...life can be translucent

Menu

Probabilities for getting unchanging vs. changing hexagrams

Status
Not open for further replies.

jukkodave

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

"nothing about the Dao, and next to nothing about yin/yang"

But it does. Just because ot doesnt use those specific words, what else is it saying. If the Dao is correct then everything the Yi says is the Dao. What else are solid and broken lines, all the references to "opposites". The specific words of Yin and Yang may not have been used, it iddnt becime a school using those specific terms until later, but that diesnt mean that the underlying principles of the Yi are not Yin and Yang and all that encompases.

Actually we do have "instructions", We have 64 Hexagrams, the inclusion of moving lines, so that one Hexagram has the potential to move to another and unless there was a specific instruction so as to make the possibility of moving lines just as likely as non moving lines then the lack of instruction of something that is so basic, and might remove access to all of the Yi for each reading, and might reveal that we have been "interpreting" the Yi with little fondation at all, is vitally important.
There is nothing in the structure of the Yi,nor in any ancient text, that I am aware of that says that non moving lines are more relevant or important than moving lines.
In fact one consideraton is that the "lines" only have relevance to the moving lines, though some seem to read all the lines in a Hexagram, and as there is apparently evidence to suggest that the lines may have exosted before the Hexagrams, the moving line may be equally important as the non moving one. So out "methods" should reflect that equality and any method that dies not allow equality is not giving us fair access to the Yi.

All the best

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
Hi Trojina

"Cows are in Yi but probability isn't"

Where on earth do you get the notion that probablity is not relevant.
If you read my post I have not actually said probability is not relevant.

I'm sure it is relevant to those who's business it is to know probability but I myself don't really give a ££%%%%% about it. It can be interesting sometimes to think of it but so is space travel. In other words it doesn't concern me hugely but I don't deny some will find it fascinating. Maths is not my forte.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Freedda
What I mean by "limited" is any method that removes access to all of the Yi for that reading.

Think about it. If you have a method that has a 1 in 6 probablity, rather than the correct 1 in 64, of getting a Hexagram with no moving lines then that method has removed a lot of the Hexagrams available. It means that it is more likely to get a particular line.

The reasons for that is that probablity and chance are not the same thing. "Probability" is built onn the principles of 2 choices. Any more than that and the "rules" of probality fall apart. So if one has a choice of two identical balls, one black and one white, then very quickly the probablities converge, and one gets the equality of black and white draws, the likelyhoood of "runs" of consecutive black and white, of alternating runs and all the other expected patterns, and the more common ones appear to converge relatively quickly. Take an extreme and insread if 1 black and 1 white have 5000 bacl and 5000 white. Even though there are an equal number of black and white balls, and so the overall odds are 50/50, the reality is completely different and the "convergences" that occur with only 2 options faile to manifest and it is difficult, if you dont know how many balls are in the container to work out the ratio's form the drawing of individual balls. The convergence of the probablities of 2 dissappear rather quickly when one moves away from the original 50/50. Even if the odds are the same the "chances" what actually happens is very different if one changes the starting parameters even slightly.

A"method" that results in a 1in 8 chance of a moving broken line, rather than the 1 in 4 it should be, has thrown an excessive randomness in to the hat and the chances of getting boken and unboken lines is not equal for such a short selction of 6 lines, even if the "odds" are overall equal, the chances are not.

So a method that produces a 1 in 6 chance of getting a Hexagram with no broken lines removes most of the available second Hexagrams that should be available and alter the availability of many of the orignal Hexagrams for the reasons given above, so a significant removal of the full Yi that should be available to us.
But of course if anyone chooses to "believe" they are getting a full reading then they are entitled to do that. But that evidence would stronlgy suggest that such a belief has no foundaton and certainly has no correlation with any underlying principles. But then if there are no underlying principles then most of what is believed about the Yi also has no foundation and all that is left is a belief. Fine, no problem with that apart from that if there isno faundation but a belief then on what authority would anyone ever be ocmmenting in anything to do with the Yi.

That isnt directed at anyone in particular. It is in one sense a rhetorical question. But it does reveal that unless a person declares where, how and wht the Yi is for them that there is no way to evaluate if anything that they say has any validity.
So if for example someone posts a question about a reading, without the declaration of what they think or know the Yi is, what , where and how it owrks and how they use it, including the methods they use for readings as that impacts hugely on whether the interpreations they have are going to be on the same wavelength, there wouldbe no way of knowinf what they were saying was relevant ot the person putting the question or not.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina
Seems like crossed wires.
I thought you were saying probablity is not relevant to the Yi, which it obviously is.

And it isnt really maths, it is about ensuring that the "full" Yi is avaialble to use when we cast a reading and not just a small part of it. All the maths does is reveal if the method is giving the full access to all of the Yi for every single reading.

If the "probablities" are not correct, then there isnt full access, and that obviously is extremely relevant.

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
"nothing about the Dao, and next to nothing about yin/yang"
I apologize for bring up this dao and yin/yang, as it seems they are distractions to the point I was trying to make. I would like to set them aside for the time being - with the understanding that you and I may understand them and view them differently.

Actually we do have "instructions", We have 64 Hexagrams, the inclusion of moving lines, so that one Hexagram has the potential to move to another.
When I talk about 'instructions' I mean that the Yi does not provide any instructions for how to generate the hexagrams - such as telling us that we should use coins, or yarrow stalks, or two sets of cards, etc. It is silent on this point.

As far as I know, it is even silent on the idea of creating a new, or 'related' or 'resulting' hexagram based on the moving lines. That is how many of us now use the Yi, but there are no 'instructions' or guidance, or any text or words that would tell us how to do tihs, or even if we should do this - all of this are later additions.

There is nothing in the structure of the Yi, nor in any ancient text, that I am aware of that says that non moving lines are more relevant or important than moving lines.
I never said they were, and as far as I know neither has anyone else.

And about the 'limits' of the different methods, as I said, some methods will favor getting unmoving hexagrams more than your method, but that does not exclude any hexagram or combination of moving lines, it only changes the probabiltites of getting them. That might be called a 'limit' but it is not an 'exclusiion' as far as I can tell.

And again - and I may have said this before - if you believe that some methods are 'skewed' or 'limiting' there is no reason at all that you have to use them. And if others are fine with these limits or skewed results, that is of course their right to do so, as it is their right to consider what you are saying and change their methods.

And circiling back around to the first point, the Yi doesn't prescribe any certain method - or any method at all - for how we generate hexagrams and moving lines, and it certainly doesn't say any are better or worse - it is silent on this point.

Best, D.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

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

"I mean that the Yi does not provide any instructions for how to generate the hexagrams - such as telling us that we should use coins, or yarrow stalks, or two sets of cards, etc. It is silent on this point."

