarity's free reading results in about a 1 in 5 or 6 chance of getting no moving lines, so considerable more than any probablity. If the methods we are using starting from a skewed position then there is no chance we are getting accurate readings.

The odds of getting unchanging vs changing Hexagrams is 1 in 64, Anything else is down to something else, which I am sure everyone would want to know what that was, just in case it was influencing readings away from the most accurate we could get.

All the best

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,714
Reaction score
82
The odds of getting unchanging vs changing Hexagrams is 1 in 64, Anything else is down to something else, which I am sure everyone would want to know what that was, just in case it was influencing readings away from the most accurate we could get
Nonsense. Why do you keep on wasting our time going on about 'influencing readings'. It's not an issue for anyone except you. Why not just accept you are being answered by the I Ching which is what you actually want when you consult I suppose. it's bizarre that you think you have to trick your way into getting an 'accurate' answer. The answer you get is your answer. Simple.



I have sometimes cast the same cast twice in a row, rarely even 3 times, for different questions. I mean same sitting within minutes of each other. More common is where I'll cast the same line several ties in one sitting.

The whole preoccupation with 'influencing' answers misses what's really happening so far as to make it pretty pointless to even bother explaining. What do you actually think is happening ? You are being answered. It's not a big problem but you decide to make it one. As I said elsewhere try actually consulting for a while and you can see for yourself.

I don't worry my head about averages and probabilities but I can tell you Yi casts beat all the odds at times.
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,714
Reaction score
82
jukkodave
But we are missing the point. The odds dont change depending on the Yi, While MossElk points out the very good point of getting the same reading 3 times in a row one would have to know the details of how he did his casting, so as to eliminate the possibility of "influence", other than ascribed to the Yi. which as an inanimate object has no Influence whatsoever.
If you think it's an inanimate object why in the name of sanity are you bothering to consult it ? What is it you think you are consulting - you aren't even logical.

I mean if you don't think you are actually being answered by anything you may as well not bother consulting. Maybe you are just scared you are actually being answered by something.

All this nonsense about "we would need to know the details of how he did his casting" of course "we" wouldn't as we know we are getting answers.

You have a problem in realising you are receiving answers from Yi and from people. Please don't start using the 'we' again as if we all have this problem of worrying about influencing Yi. Possibly you are scared of actually being influenced by Yi.
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
45
I just remembered that the forum has an
'Ignore list'.
1-Click any user you wish to ignore.
2-Click: view profile
3-Click: Add to Ignore List.
4-live happily ever after.

Out of all the characters that I've dealt with over the years here at Clarity,
I have never once considered using it.

I just used it for the first time.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,051
Reaction score
81
Jukkodave, please try casting a few dozen hexagrams with 3 coins. Not as readings, not with questions, not with any intent to consult the Yi, but purely to demonstrate to your own satisfaction what the odds of an unchanging reading actually are.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina

"Nonsense. Why do you keep on wasting our time going on about 'influencing readings'. It's not an issue for anyone except you."

If there are methematical skewings that are meaning that we get certain readings more often than not, then it most certainly is not nonsense.
If anyone is using the Clarity readings, then the fact that it is returning 1 in 5 or 6 ,unchanged to changed readings, then that is an "influence" The maths say that it is 1 in 64, if we get anything else, consistently, as if it was anything else we might also get times when we had more or less, depending on our need, but it seems that most are reporting a huge shift in one direction only, and unless there was something actually in the Yi to say that a Hexagram with no moving lines was prefereable to one with moving lines then we should get variations in either direction. Which we dont. So something is influencing the outcomes and even though we might think they are accurate readings that might possibly be becuase the vagueness in various interpreations of the Yi allows that.

If its not an issue for everyone and everyone want to believe in whatever they believe fine. But why get so het up about it and callit nonsense.

Why are you referring to "our". I didnt know it was a club, I thought it was a Forum for open discussion, but if it is a closed club of "our" that would change everything and explain a lot as well.

"The answer you get is your answer. Simple."

