PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Excellent example!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.
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: )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".
...and Yi works where you are, too.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.
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.(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
Precisely. Probabilistically speaking, nothing remarkable happened in Moss Elk's example at all. The interesting part starts where the maths ends.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.
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.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
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.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.
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%.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.
We do throw them at the same time. We throw 3 coins at once, and that results in one line of a hexagram.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.
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.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.
Your discourse raises some interesting points concerning the differences between 'coming' and 'going' as we can note in the lines of hexagram 39.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'?
Well, dying to know of course, but I understand if you don't want to say ....Ahem .... a) You left out the best place where the best cows come from, that is, where I grew up, which shall remain an
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.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.
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.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.
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.... 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 don't know if whomever first thought up the phrase really consider this, but if we were to: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 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.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'd say cows were as important, if not more important than probability. A lot more use in any case.Not sure what "cows" have to do with such an important question as "probablity".
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.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.
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 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.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).