But that is exactly why, if there are no specific instructons, that care should be taken not to use any method that would change the full availability of the Yi. The Yi presents us with 64 Hexagrams, the possibility of moving lines, the possibility of a further Hexagram. If anything in our methodology changes that then the lack of specific instruction that permits the alteration of the availability of the entire Yi is extremely significant.
Otherwise anything that was not specifically instructed in the Yi would be possible and all discussions and arguments would end immediately, there would be no tuition, no Forum or anything connected with the Yi at all as anyone could just say it doesnt say otherwise so I can do it and it must be reasonable and possible.
The silence is just as revealing and as relevant as what is actaully said, assuming that we actually know what that is, as no one can even agree on a definitive translation of anything or what it means, Even if there was agreement the "interpretations" of what the words are is still another hurdle to overcome. Just the difference in the interpreations of Hex 52, discussed elsewhere demonstrate that what constitutes specific "instruction" is debatable.

64 Hexagrams, full access to all of them, at the very least.

"There is nothing in the structure of the Yi, nor in any ancient text, that I am aware of that says that non moving lines are more relevant or important than moving lines."

But isnt that relevant, if there is nothing that says momving lines and non moving lines should be differentiated then nor should any "methods" that we use to generate the lines. Any method that results in certain lines being more likely is making those lines more relevant and important.

It is obviously not "silent " on a resulting Hexagram. That is what a moving line is. Unless it only references the lines in the orginal Hexagram and the notions of a resultant Hexagrams are the contrivances of the human mind and have no relevance. But I think that those that have used the Yi as a tool of the inner world, as a representation of the underlying principles, would be confident that the resultant Hexagram is relevant. Though if it is taken in a literal external way that may be harder to see the connections with the original Hexagram.
But this brings us back to the purpose, meaning of the Yi, the how, why and what. If there is no conflict with underlying principles in having a secong resultant Hexagram then why not. If it gives insight and illumination into ones self then why not. Only if it was just a tool of divination and it was important that the "tool" was used as was intended so as to gie accurate result about outward events would the consideration of a resultant Hexagram be of concern.

"And if others are fine with these limits or skewed results, that is of course their right to do so,"

Of course it is their right, but it is their right for them alone and precludes them having any opinions on anyone elses interpretations of anything to do with the Yi as they would be declaring that they only use a part of the Yi. Unless of course no one is at all concerned about any level of accuracy being connected with the Yi and is only here to give unvalidatable personal opinions.
]The disclosure if how, why and what we use the Yi, including the methodolgy so that everyone knows if they are playing with a full pack of cards, so to speak, is vitally important for anyone and everyone to know if anything that anyone says has any relevance or any authority.

"And about the 'limits' of the different methods"

It has a huge impact on everything to so with the Yi. In the first place any "skewed" methodolgy wil eliminate the majority of the second Hexagrams, that is easy to see. The impact it has on the first Hexagram is more difficult to see, it invlolves and understanding of how and what probability is, but basically it means that you will be getting a completely different Hexagram, from the same input, than you would if the method was corresponding to the full access to all of the Yi.

That is the point that any skewed methodolgy is "excluding" a large part of the Yi.

The consequence of that, if we think we are still getting accurate and relevant readings, is that either there is some Cosmic force at work (underlying principles etc), and it wouldnt matter if it was the Yi or something else, or the inaninmate object that is the Yi has a consciousness of its own, or that the experiments that were done years ago, which showed it was possible to "interpret" most random readings as applicale to most random questions, are revealing that the "interpretations that we think we are getting are more in our imagination than not and then there is no value in the Yi at all.

The differentiation of why, how and what we use and understand the Yi seems to be the only way to set aside these rather disturbing but logical possibilities.

The skewedness of methodologies tha are being used may reveal that we know nothing at all about the Yi.

All the best

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Dave:
... "I mean that the Yi does not provide any instructions for how to generate the hexagrams - such as telling us that we should use coins, or yarrow stalks, or two sets of cards, etc. It is silent on this point."

But that is exactly why, if there are no specific instructons, that care should be taken not to use any method that would change the full availability of the Yi.
Again, I do not see that any of the methods we have discussed in any way preclude or exclude any of the lines or hexagrams. They only change the probabilities.

And again, and as you seem to agree with, this is what I believe, and however 'skewed' you might think it is, I find that it works for me, both as an oracle and as a divination tool, for both inner and outer questions and truths.

Otherwise anything that was not specifically instructed in the Yi would be possible and all discussions and arguments would end immediately, there would be no tuition, no Forum or anything connected with the Yi at all ...
Actually, I think the opposite is true: if all the 'rules' were known to all - and cleary interpreted - we'd have much less to discuss here.

Of course it is their right, but it is their right for them alone and precludes them having any opinions on anyone elses interpretations of anything to do with the Yi
Nothing is going to preclude anyone from having opinions - even from you having opinions.

And if you believe in what you are saying here, why are you continuing to argue and belabor your points? You've presented your arguments and opinions, and I think others are fully aware of them. Now it is out of your hands what we think and do with that information: we can take it as the divine word of the Dao, or we can think it's total bullsh_t, or anything inbetween.

For me, I think your two card deck method is interesting, and maybe when I retire next year I'll have time to make decks of my own and try it out - which is to say, I have heard what you are saying and will consider it.

But in the meantime, I'll continue to use the methods I've been using, and even if you think they are skewed somehow, that is only one person's opinion ... yours.

And if you continue to make your case, or discuss it, then everyone else has the right to do so as well. Don't you agree?

D.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

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

"the methods we have discussed in any way preclude or exclude any of the lines or hexagrams. They only change the probabilities."

But that is the issue they do preclude. If, every single time one casts a reading one is using skewed probablities then a certain, and large percentage, as we are talking the diffrence between the likelyhood of 1 in 64 as oppossed to 1 in 6, are excluded. It will of course be different every time as it is "random" but it would seem completely irrational and illogical to use any methodology that one knows is only going to give access to a much smaller part of the book than the whole Yi, which would be available if one used methods that reflected the full range of the Yi.
The whole point of cahnging the "probablities" is that it is the probablities that demonstrate that we have full access, any skewed mothodology only gove access to a part of the Yi for each reading.

Of course someone might argue that is all considered and encompassed by the Yi, if the Yi was some kind of all seeing conscious entity, which obviously it isnt, even if it is a "representation" of underlying principles.
But unless there is smoething clear and obvious that directs us to limit the parts of the Yi that we are going to use for each reading there seems to be no rationality to limiting the range of Hexagrams available to us every time a reading is cast.
And of course if one is limiting the Hexagrams available, then is becomes a question of if our understanding and interpretations of the readings are accurate. I did point out an experiment that showed expereienced users of the Yi, I forgot to say previously that they were experienced found that on sognoficantly more occasions or not it was possible to "fit" random questions with random answers,because it seems the human capacity to read something into nothing. Only when the questions were directed more to internal matters of personal growth, inner fulfillment and the like, the questions of inner principles in one sense, did it become more obvious that the questions were not connected so obviously to the answers. But those that condicted the experiment had a rather different take on the interpretations and had rather more knowledge of other matters so as to be able to comprehend that the opinions put forward in the various translation were often missing the mark completely because they had no comprehension or understanding of the underlying principles that united the Yi and other means of self knowing.
The consequence of that is rather significant. If we are not getting the readings that would and should be available to us if we were using methods that were not skewed, of which it seems there may be very few, and those readings are still making sense to us, then the possibility, if we are being honest withourselves and want to use the Yi for more than a simple book of divination, that we are fooling ourselves has to be considered a very real possibility.
Fine if people want to believe in whatever they want to believe in, but the reality is that such a position has no logical, rational or coherency to it, and obviously if the methods are limiting the range of what the Yi can inform us then we are using the Yi for something rather differnt than a book that reflects and contains underlying principles. Of course if someone doesnt think that there are any underlying principles and wants to use the Yi for some other purpose then fine but that really does mean that all the criteria of anything meaning anything at all go completely out of the window as the mothods and the results and everything that is done would be completely contrived and have no basis , or framework, or measures, apart from the bits that would be cherry picked froma rather large reserve of materials, that would enable just about anything to be justified, including that a person believes it, even if there was no substance and the evidence is saying that the process of limitation, the method, is restricting to only a part of what is available.