But isnt that the point, it isnt simple, Just because you will get a reading doesnt mean that it isnt possible that all of the things that I have put forward as "possibilities", which should be easily dsimissed with rational, coherent and logical argument if they should not be considered as relevant factors.

"I have sometimes cast the same cast twice in a row, rarely even 3 times, for different questions. I mean same sitting within minutes of each other. More common is where I'll cast the same line several ties in one sitting."

But without knowing why and being able to explain why in a rational way, which excludes that you believe it to be a certain way, you wouldnt know why any of that might be. It might be because there is some underlying principles at work, it might be because you are psychologically influencing things, it might just be random number chances, it might be skewed perception. It is known that the more one believes in something the more ones percetion moves away from accuracy, Gamblers area really good example. I am not saying this is the case for you.
But a single persons experience doesnt validate anything as there are so many possibilities as to why a particular thing might happen. Given the nature of the Yi it seems most unlikely that anyone is ever going to come up with a way of "testing" it scientifically. So it seems that the only measures that we have are the perspectives and the frameworks that make rational sense. Thouhgt if you want to believe in something and arent bothered in anything but that then it is difficult to see why you would be interested in any discussion about the Yi and especially on this subject.

"The whole preoccupation with 'influencing' answers misses what's really happening so far as to make it pretty pointless to even bother explaining. What do you actually think is happening ? You are being answered. I's not a big problem but you decide to make it one. As I said elsewhere try actually consulting for a while and you can see for yourself."

Try explaining, I would welcome someone attempting to do that instead of saying its pointless and trying to demonstrate nothing at all.
Influence is a scientifically known fact. Maths is a fact. There are influences afoot if it is not according to probablility and unless there is a rational, coherent and logical reason why the statistical swing should be in one direction only it would suggest that something is skewed so drastically that we dont even have the full range of the Yi at our disposal. Which if course we could easily dismiss as saying that the increased frequency of certain Hexagrams or lines are because they are "appropriate to " us. They may be, but then again they may not be, and unless we know "why" and can be sure that it is because they are "accurate" we couldnt have any confidence in our readings. Unless we can be sure that the readings we get are being interpreted correctly then that would be a serious concern. Wehen I first came across the Yi a number of us did a number of tests and what we found was that we could ask a question that we didnt know we were asking and the "answer" made sense, if you took the reading in the most outward way of interpreting a reading, and we knew plenty of people that lived their whole lives based on the Yi and they burned frequently, but if you took the reading as you might if it was a book of Wisdom and a guide to focus on the inner world then ther reading s were much more difficult to interpret in the context of the question. I shared that was my experience when I used cards insted of coins, the readings became far more pertinent.

Of course you are getting an answer, but any methid that you use is going to give an "answer", that is the inevitability of doing a cast. But what does it mean, is it relevent or is it that there exist the possibility to "make " it relevant.
As a I have just described my personal take is that if we use the Yi as an "oracle", a measure of the outside wourd, then it becomes more possible to read almost anything into most readings that we might get, the ones that dont we call our lack of clarity or something similar and do another reading. But when we do a reading about our inner world it is much more difficult to make the reading "fit " the question. It all comes back to what the Yi is, and without that consideration there can be no actuall measures of anything other than statistical probablity of how many unchanginf Hexagrams to Changing ones.

If you think it beats the odds then I dont understand why it bothers you me raising possibilities that perhpas it doesnt.

All the best

Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,051
Reaction score
81
Jukkodave, please try casting a few dozen hexagrams with 3 coins. Not as readings, not with questions, not with any intent to consult the Yi, but purely to demonstrate to your own satisfaction what the odds of an unchanging reading actually are.
Actually, forget that.You agree that you calculate the odds for an unchanging hexagram by multiplying up the odds for an unchanging line, don't you? It's just that you still maintain the odds of an unchanging line are 50%.

You can test that without casting hexagrams at all (and thus rule out your idea of 'influencing' casting to get desired hexagrams). Just take 3 coins and toss them together 100 times. If you're right, you should get HHH or TTT about 50 times.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Moss Elk

Why didnt you just not post, that would seem to be the best way of ignoring someone.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary

Sorry I was being more that a bit dim. I was assuming that everyone through all 3 coins simultaneously at the same time.
The method is important. If you cast the coins one at a time, as you point out, it gives a different outcome. But the point is that it shouldnt. The actual odds, as a Hexagram can change into any other Hexagram, remains at 1 in 64.

Throwing coins singly, or any other method that does not equate to a 1 in 64 outcome is not playing on a level playing field and one is going to get considerable more unchanging Hexagrams.
But that has nothing to do with the Yi guiding us or giving is thte answers we need it is becuase the methodology is so skewed that we are limiting the choices that would be available to us if we used mathermatically sound methods.

As to what is going on with the Clarity free readings that come out 1 in 5 or 6, I have no idea,but that is skewing it beyond belief. Soory my mistake that is about 18%. So that explains the Clarity sites way off figures.

The question then, now knowing why the readings are not accurate is how we still manage to make "sense" of a reading. I dont see how we can have much coinfidence when we have only been able to access a smaller part of the Yi, at any single casting, than should be available to us. It does make sense that my readings improved, but as I always trew the coins at the same time it wasnt a huge improvement, just one that would make sense in terms of the statistical influences that science knows all about.

That is the thin g that has really annoyed me. I knew alll about the differences of throwing one at a time and throeing all together, but it was more than 30 years ago and it was only when you said about throwing them a 100 times that I realised that if one did that with 3 coins a thte same time one would get a different "answer" that if one threw then on at a time. Sorry I was so slow on the uptake.

So sorry it is still 1 in 64 and any method that disnt get that needs putting to one side.

All thte best

Dave
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
Dave, it is done by throwing all three coins at once. Not one coin at a time, three separate times.

Pick up three coins (of the same kind, like 3 pennies or 3 nickels or whatever). Cup your hands around them, or put them inside something you can shake with your hand on top, like the cups that sometimes come with board games for shaking up pieces or dice.

Shake well.

Then spill all three out at once onto a flat surface (one that isn't too hard and slippery - you don't want your coins bouncing and rolling all over the place so you have to hunt for them, although a little bit of bouncing and rolling is unavoidable and perfectly fine). Write down what you got, like HTT. Then do that 99 more times.

Then come back and tell us what happened.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Liselle

Already done it. Know what happens. The maths is correct.

If you throw the coins together there is no way of distinguishing the 3 coins from one another and the result is the outcome of the possibilities of all 3 coins. That gives one possibility.
Throw the coins singly and "each" separate coin can be either H or T and you know which one is which. That give the other possibility.

One gives 1 in 64, the other doesnt. You can prove it to yourself by thinking away from coins. Imagine you threw Hexagram 1. When you realise that every Hexagram can change into every other hexagram you realise that there are only 64 possible combinations of changing lines connected to each Hexagram, only one of them is unchanging and staying as the original Hexagram. So a one in 64 chance of getting an unchanging Hexagram and a 63 out of 64 cahnce of it changing.

Forget about the coins, it actually makes it far more complicated than it needs to be because there are various ways that you can throw the coins. But the choices of how many options are available in the Yi does not change with the methods that you use. And because of that, if the "method" does not give the correct probablity then the method is influencing the outcome to the extent that not all the Yi's option are going to be available.

Think about it another way. Before you cast a reading every single Hexagram is available, statistically speaking, if the odds were not, 1 in 64, the chances of getting a moving line for the first line would be denying us a large number of possibilities.
Using numbers, we can cast a 6,7,8,or 9. Which we could just as easily do with pieces of paper with numbers on. It is only the choice bewtween those 4 options that is important. If we have more options with the method we use then it is not a choice between 4 options at all. If we thorw coins and ther are more ways of getting 7's or 8's then that is skewed towards non moving lines.

6 and 9 are moving lines, 7 and 8 are not. That gives a 50/50 chance of getting either a 6 or 9, a moving line, as the first line. That doesnt change for line 2 as it is still a choice fo 6,7,8,or 9. Follow that thtough for each line and it is, as it always is, 1 in 64.