Might as well cut the book onto bits and only use the fromt half or the back half if one is using skewed methods.

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Fine if people want to believe in whatever they want to believe in, but the reality is that such a position has no logical, rational or coherency to it ...
And my reality is that the Yi may not be based on what is logical, rational, or always coherent. We can argue this until the cows come home (meaning, for a very long time), but that in no way makes my belief system wrong nor yours correct - only that you think yours is more logical than mine, which it might be. You believe in some underlying rational or logical basis for the Yi, I do not, and I'm content with exploring the Yi and my world in this way, however flawed or skewed you might think that is.
 

jukkodave

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

"And my reality is that the Yi may not be based on what is logical, rational, or always coherent. We can argue this until the cows come home (meaning, for a very long time), but that in no way makes my belief system wrong nor yours correct"

Thank you for your honesty. Regardless of any words that is the feeling that came across.

If I could make a couple of points without wishing to appear critical.

The first is that of the question of reality. From my perspective, from what I understand about Neuropsycholgy, from my own personal experiences, from the guidance and teachings, throughout the centuries of those much wiser than I, with some of those teachings beginning to be understood and acknoweldged by modern researchers, that the problem with "reality" is that it is a castle made of sand, different and separate for all of us and only when there is the knowing, the knowledge and the understanding of underlying constants does reality become more consistent, rational and coherent.

I think the point I have been trying to get across with all my posts to everyone is that of how a belief system changes everything. It doesnt of course change what it means to the individual person but it does change how and what we are able to say about the Yi.
The point being is that if it is a belief, whether that is a system or not, then that anything is possible, because that is the nature of beliefs. They dont have to be based on anything, anything can become a reality, anything can makes sense to us. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it is entirely personal. In terms of any rationality, coherence and logic in regard of what I have referred to as underlying principles, the same things as those who have written about the search and growth of the inner world over the centuries, from the Dao, Buddhism, Christ and many, many more, and those of the modern world that understand about the role and functions of the brain and how so much of what we yearn for is the nature that we have lost from our childhoods.
A belief system has no correlation with the reality of that inner world, the reality of how our brains really work, both as adults and from the lost awareness of how our brains were consciously working as children. Of course a belief structure is something that anyone can choose, there can be no discrimination of that.
The problem that I have is that being a belief it has no reality beyond that for the individual, though attempts are often made through the avenues of scholastic and academic endeavours to bring a sort of credibility to a "shared" belief system. I have pointed out some of those attempts inthe scholastic view of the Yi that attempt to make a belief system into something more substantial and "real" but have to ignore the other possibilitites that would throw those beliefs into disarray. Such things as the likelyhood there were many different versions of divination, in a country that was full of conflict and there would have been little sharing and despite the efforts of the Han, in relatively more recent times,they did so much of what they acheived by the suppresion and alteration of existing knowledge and information, and the distinct possibility that Trigrams were nothing other than an aide de memoire. And of course if there are no such things as any underlying principles to the Yi and it is a method no different in essence from any other that is in existence, such as the Tarot, and it is known to be possible to actually create a method of divination, with absolutely no considerations of underlying principles at all, all of which work just as well as the Yi, which reveals that a large part of what occurs when the Yi is consulted has nothing to do with the Yi as something of any specialness or difference, but is possibly nothing other than a means of accessing our subconscious, then a lot of what has become attached to the Yi as something "special" has no foundation or validation at all, and a lot of what is ascribed of importance and relevance to the Yi would only have relevance if it could be demonstrated that the Yi was something other than just a method of divination no different in essence to any other type of divination. In other words, the validation of the Yi, the interpretaions we attach to it, the need for any accuracy or understanding in our interpretatioins and the need and ability to even discuss it only mean anything if the Yi is something other than just a belief system, whether that is how we think and use it ot the way that it was used thousands of years ago, and only if there are identifiable underlying priinciples that elevate the Yi to something other than just another form of divination, which many be just a way of accessing our subconscious, does any of what is discussed in any Forum, anything that is written and any translations make any sense.
The problems with translations are numerous. To start with ancient Chinese is not a language as we think of it, ancient chinese characters represent concepts. not something thatis easy to translate in the forst place with anything that could be considered as accurate. Then there are the inherent problems that face any translator when a word does not exist as a reciprocal equivalent in another language. The fact that we have so many various translatons of ancient texts such a s the Yi demonstrates this. Then there is the problem that if the translator does not have knowledge or understanding of the "concepts", that may well be underlying principles, then their ability to translate in any sort of accurate and meaningful manner virtually disappears. And what we end up with are variations on a theme where no one seems to understand the essence of the Yi and what its underlying message is, assuming it has one at all and is not just a collection of someone's beliefs from thousands of years ago that could have been similar or entirely different from what was being used by everyone else, and had nothing special about it at all, other than being very old, and as it is entirely possible to construct a method that works as a means of divination that has absolutely no foundations or principles and they all work, though the more vague they are the better, for obvious reasons.
And then there are the questions of probablity. In the context of what I have highlighted above the differentiation of whether the Yi has underlying principles or if it is just a collection of scripts that could be completely different and arent based on anything special and they would still work, is of vital importance.
If it is the former then the methodology that ensures that there is full access to the entirety of the Yi and there are no "manipulations" is of vital importance, though that does rather clarify why it is often referred to as manipulating the stalks, if it is the latter then it doesnt matter at all because whatever reading we get we are going to make sense of it, just because that is what we believe will happen.

But the question has to be then should we be believing in anything that has no faoundation. If it is not a book of inner guidance based in underlying principles then the possibility of what we can ask it and the response we get are so huge that all we are doing is abnegating self responsibility. Of course if one wants to go through life like that then who could argue against such a position but it would have no validity for anyone else and there would be nothing to share with anyone else.
Only if there are underlying rpinciples, only if there is a consistency to the Yi, only if there is rationality, coherence and logic, only if there is knowing, knowledge and understanding of any underlying principles would any opinions or views carry any substance or weight as to what the Yi is, or what it can do, or why it does what it does, or what any interpretations mean, or what scholars suggest, or if the matter of probabilities makes any difference.