It is the use of the coins in any other way, than throwing them at the same time, that creates the methodological error and denies us the full range of the Yi's options.

Sorry to be the bearer of such bad tidings, but if anyone is not using a 1 in 64 method that your readings have been way off . Unless of course you think that the Yi is some kind of cosmic force in its own right and wanted you to be limited to what it might be able to show you.

Dave
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying all 4096 possible readings have exactly the same probability of being cast, or should. Is that right?

No casting method I've ever seen described works like that. There are philosophical reasons...I'm trying to remember where even to look for this... I think it partly has something to do with moving lines being "old" lines, which is why they want to change, since they've been "old" long enough.

You know what, I don't have this at hand, and it's late and I don't want to try to look for it now. If I could even find it - I know I've seen it explained somewhere, but I don't immediately know what to even Google. I skimmed this article in Wikipedia, but I didn't see the nice explanation I remember reading.

Hilary probably knows off the top of her head.




[edited] From our Foundations course - it also partly has to do with the yin-yang diagram. Young (unchanging) lines are half yin and half yang. They gradually evolve into old lines (entirely yin or yang), at which point they're ready to change again, so those are the moving lines.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
But I think there's still confusion.

It is the use of the coins in any other way, than throwing them at the same time, that creates the methodological error and denies us the full range of the Yi's options.
We do throw them at the same time. We throw 3 coins at once, and that results in one line of a hexagram.

Just to clear this up, which of these do you think is correct? Just answer "A is correct" or "B is correct" for now. (I'm only trying to straighten out this confusion.)

A. throwing three coins at once
B. throwing coins one at a time


And then could you tell us exactly how you'd cast one line of a hexagram?

Here's how we'd cast one line, using the 3-coin method:

- shake three coins together
- toss all three at once
- write down what you get (THT or whatever)
- assign number values: heads=2, tails=3
- add those up (THT = 3+2+3 = 8)
- 8 is an unmoving yin line (a.k.a. broken line, static yang, or young yang)

How would you do it? Would you write down the steps? Then we'll at least all know for sure what the other means.


(I devoutly hope I haven't made any mistakes in any of that.)
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
Unless of course you think that the Yi is some kind of cosmic force in its own right and wanted you to be limited to what it might be able to show you.
Actually, we (at least I) do think the Yi is a cosmic force in its own right. But that is controversial; many people believe it's a spur to one's own subconscious, or something. The reason I believe it's a higher force is because Yi has told me things I couldn't possibly know on my own.

I'm not sure that's what matters most, though. People who don't believe it's the cosmos talking to them still get meaningful readings.


But - second part - we don't want it to be limited in what it can show us. Well - again, this is controversial. Well-meaning people have devised casting methods that only ever produce one moving line, for instance. I experimented with that for a while once, years ago, and still got helpful readings, but what surprised me is that they weren't much easier to interpret! That kind of doesn't make sense! But it's what I found, so I went back to the methods that allow multiple moving lines.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Liselle

Trow 3 coins together for each line. As you say, assign a value of 2 or 3 to either heads of tails, I know that there have been some that would argue that head should be one or the other, but as one could use anthing with distinguishable sides I cant see how that would matter.
That is what gives the correct 1 in 64 odds.

Actually it doesnt amater what you assign as values or as moving lines as long as you are consistent. You could of course assign the mix of heads and tails as moving lines, so it could be just for example, that 3 Heads would be a solid line, 2 Heads and a Tail would be a moving broken line, 2Tails and a Head could be a moving unbroken line and of course leaving 3 tails as a broken line.

Or any combination at all, It doesnt amtter one bit as there is nothing of significance in the coins realtionship with any number. The fact taht one could effectivel swap the meanings of the coins so that 3 the same meant an unmoving line and a mix meant a moving one reveals that the result would have to be the same. Or the method would be wrong.