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
One thing that has been ignored is that if we are using a Computer, especially if it is a web based lightweight program, and assuming that the programmer actually has any understanding of the subject matter and is a competent programmer, which cant be assumed given the standard of most programs and the number of "bugs" that turn up even in simple programs, that, a "random " number from a Computer is not random at all, it only appears that way to humans because it is a large sequence, known as psuedo random.
But being part of a sequence it is in that sense pre-determines what the "answer" is going to be, reagrdless of the question. Because of the way that pseudo random number generation works, every casting would just be a part, along a part of the sequence.

So unless someone was to claim that we, joined the sequence, just at the part that was appropriate to us, and the same for everyone else, joining the sequence at just the "correct" part, then the use of any "program" would be an indication that we are just making it all up and so can read anything in to what ever Hexagrams we get, regardless of the question. Which is what was discovered many years ago anyway, so no surprises there and only confirms what Neuropsychology recognise as a distinct possibility as it is most of what humans do all the time without being in the slightes bit aware of it.
As the Yi would suggest being aware of what we are not normally aware of, it would be a major error if one couldnt even be sure that one was not just "finding" answers in some sort of unconscious way. Which would be rather contradictory ti the spiit of the Yi to reveal the unconscious which we dont know.

All of which would of course imply that if we are just joining the pseudo random sequence at a pre determined point, there is no free choice at all, and everything we did was pre destined. In which case we would have no free will and there would be no point in even consulting the Yi about anything.

So, anyone using a computer based "program" would have to be sure that it wasnt pseudo random in any way at all or the "readings" would just be part of a long sequence.

I dont know which might be considered worse, the suggestion that we somehow joined the pseudo random data stream. along with how many other hundreds or thousands that might have used a web based "reading" ir the possibility that we are using a program, just for ourselves and the pseudo random is applicable just to use and we are on a pre determined sequence and completely unaware of that.

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
I think what you're suffering from Dave is a profound lack of faith. A lack of faith there is 'anyone' there when you talk to Yi. That is a lack of faith regardless of how you conceptualize the source of the answers, whether it's coming from your own higher intelligence or it's so random it presses your thoughts into ways they wouldn't usually go assisting lateral or creative thinking or indeed whether there is an actual intelligence there, the spirit of the book. Whatever the source you 'believe' in you are still talking to a book. Once you find yourself talking to a book you might as well throw away any pretence you are doing something rational or logical.

There are bigger things, wider views than the human limits of rationality or logic. Our brains, our minds are teeny tiny drops in the ocean of far vaster intelligences. I mean logic is very useful to the human animal it's got her where she is today but it's not at the outer reaches of out potential which is far wider. All we are is evolving apes, we can't flatter ourselves that we are at the highest point of awareness or understanding and we certainly can't fool ourselves that rationality is the only measure of the worth of any idea, endeavour, feeling, beauty......

There's several kinds of knowing. There's knowing with logic and there's knowing with feeling and there's knowing with instinct and more knowings besides.


What if you didn't have to worry about any of that probability stuff and you could just cast 3 coins and know you've got the answer you were meant to get ? That's what most people here do. Or they use computer generated casts, or beads or stalks. We know the probability of change lines changes with certain methods. For example I heard somewhere changing yin line, old yin, is far more likely with stalks. I may have that wrong but anyway we just choose the method that suits us and lo and behold we get answers that help us immeasurably.

Are you after proof that they help us immeasurably ? Well it's not available. Proof of intelligent conversations with Oracles is just not available. All there is is anecdotal evidence that some mistakenly imagine is proof. It's proof of nothing at all. It is not verifiable by scientific standards. Saying 'I always get 24 when ...' is not proof of anything but who gives a damn when it works for us and is so bloody helpful ?

I mean if someone helps you you don't ask for scientific evidence that they did or indeed that they are human giving help. I can't prove I exist. Nothing proves I exist. If you say you can see me or touch me who is to say that is not a figment of your imagination. Your subjective experience of me is not proof I exist because I was born without proof, we all are.


So you can't prove I exist or that this forum exists. You could be unconsciously manifesting all this, maybe it's a dream.


Actually I don't think your last post was about proof exactly but your concerns re probability and the purity of this thing you consult and how you worry this thing is not robust enough to have contact with you and still give you an answer. But it does answer. So why not just start asking some questions and see if the answers help you or not. That is a perfectly 'scientific' method, they use it in medicine sometimes for example by giving medication on an empirical basis . That is if they think you may have disease X they give you a drug to treat disease X and if the drug works they might conclude, with other observable factors, that it is indeed disease X. Not a watertight approach certainly but pretty useful.


Same thing with Yi. If you go to it with troubles and the answers help you then it's worth keeping it in your life and learning about it. If it doesn't help you then don't use it. That's all anyone really needs to consider isn't it when beginning to use Yi ? I think you said you had 40 years of consulting but I'm not sure, in which case if it hadn't helped you wouldn't still be using it would you ?

Has consulting helped you ?
 

legume

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
20
i found this article quite interesting. it's more about I Ching method's probability in general than the changing vs unchanging, but still somewhat on topic. and [MENTION=1123]Trojina[/MENTION], you almost got it right but it's about yarrow stalks producing more old yang ;) while, in short, the intepretation drawn from it apparently is that this divination method promotes action and creativity?

though regarding both the method and the probability of getting a particular answer, i agree with what most have already said... and that is to me it's kind of irrelevant. if it's a deck of cards, beans, dice, coins, yarrow stalks, computer program or if i just close my eyes and open the book at a hexagram page and taking it from there might as well check another random hexagram and start exploring which lines connect them and how and why (never did that but might try ;)) - the method or the probability simply don't matter to me in getting insight from Yi. as long as i approach it with an open mind i eventually get the answer that i needed to hear or get the message that i was meant to understand.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina
I think I am suffering from an excess or realism.

"I think what you're suffering from Dave is a profound lack of faith."
If I had no faith then I wouldnt be bothering with all the discussions. It is because I have faith that I persevere. But one of course have to have knowledge and understanding, to some degree at least, otherwise faith would be blind belief.
Have you read what I have been saying about a "belief" being just another way of saying one doesnt "know".
Have you read what I have been saying that there are many forms of divination, and that one can even make one up and it works, so I agree, if you consider that the book is the "source" of anything then all rationality and logic flies out the window. But the Yi is rational, coherent and logical because it is based on fundamental underlying principles, though if we choose to beleive rather than know we lose all ration, logical and coherent understanding.

"There are bigger things, wider views than the human limits of rationality or logic. Our brains, our minds are teeny tiny drops in the ocean of far vaster intelligences."

I think you have a different understanding of what I mean by logical and rational. I certainly dont mean the analytical part of the brain that dominates our thinking day in and day out. That is why the inclusion of coherence is important. The analytic part of our brain doesnt deal with coherence very well at all, but when we apply the logic of coherence, the rationality of coherence, we get a different perspective. As children we always had the abaility to be logical, to be rational, even though we had little what we might now consider that term as adults.

Are you sure that our brains are tiny drops. If we are capable of "connecting" with the universe, through such means as the Yi, meditation, samahdi, or any other ways of going beyond our normal "boundaries" then we are certainly more than "tiny drops". But what would you consider those "vaster intelligences " be anyway. Unless of course they are fundamental underlying principles that we can know and understand and then we are indeed far from tiny drops. The "intelligence" of the self is not limited in the way that the intelligence of the outer world is.

"What if you didn't have to worry about any of that probability stuff and you could just cast 3 coins and know you've got the answer you were meant to get ?"

But thats the point, unless you start of with a level playing field where all the Yi is available, then you have no way of knowing if you are getting the answer you were "meant to get".
The fact that a computer program is more likely to use pseudo random numbers, which are just part of a very long pre set sequence reveals that if we "think" we are getting answers particular to us we are very much deluding ourselves. The "answers" are part of a set sequence when pseudo random numbers are used and there would have to be a preset destiny that we asked the "right" questions in the right order to get the answerswe were "meant" to. Experiments have shown that randomly matching quetions to answers reveals that more often than not people are able to find an answer that seems "meant" for them. That is complete delusion. The only way we have any way of knowing if the answers fit the questions is if we have a knowledge and understanding of the fundamental underlying principles, which means a better understanding of what the text of the Yi is actually saying, that just the literal interpretations which can be woven in just about any manner so as to make it seem as though we are getting the answer that was "meant" for us.

"You could be unconsciously manifesting all this, maybe it's a dream."

Very true, but then what would be the point of anything, what would be the point of knowing onesself, or in consulting the Yi, or trying to know and understand the fundamantal underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven, So that doesnt answer anything. It is just a way of not answering.

"and still give you an answer. But it does answer. So why not just start asking some questions and see if the answers help you or not. That is a perfectly 'scientific' method"

Yes it does give an answer, you are always going to get Hexagrams back an answer, no matter what you ask. It doesnt matter what methodology you use if you only want an "answer". The question always is what kind of answer is it and is it the real answer that truly matches the question and not the creation of illusion and self delusion.

No it is not a perfectly scientific method, which requires that any "answers" are arrived at double blind, or we dont know if the answers are accurate or not. The methodology is important and intrinsic to the scientific appraoch. If one was to take the approach you suggest then any scientist would just ask a question, take the answer at face value and in most cases be completely wrong.

"If you go to it with troubles and the answers help you then it's worth keeping it in your life and learning about it"

But then so would any form of divination, even one that you had made up yourself. But that would just be the same as placebo. It would "help" because anything that we" believe in" would help. But that wouldnt be because there was anything special in the Yi and wouldnt be because the Yi was a reflection or signpost to any fundamental underlying principles.

The important question is what would you be "learning" about something that was no different to any other form of divination, there wouldnt be anything to "learn" because it would all be part of our own creation and the only thing we would "learn" would be what we already knew or what we created ourselves.
The only "learning is if there are fundamental underlying principles and then the importance of the methodology that gives us "full" access to the whole of the Yi everytime we use it, which most methods obviously dont, becomes central to what we are using the Yi for. That requires that we know and understand how , why and what the Yi is. Two types of learning, the type that already exists, and the type that is acquired. So learning about underlying principles, the nature of the solar system is one type, because they already exist, the learning about computers, languages, history the other type becaue they are created.

"Has consulting helped you"

Well obviously or I would be posting in the Forum. But I know that the "help " can be a delusion and only if I am focussed on, and know and understand the fundamental underlying principles can I be sure that the helo I get is real and not just a figemnt if a deluded imagination. Which is not to say that the deluded imagination dies not ahve its place and as you so rightly point out if it helps that regardless of if that is belief placebo or real fundamental principles understanding. But that is not reality and reality has a way of letting us know that in the end, our delusions, one way or the other wil lin the end be made clear to us. That may not come till the moments of our deaths, but it will come as the reality that is in us all will in the end be known. Why would we not want to do that consciously in every way possible while we are alive. We are disigned for contentement, we are designed to be fulfilled and if we are unaware of the difference between real and created, truth and delusion, then all we "understand" is the creations we have made for ourselves that we "call" reality".

"I think you said you had 40 years of consulting but I'm not sure, in which case if it hadn't helped you wouldn't still be using it would you"

Why would you think that I had not had more that 40 years of consulting, is it because I challenge and question and dont want to go along with, we all believe in the same thing more or less.
I never said that it hadnt helped but my knowledge and understanding has grown in more that 40 years of use and I now recognise that a lot of what I "believed " in is completely contradictory, makes little or no coherent and rational sense. I now know that Psychology reveals that most of we think is real is nothing more than a creation of our own. I would recommend a little book by Cordelia Fine "A mind of its own; How your brain distorts and deceives" as a simple primer.
The realisation that Trigrams are more likely to be memory techniques rather than something meaningful changes a lot of what I now think about the Yi. Teh realisation that 5E simply has no basis and doesnt work in the very real world of Chines Medicine and when you take it out of the medical equation the treatments are significantly more effective, cahnges how one views the Yi. And the list goes on, some of which I have detailed in my posts, including the fact that if we use computers to generate out readings then we are, more likely than not completely deluding ourselves that the reading is "meant" for us.

All the boat

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
Hi Trojina
I think I am suffering from an excess or realism.
Only if you think you know what's real.

"I think what you're suffering from Dave is a profound lack of faith."
If I had no faith then I wouldnt be bothering with all the discussions. It is because I have faith that I persevere. But one of course have to have knowledge and understanding, to some degree at least, otherwise faith would be blind belief.
Have you read what I have been saying about a "belief" being just another way of saying one doesnt "know".
There is nothing you have said that I have not heard before. It's not a radical idea to say that a belief is something one doesn't know. But actually one could get into the whole realm of epistemology to do with how we know what we know. It's a big philosophical area and you are just taking bits an applying it to the I Ching in order to continue arguing the same thing over and over.




Have you read what I have been saying that there are many forms of divination, and that one can even make one up and it works,
Why would you assume I don't know that. It's obvious there are many forms of divination and that one can devise one that works or divine from any random book or the bible.







But thats the point, unless you start of with a level playing field where all the Yi is available, then you have no way of knowing if you are getting the answer you were "meant to get".

All you really mean is you don't believe Yi can work without you controlling everything. And of course people know they are getting the answer they are meant to get because it works. I already compared that knowing to knowing on an empirical basis.



That is complete delusion. The only way we have any way of knowing if the answers fit the questions is if we have a knowledge and understanding of the fundamental underlying principles,
If these principles make you happy then use them. I have no need of them whatsoever.



Very true, but then what would be the point of anything, what would be the point of knowing onesself, or in consulting the Yi, or trying to know and understand the fundamantal underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven, So that doesnt answer anything. It is just a way of not answering.
That was my point and you missed it, you missed my point. That was the very point I was trying to make - that in asking all these questions about how do we know our I Ching answers aren't delusions I was saying you could ask the same questions about anything - you don't even know that you're not a delusion so from that POV why make such a deal about finding perfect ways to consult Yi.



Why would you think that I had not had more that 40 years of consulting, is it because I challenge and question and dont want to go along with, we all believe in the same thing more or less.
I don't think you can flatter yourself you are challenging anything very much, you aren't having completely radical ideas that haven't been thought before.