All you have to do is assign a value of choice, 2 or 3 seems a good choice, assign a choice of the 4 possible lines to any one of the 4 possible numerical totals, which you could do completely randomly by writing the choices down in pieces of paper and drawing them from a cup. It doesnt amtter what the assignations are, just as long as you remember what they are.

Interestingly that is one alternative method of divination that works rather well. Put the options in a hat and draw one out. I coudnt decide what colour to paint the kitchen, narrowed it down to two rather different colours, someone wrote the choices on peices of paper and I chose one, It looks fantastic, which is not ot say tha the other wouldnt have looked OK, but this one really suits and makes the room so much lighter.

I was going to write a small computer program to generate the lines as I really like the idea of being able to focus on the question with intent without being distracted by anything, personally I find that works much better, and all I would have to do was press a button 6 times. I am gald I didnt and all thanks to David for starting the thread, or I might have merrily been writing a program based on the wrong odds.
But it is all cear now so I may give that ago. Been meaning to test my rusty programming skills or perhaps I will learn anthoer programming language, it isnt as though I havent got a million other things to do.

All the best
Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,051
Reaction score
81
My last two posts sounded distinctly snarky. I've edited them, and I apologise.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
52
Wow, as the one whom started this thread, I am a bit amazed at both the number of responses and the discussions it has generated.

With all this, I can say one thing with 100% certainty: that people will discuss and argue just about anything until the cows come home.

But wait .... this statement itself leads to all sorts of other questions, uncertainties, and probabilities.

First consider, in order to know how many cows did, in fact, come home, wouldn't we first have to know how many cows were in the barn in the first place, and how many left, and of those, how many returned?

And how statistically accurate or how certain are we really of these - let's call them our - 'come home cows'? Did our sampling include just one barn, or two, or a hundered or a thousand?

And even then, to be correct in our knowledge about our 'come home cows', wouldn't we also have to look at the outliers: how many or how few cows came home? and not just look at the average, or mean, or median number of cows whom returned?

I suppose too, that I have to consider how my own gender bias could affect the outcome. After all, all of my 'come home cows' have names like Bessie, and Daisy, Clo, Dahlia, and Fossie. But are we then leaving out the Sampson?, and what about Mac, Angus, and Tank .... and also the more gender-neutral cows like Skyler, Royal, Denver, and Robin?

All of this could certainly affect our cows-coming-home probabilities.

Besides this, I think we have to also consider geography: my cows come from places like Carnation, Washington (home of 'mik from contented cows' cows) and Petaluma, California - which shows my liberal, West Coast bias I expect. But would our probabilities change if our cows came from Wisconsin, or Idaho, or England, or Germany, or - considering the homeland of the Yi - from China, where they have names like Yi, Dao, Yang, Li, Kun, Zhen, Xun, Dui and so forth?

And also consider, am I including yet another bias by including only cows, as in domestic cattle of the species Bos tauras? To be statistically accurate, wouldn't I also have to consider others in the Bovine family: the Water buffalo, Asian buffalo, River buffalo, American bison, both the mountain and lowland Anoa, the Yak, and the Soala?

(I considered including this last species, the Saola - also known as the Asian unicorn - but had to reject it for further study, since no one knows how many there are of them or where they call 'home' except that they live in the forests of Vietnam and Laos.)

And I could also legitimately ask: why only bovines? Why not other species? even mythical ones? For example, wouldn't it be important to know how many centaurs returned home, or how many unicorns? -- and certainly how many dragon, right? Or I could ask - if I wanted to include both Heavenly and Earthly homes - what about space aliens, or angels, or devas? But for the sake of my own sanity I'm going to leave all these for another study.

And what about other social-economic factors? Are we talking urban cows (whom live in barns), or rural cows (whom live in pastures and fields)? Certainly one's sense of place - of where we call home - would affect how often we'd both leave and come back to our home.

And what about still other factors: are the cows happy and well-cared for - which would tend to favor them returning home; or are they being neglected and abused - which might lead them to not want to return home at all?

And I think we also have to consider both why the cows leave home in the first place and why they return: are the simply following the herd (sometimes referred to as the 'sheep in cows' clothing' syndrome); or are they free-thinking cows, whom make their own choices about when they leave and when they come back home? Do they feel threatened or compelled by outside influences? Do they do this from a sense of adventure or more a sense of survival?