I thought I had read you had 40 years of consulting but it seemed odd that only now you are having such doubts about it and you don't seem to know how to cast Yi. On another thread I think someone was explaining how to cast 3 coins and you thought you had to throw them one at a time :confused:





I never said that it hadnt helped but my knowledge and understanding has grown in more that 40 years of use and I now recognise that a lot of what I "believed " in is completely contradictory, makes little or no coherent and rational sense. I now know that Psychology reveals that most of we think is real is nothing more than a creation of our own. I would recommend a little book by Cordelia Fine "A mind of its own; How your brain distorts and deceives" as a simple primer.
I've taught psychology and these ideas are hardly new ground it's a common place understanding. It's very basic, that's what most people who don't use Yi would say. They would say your mind itself constructs the answer and the cast is nothing more than a framework for you to pin your understanding on. Actually some people think that and still happily consult Yi because even if one's mind is constructing the answer it's still useful to them. I think that's as valid a stance as any other.
 

jukkodave

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

"It's a big philosophical area and you are just taking bits an applying it to the I Ching in order to continue arguing the same thing over and over"

But I think you are missing the point. If someone was to come up with rational and coherent explanations of the contradictions and inconsistencies I am pointing out then that would end the discussions. I would have the answers and there would be very little left to be said.
You may consider it a "philosophical" area bot I consider it very real indeed and far from theoretical. The questions about the Yi just puts it into a specific focus.

"It's obvious there are many forms of divination and that one can devise one that works or divine from any random book or the bible."

But thats exactly the point. If one can devise one that works and one is using the Yi in that manner then most of what gets applied to the Yi just flies out the window. The history becomes irrelevant, there is nothing special about the Yi, nothing that we think about the Yi would have any relevance, becuae it would all be made up. And one of the considerations that goes along with the devising a form of divination is that one can also devise an "interpretation" that makes sense. The possibility being then that the whoe thing is a complete figment of our deluded imaginations and only if the methods of divination has some sort of fundamantal underlying principles that give them meaning and tie them all together would any sense of reality prevail, the rest would be total illusion.

"All you really mean is you don't believe Yi can work without you controlling everything. And of course people know they are getting the answer they are meant to get because it works. I already compared that knowing to knowing on an empirical basis."

No it doesnt mean that at all, it is not about being in control, in fact the opposite, a skewed methodology is contoling the outcome and a pseudo random computer progeram is totally controlling everything to the extent that if it "works" it can only be because we are bound to a destiny so comprehensive taht we have no free will and there would be no point in asking the Yi ianything because we couldnt change a thing, or that it only appears to work because just like the ability to devise a methodology we are also capable of devising an "answer" that makes sense and seems "meant" for us. But that of course would be total delusion.
If you think that "empirical" knowing is of any use you are seriously underestimating the powere and extent of the brains ability and need to maintain the illusions and delusions that it places so much importance on.

"if these principles make you happy then use them. I have no need of them whatsoever."

The why are you bothering to respond. If there are no "principles" there are no rules, there is no anything, and there is no point in joining in a discussion about those very things.

"you don't even know that you're not a delusion so from that POV why make such a deal about finding perfect ways to consult Yi."

Because if one is not a delusion then it becomes very important indeed. And if you dont know and you consider everything is a delusioin then it wouldnt matter one jot what happens or what diesnt and there would be no need to even consiult the Yi or worry about the future, or fall in love, or be bothered about what one eats or anything at all. But if its not a delusion and there are "underlying principles " then we have a purpose for our lives and if we have a puppose then that came came from something and it would seem incumbent on us to know and understand our purpose, and perhaps if the Yi is an insight or based in fundamental priniples and we use it in that way, rather than just a book of outward divination, then the goal of finding "perfect" ways, or at least avoiding the imperfect ways, would seem rather important.

"I don't think you can flatter yourself you are challenging anything very much, you aren't having completely radical ideas that haven't been thought before."

Where would you get the notion of pride and flattery from. I wouldnt be asking so many questions if was flattering myself. Having taught Psycholgy you will be perfectly aware of the processes of transference and projection.
Perhaps they arent original, but they cetainly are radical as they seem to be contrary to what most people are expressing. But I havent seen most of the ideas I have been presenting connected in the way I am presenting them. Where are the challenges to 5E and Trigrams, that Trigrams are probably just memory techniques and make no sense in their own right. Where are all the other connections that I am putting forward.
But of course your argument is fundamentally flawed as if they had been though if before they would have been resolved and the explanations to answer all the questions would be known to everyone and everyone would have been quoting them to me and I wouldnt have any way of arguing because those answers would be rationaly and coherently considered and presented. But as that hasnt happened then it is unlikely that the ides have been properly considered previously.
Do I have any sense of pride with that, not in the least. In fact it comes with a degree of sadness that things that seem so obvious to me have not been fully considered previously.

"I thought I had read you had 40 years of consulting but it seemed odd that only now you are having such doubts about it and you don't seem to know how to cast Yi. On another thread I think someone was explaining how to cast 3 coins and you thought you had to throw them one at a time"

You really arent reading what I am writing. I pointed out the effects of skewing and limiting the full availibility of the Yi of one threw the coins one at a time and pointed out that I had realised the errors in the method many, many years ago. Have you missed that I use a method of cards which works very well and eliminates any of the "influences " that scientific research is so aware of and takes such steps to avoid with double blind studies.

Where do you ever get the idea that I had "doubts". It is my confidence and the growthof wisdom and experience that has revealed the many contradictions and inconsistencies on the way the Yi can be used unless we pay attention to the underlying principles. Knowing of them is of course not the same as knowing and understanding them completely, and the poor translations that abound, which do nothing to further real understanding of the real "meanings" if the Yi dont help in that meaningful understanding.

"because even if one's mind is constructing the answer it's still useful to them. I think that's as valid a stance as any other."

Useful and valid yes, and if you had read the contents of my posts you would have seen that I havent said contrary to that and have acknoweldged the valueto that individual if that is the wayt they choose to use the Yi. But there is another side. The side of personal growth, the search for contentment and fulfilment, the side that is the inner as opposed to the outer. That includes "underlying princoples", whatever labels that need to be attached to them.
I agree that the knowledge of what Cordelia Fine presents is well known, but it is largely ignored in any practical sense. My insights and understanding into how the human brain works and what the underlying principles are are not just thoeretical and the repititions of other peoples work.
I have a friend that had a serious stroke righ on Brica's area, Lost his speech and 6 months later all he could do was strugglle to get out the odd single word and swear, one word at a time. Using what I understood I had hom talking reasonalbly fluently in less than 20 minutes. So this is not just theory or some philosohpical game. This is important as if it means that there is a better understanding of how the brain works and what all the underlying principles are then that might mak a difference to mmore people. I already know that 5E worsens the outcome when it comes to Acupuncture treatment and so the removal of any dead wood that gets in the way of insight and illumination so that understanding can improve can only be a good thing.

Perhpas my mistake was in thinking that those that used the Yi were interested in underlying principles. If no one is then that would be just fine, but why not say so, and then all the scholarly presentations and explanations and answers to what this that and the other means would be completey unnecessary and superfluous.

Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
For any passing mathematicians, a thread summary:

The original question was, 'What are the odds of casting an unchanging hexagram?' (presumably with a traditional method like 3 coins or yarrow). I've explained why they're about 18%

Jukkodave's position can be summed up as follows:
1. A hexagram can either change into one of the other 63, or it can stay unchanged. Those are 64 outcomes, therefore the odds of an unchanging hexagram are 1 in 64.
2. The odds of a single line changing are 50% in the 3 coin method. This is because there are four possible outcomes - HHT, TTH, HHH or TTT - of which two represent changing lines. Multiply that for 6 lines, and again you have odds of 1 in 64 of an unchanging hexagram.
I have stuck that in 'quote' tags so it can't be quoted in future posts with my name attached!

If you trawl through my posts on the thread, you will find a comprehensive list of things that won't persuade him otherwise. Finally, I suggested he sit down with 3 coins and cast them 100 times, as if for 100 'lines', and count how many are changing. He won't do this.

Before you decide how/ whether to engage here, you should also be aware that JD is dealing - with true grit and determination - with what he himself describes as severe brain damage. That can leave someone with a bewildering mixture of capability and incapability, of which they are themselves unaware. Obviously I have no idea whether that's a factor here, but I think it might be.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
Before you decide how/ whether to engage here, you should also be aware that JD is dealing - with true grit and determination - with what he himself describes as severe brain damage. That can leave someone with a bewildering mixture of capability and incapability, of which they are themselves unaware. Obviously I have no idea whether that's a factor here, but I think it might be.
Surely the determining factor of how/whether to engage in this thread should not be based on jukkodave but on the original poster's question ? Otherwise jukkodave becomes the determining factor in whether we engage or not and I don't see why that should be the case unless it's his thread ?

The thread was finished or so I thought so I'm not sure why you added this ?

Sorry I don't know why you needed to summarise jukkodave's position ? His position isn't especially central to anything is it ? I've heard a fair amount about his position over the last week and now you are also stating his position. No one asked for his position did they ?

Speaking only for myself I don't think I would like to start a thread and then be told jukkodave's position and on what terms I can or can't engage based on his brain damage. It's not reasonable. We all have our own, invisible to others frailties we have to take care of successfully or unsuccessfully in discussion forums. We have to do that for ourselves as others don't know where we hurt. [MENTION=252]hilary[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
I posted because JD was inviting mathematically-minded people to chip in on this thread, and Tinitonibear for one expressed an interest. The only reason for a mathematician to engage in this thread now would be to discuss JD's ideas on probability, and so offering a summary of those and a reason why a newcomer might want to think twice before engaging seems potentially helpful.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
My apologies to everyone.I have really been rather stupid.Ishould have remembered why I stopped using coins.For some bizarre reasons I forgot that it makes no difference of one throws the coins singly, or on one go, the result is the same. As Hilary points out that gives 8 possibilities.Unfortunately there are only 4 possibilities. Old Yang, Young Yang, Old Yin, Young Yin, or whatever label you wish to apply. 2 possible moving lines, 2 possible non moving lines. 64/4096. 1/64.I had forgotten that I had already done as suggested and thrown coins 1000's of times, both one at a time, I had forgotten that both methods give incorrect skewed probabilities. It was more 40 odd years ago and a lot has occurred since then.Coins don't work, however you throw them. The person that reminded me of the results of those tests, reminded me that we developed a variety of other methods other than coins and some of us that had worked out the proper odds spent considerable time trying to explain it to others, but most others carried on because they thought the Yi was "special" and because it said coins or stalks they had to use one of this methods.The comments about the effects of my brain injury are completely incorrect and I will deal with them properly on my return.But I have no intellectual detriment other than showed of processing, which gives the impression I am being a bit dim and slow at times. My Neuropsychologist wouldnt be suggesting with a joint paper on what we have discovered about how the brain works both before, during and after a brain injury. I was, using my direct experience of underlying principles able to explain the manifestations and he was able to find the tenement but previously unconnected research to validate my understanding. I had the terminology from all my studies but no access to the renegade data bases or profession networking, that pieces it all together.Still a work in progress as there are some central issues still to be resolved. Hardly the work of someone with intellectual damage. On the other hand my physical deficits and balance issues, my loss of short term memory impact hugely on me and have serious consequences on all sorts of areas, including some bizarre language related ones. But intellectually, as long as I don't have to perform instantly not only have I not lost any ability but the damaged areas of my brain seemed to be areas that were full of concepts and illusion, one reason why the knowledge of the research is a living experince for me. I am not talking fron theoretical pointd of view a lot of the time but from real experience.Although it might be convenient for some of I was "damaged" intellectually, sorry, not the case. And whoever it was that suggested my not being aware of any difficulties should know that is only the case for some people on some areas of functioning. Talk about clutching at straws to try and diminish what I am pointing out is obvious.But on the point of the thread, which is not about the effects of my brain injury and wouldn't be relevant any way as it is the contents and not the person saying then or the way they say then that matters, or no one would have ever listened to Dr Stephen Hawking., coins give the wrong odds.Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
Hi Jukkodave,

Two things...

First, about mentioning your brain injury here. I hope you didn't find that to be disrespectful - that absolutely wasn't my intention. Nor would I ever use it as some kind of ad hominem in place of addressing your arguments - I hope you know that!

The specific situation on this thread - someone who has an excellent logical mind appearing blind to some simple logic - did remind me of my experience with stroke survivors. An ability may appear to the inexperienced/non-injured to be a single capacity, when in fact it's multiple capacities used together. This is invisible until someone has an injury that takes out some of those capacities but not others. But the inexperienced/non-injured, unaware of this, won't be able to understand how someone can do x but not y, when as far as they can see, x and y are the same thing. And then they may imagine the person is being deliberately perverse / trolling / whatever. Hence my post.

Second, back to probabilities...

Ah. Two different questions:

1. What are the odds when using a traditional method such as 3 coins?
(Answer: 1 in 4 chance any given line is changing; roughly 1 in 5 chance of unchanging reading.)

2. What would be the ideal odds? Or as you put it, what are the 'proper' odds?

So if I understand you, you're saying that readings should be done with a method that gives a 50% chance any line is changing?
 

radiofreewill

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
436
Reaction score
9
Apologies for the redundancy ~ just keeping the math summary close to the discussion summary:

When using the 'yarrow' beads method to simulate the same odds as with the stalks:

1 ~ Red bead Changing Yin
3 ~ Yellow beads Changing Yang
5 ~ White beads Stable Yang
7 ~ Black beads Stable Yin​

Place the beads in a container and draw one out for a line in a hexagram; replace the bead and draw again until all 6 lines are complete.

Of the 16 beads...4 are Changing...

Ergo ~ there is a 1 in 4 chance of drawing a changing line using the yarrow stalks/beads.