And finally, what about the Dao, or path of each cow? What paths do they follow when they leave and return home? Do they walk in the middle of the path, avoiding the edges? Do they forge their own way, or follow established, well-worn paths? Do they go over mountains or cross great rivers and streams? Do they follow detours, or when faced with an obstacle, simply 'return home'?

So I think in the end we are really only left with one certainty, one 100% probablilty: that the 'why' of why cows come home, and in what numbers, is still an udder mystery to us.

And perhaps this is a 'certainty' that we can apply to the Yi as well.

Best, D (and I wonder why I don't ever get any housework done!).
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
:rofl:


Ahem.

a) You left out the best place where the best cows come from, that is, where I grew up, which shall remain an
udder mystery
:D

b) Cats. Cats are more than happy to come running home when milk is on the menu. (This was before we knew milk isn't good for them. :weep:) However, cats would otherwise decline to participate in this study.

c) Would I be adventurous enough to drink Asian unicorn milk? I will give that some thought, in case some is served at our next Change Circle gathering.


[video=youtube;lXKDu6cdXLI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXKDu6cdXLI[/video]
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,051
Reaction score
81
(Secret video from the last Change Circle gathering?)
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
5,455
Reaction score
55
Yes! Look how attentive we all were! :D
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,714
Reaction score
82
And finally, what about the Dao, or path of each cow? What paths do they follow when they leave and return home? Do they walk in the middle of the path, avoiding the edges? Do they forge their own way, or follow established, well-worn paths? Do they go over mountains or cross great rivers and streams? Do they follow detours, or when faced with an obstacle, simply 'return home'?
Your discourse raises some interesting points concerning the differences between 'coming' and 'going' as we can note in the lines of hexagram 39.

These cows are said to be 'coming' home, the phrase is 'till the cows come home'. One rarely, if ever, hears 'till the cows go home'. If we say we are coming home we are speaking to someone who is already there at the destination as in 'Darling I will come home at 7pm'. Who one wonders is the darling/colleague/friend of these cows to whom they return, to whom they 'come' back to ? Or is this coming back meant in the greater ontological sense of coming back to origin ?

These are things to ponder indeed.

Some, who take the phrase at face value, might say the cows are coming back to a home which is the premises/barn/stable of the farmer. But if cows live in servitude, slavery even, to said farmer would they themselves perceive these premises as a 'home' to which they 'come' back to ?
 
Last edited:

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
52
:rofl: Ahem .... a) You left out the best place where the best cows come from, that is, where I grew up, which shall remain an :D
Well, dying to know of course, but I understand if you don't want to say ....

b)....Cats are more than happy to come running home when milk is on the menu. However, cats would otherwise decline to participate in this study.
Yes, I left them out intentionally. Cow may come home, but cats definitely can't be herded, and would lead to all kinds of wild, crazy-ass probabilities - which the would totally ignore anyway.

c) Would I be adventurous enough to drink Asian unicorn milk? I will give that some thought, in case some is served at our next Change Circle gathering.
The Asian unicorns (and I understand they are a real, but rare, animal) might be so rare that their milk will be hard to come by. I'd say, let's wait and see where the gathering is held and then 'act locally' and drink whatever local beverage is available.

D.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
52
... These cows are said to be 'coming' home, the phrase is 'till the cows come home'. One rarely, if ever, hears 'till the cows go home' .... Or is this coming back meant in the greater ontological sense of coming back to origin?
I've never thought of it that way, and I've never heard of said cows 'going home.' It seems like it might imply the human perspective - we are here at home, and the cows are coming back to us, or somthing like that.

It seems, however, that if the phrase were different it would still carry the same meaning: 'we can sit around and argue about this till the cows go home, and it will get us nowhere, or we can ...'

Some ... might say the cows are coming back to a home which is the premises /barn / stable of the farmer. But if cows live in servitude, slavery even, to said farmer would they themselves perceive these premises as a 'home' to which they 'come' back to ?
I don't know if whomever first thought up the phrase really consider this, but if we were to:

Humans have domesticated cattle for about 10,500 years, about as long as we've cultivated grains, but not quite as long as we've been living with dogs (15,000 years ago). We definately make use of cows - for milking and for meat - but to think of it as slavery or servitude seems to be putting a completely human-centric spin on it: I'm not sure if cattle see it in those terms, possibly because they've never known or seen anything else (e.g. 'look at those deer and elk running free on the hillside; perhaps one day we wll too').

I am not inclined to defend or attack the practice of bovine servitude (but I do eat milk and cheese, so I am reaping the benefits of said servitude), but if I were, I could make the case (unfortuanately used by some for human slavery as well) for how much better off cattle are by being with us: they are fed, they don't have to worry as much about preditors or parasites, they can take shelter in the heat of summer or the cold of winter, can give birth in more ideal conditions, have built-in companionship, will be cared for when they become ill, etc.

... but trying telling to the many, many many, baby male cows who have no place in dairy production, and hence, ... this is where veal comes from (and this pretty much shoots down the idea of being a lacto-vegetarian because you don't want to be part of animals being killed.)

But I suppose that we could talk about this until the cows either
a) go home, or
b) come home, or
c) do neither, or
d) all of the above.

... but I'm not going to calculate the probabilities of any of these options.

Best, D.

PS - as to where the phrase came from, I consulted the experts (aka. looked it up on the interweb), and found this:

Etymology

Possibly from the fact that cattle let out to pasture may be only expected to return for milking the next morning; thus, for example, a party that goes on “until the cows come home” is a very long one.

Alternatively, the phrase may have a Scottish origin, and may derive from the fact that cattle in the Highlands are put out to graze on the common where grass is plentiful. They stay out for months before scarcity of food causes them to find their way home in the autumn for feeding.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching_divination

Most of those methods give a skewed starting point that dont leave the entirety of the Yi available.
So no value in a ny of those methods unless anyone thinks that such a skewed method that effectively hides a large part of the Yi on each separate reading is a beneficial thing. Of course if such a huge and major influence and skewing was recommended it would no doubt make reference to it in the Yi. Anyone any ideas where that might be, I certainly cant find it and nor can I find any references to limiting the scope of the Yi i nsuch a dramatic manner.

The computer program does show why the probablities come out completely wrong and give a 1 in 6 probablity rather than a 1 in 64. There would have to be a very good reason from the Yi itself to suggests skewing the figures by more than 10 fold and limiting the range of readings that should be available to us if we begin from a balanced starting point where the odds are as they should be and giving the entire scope of the Yi and not just a part fo it for ach reading.

Of course one could say it is the "cosmos" talking to us and at the end of the day no one could argu with that, but then what would be the point of any study or research in to the Yi as "everything " could just be down to the "Cosmos".

Liselle said "because Yi has told me things I couldn't possibly know on my own."

It has to be remebered here that "know" is limited often to what we "consciously" know, but what we subconsciously know is far greater than we are usually aware of.

And, one important question raised with questions of probablities is that if the probablities are so far off then the very real "probablity" exists that if we are only getting a portion of the possibilitiesavailable to us and are still "making sense " of our readings that it may be possible ot "interpret" any, or most readings in such a way that enable so sort of interpretation that makes sense to us.
I did detail that those that I knew many years ago ran such an experiment and it turned out that most readings are capable of being interpreted as fitting most questions. So unless there is clarity in the first instance to guide and measure our reading by underlying principles, then how we "interpet" readings is not something that might be considered to be even that accurate and if we are using methodology that severely limits what the Yi can share with us then the question of interpretation becomes a major question of concern.

The question of "if" there are "cosmic" forces at work or if we are only tapping into our own subconsciousness, or if the subconscious can tap in to larger realms such as the cosmos is the very question of if there are underlying principles or not and how they work and what the Yi really is.
Without actually knowing that how can we know if it is reasonable or not to have skewed probabilities in our castings.
It would seem obvious that unless there is clear evidence that such skewing is recommended by the Yi that using any "mothod" that does not equte to a level playing field is going to rely on the existence of cosmic forces to make the readings work and if there are cosmic, underlying forces, principles at play then that will dictate how we use the Yi and determine what we make of any research and academic view points and how we should approach the Yi.

Not sure what "cows" have to do with such an important question as "probablity".

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,714
Reaction score
82
We definately make use of cows - for milking and for meat - but to think of it as slavery or servitude seems to be putting a completely human-centric spin on it: I'm not sure if cattle see it in those terms, possibly because they've never known or seen anything else (e.g. 'look at those deer and elk running free on the hillside; perhaps one day we wll too').
I fear the idea that cattle don't mind being in servitude has served us as a species all too well. I agree it seems likely as you say there are cattle who aspire to no more than their forbears had hence the often docile demeanour many of them affect. For these I imagine widely available consciousness raising groups would need to start up. Covertly at first, of necessity in fields, under trees and so on.


Not sure what "cows" have to do with such an important question as "probablity".

Dave
I'd say cows were as important, if not more important than probability. A lot more use in any case.

Cows are in Yi but probability isn't.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
52
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching_divination .... Most of those methods give a skewed starting point that dont leave the entirety of the Yi available .... Of course if such a huge and major influence and skewing was recommended it would no doubt make reference to it in the Yi.
Hello Dave. Actually, the Yi gives no instructions, and says nothing at all about how it's to be used .... nothing, just as it says nothing about the Dao, and next to nothing about yin/yang.

I think your two-deck card method you shared is a grand idea, but if people want to make use of other methods - which may be flawed or skewed - I suppose that's their right to do so, especially since people have been using these skewed methods for a few thousand years. Don't you agree?

And since there are no instructions included, I can very easily imagine, and it makes complete sense to me that the original or very early users of the Yi may have been using skewed methods as well. And for us to speculate about what they thought were the proper ways of divination would be mere speculation on are part - we have no proof or evidence either way.

Best, D.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina

"Cows are in Yi but probability isn't"

Where on earth do you get the notion that probablity is not relevant. Yes it may not be in the Yi but it is in the methods that we use to access the Yi and if the methods are so skewed that they are limiting, so that only a part of the Yi is available for each reading, then there isnt even access to the Yi but only part of it. So it isnt the Yi atall. If it not the Yi and the whole Yi then the "methods" that are used, which are probability, are completely relevant.
What is meant by "probability" is that there is proper access to the Yi by whatever method is used. Most methods dont give that full access and so anyone that is using methods that do not meet the correct "probablity" is not even really using the Yi but only a part of it.
Some of that would be deliberate in sense of the history of China, as the person using the Yi to get a reading for the "ruler" would need to be able to "manipulate" a reading so as to not get their head cut off. But as there is no such risk in todays world, the use of methids that give anything other than the "full" access to the Yi are no longer required and only distort the reading we get. And as it is known that the human brain is perfectly capable of creating an illusion from anything and the experiments that were condicted many years ago showed that it was possible, more often than not to "fit" and answer to a question. The more "outward" focussed the question the more this was possible, the more "inward" focussed the question the more dandom questions could be made to fit random answers.
So nback to the purpose of the Yi, understanding, fundamental,underlying principles, etc.

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
52
... but it is in the methods that we use to access the Yi and if the methods are so skewed that they are limiting, so that only a part of the Yi is available for each reading, then there isnt even access to the Yi but only part of it.
If by 'limited' you mean that some of the methods give a greater probability of getting an unchanging hexagram, than yes, you could say they have that quality.

But if 'limited' means that with these 'skewed' methods, 'only a part of the Yi is available', than no, that's not true at all. None of the methods I know disallow any combination of hexagrams and moving lines, none. It only changes the probablities, and as I said earlier, if people want to use these methods that's their choice, just as it's your choice to question them and not use them.

And if people don't feel these probablities are all that important to them, then they have the right to believe that too.

Best, David.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top