It's just that the beads are biased towards Yang Change 3:1 (Yellow:Red)

Now, let's look at the coins:

There are 8 possible outcomes with the 3 coin toss

1 ~ Red (3 yin) Changing Yin
1 ~ Yellow (3 Yang) Changing Yang
3 ~ White (1Y, 2y) Stable Yang
3 ~ Black (1y, 2Y) Stable Yin​

Of the 8 toss possibilities...2 are Changing...

Ergo ~ there is a 1 in 4 chance of tossing a changing line using the coins.

It's just that the coins are balanced between Yang Change and Yin Change 1:1 (Yellow:Red)

So, all three methods ~ Stalks, Beads, and Coins ~ have the same odds of drawing a Changing line...

...it's just that the Stalks/Beads are slightly biased towards Yang Change...

...while the Coins have balanced Change between Yang and Yin.​

Putting all this together to determine the odds of getting an Unchanging reading:

Regardless of method, there is a 1 in 4 chance of getting a Changing line...

...which means that there are 3 in 4 chances of getting a Non-Changing line.

What are the odds of getting 6 Non-Changing lines consecutively?

(0.75)^6 = 0.178 ~ or about 18%

I hope this is helpful? :)
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi radiofreewillAppreciate the effort.Agree the maths comes out as it for the different methods.Regardless of how and where the method started started, and which one the others are following, there is nothing that differentiates why there should be any skewing towards one type of line or another. In fact the opposite, as a "weighting" in any direction at all reduces the availability of the entire range of hexagrams. The consequences of those limitations, with just a simple but of logic, is enormous.Any methodology that results in probabilities different from what an equal probability where all 4 lines are equal, are incorrect. Why would there be any differentiation for one type of line over another.If you are going to use beads then you need just 4.Coins don't work. Stalks don't work.The implications of that are extremely significant. Putting it all together with the contents of my previous posts will reveal the various possibilities of how the Yi has been used,, or possibly misused, -that being part of the obvious conclusions.Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi HilaryIt actually isn't my position. Regardless of what has become the methodology, which may have originated in the yarrow stalk method, because it allowed the caster to manipulate the results to avoid what might be considered "negative" results, it is the position of the Yi. Because there is nothing in the Yi that would suggest why one type of line should be more favoured over another.Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
OK, so it's your position that this is Yi's position ;).

In fact the opposite, as a "weighting" in any direction at all reduces the availability of the entire range of hexagrams.
The 3 coin method doesn't affect the distribution of hexagrams at all. The yarrow/ method of 16 probabilities do affect the likelihood of getting different relating hexagrams, though - Hexagram 2 the most likely and Hexagram 1 the least.

As for why there should be differentiation to make changing lines less likely, I think it's just a matter of practicality. Most questions can be answered with no more than one or two changing lines; it's an unusually complex situation that requires 3 or more. With a 50:50 chance of each line changing, you're going to have an average of 3 moving lines per reading.

Are those the odds of your card method? If so, have you developed any particular way of reading multiple changing lines?
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
OK, so it's your position that this is Yi's position ;).The 3 coin method doesn't affect the distribution of hexagrams at all. The yarrow/ method of 16 probabilities do affect the likelihood of getting different relating hexagrams, though - Hexagram 2 the most likely and Hexagram 1 the least.As for why there should be differentiation to make changing lines less likely, I think it's just a matter of practicality. Most questions can be answered with no more than one or two changing lines; it's an unusually complex situation that requires 3 or more. With a 50:50 chance of each line changing, you're going to have an average of 3 moving lines per reading.Are those the odds of your card method? If so, have you developed any particular way of reading multiple changing lines?
Sorry Hilary, I can't be explaining things very well.Any methodology that deviates away from each type of line being equally available alters the possibility of being able to get all the available Hexagrams. Given the nature of the variability of the first throw this will vary for each casting. It affects the first Hexagram to some degree and affects the second Hexagram significantly.Take a situation where one has cast the first 3 lines. Say, just for example they are all unbroken. The next line should have an equal possibilty of being broken, broken moving, unbroken, unbroken moving, if there is any deviation towards any particular type of line, say towards a broken line, then any Hexagrams that have an unbroken line as the 4th line are significantly less available than they should be. Similarly all the Hexagrams that would result from having the 4th line as a moving line would be sufficiently reduced as being likely.The 3 coin method most definitely does affect the distribution, because it is erroneously derived from 8 rather than 4.There is of course nothing "practical" in having anything less than the whole truth, the complete picture.The odds with my card method, give the correct number of moving lines, which does take more understanding of what the lines, and the Hexagrams, mean, rather than the literal interpretations, from the translations that rarely consider the underlying, internal, knowledge of the inner self, factors. Your question does highlight one point that I have ignored so as to not complicated the issues to greatly and add yet another contradiction onto the mix. How does one interpret a reading when one has multiple moving lines, as happens even with methodologies that usually only produce one or two. When the lines often contradict the others and may make little sense with either Hexagram.All the best Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
...The next line should have an equal possibilty of being broken, broken moving, unbroken, unbroken moving, if there is any deviation towards any particular type of line, say towards a broken line, then any Hexagrams that have an unbroken line as the 4th line are significantly less available than they should be.
Yes, any method that skewed the probability of getting broken vs unbroken lines in the primary (cast) hexagram would indeed make some hexagrams less available in readings than others.

However, neither of the traditional methods does that. To quote Radiofreewill's conveniently-placed summary:
There are 8 possible outcomes with the 3 coin toss

1 ~ Red (3 yin) Changing Yin
1 ~ Yellow (3 Yang) Changing Yang
3 ~ White (1Y, 2y) Stable Yang
3 ~ Black (1y, 2Y) Stable Yin
That’s 4 outcomes for yin lines, 4 for yang lines.

As for methods of interpreting multiple lines perceived to be 'contradictory', we'd probably better take that to a different thread.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Yes, any method that skewed the probability of getting broken vs unbroken lines in the primary (cast) hexagram would indeed make some hexagrams less available in readings than others.However, neither of the traditional methods does that.
But the traditional methods do just that.Which is exactly why the traditional methods are incorrect and should be replaced by method that are able to allow the entire range of Hexagrams for any reading.Even the assumption of the "probabilities" of getting a particular line is incorrect.Analysis of the "sequences" produced by other than a one for one representation, produce sequences that take considerably longer to converge, meaning that it takes considerably longer than just 6 lines to reflect the mathematical probabilities, which are established by the laws of large numbers and require many thousands of events to reveal the probabilities. The larger the initial parameters the slower the rate of convergence and the less likely it is that one has a non chaotic distribution. If the methods produce a measurable probability then they are not chaotically random and so should demonstrate that probability.The coin and yarrow method, 8 and 16, produce sequences which do not quickly converge and so for a 6 line selection, which is a mathematical slice of the sequence, the randomness of distributions is excessively erratic and so doesn't even bear much relationship to the underlying probabilities anyway. The yarrow and coin methods give different ratios of Yang to Yin lines. As there is no rational reason why there should be methods that give different results, at least one of them, just be comparison with the other must be wrong.If there is no rational reasons why there probability of getting all 4 lines equally then both methods are wrong.If the coin method, which produces equal yin and yang non moving lines, cannot be shown to be correct, in that it effectively denies a significant proportion of the hexagrams at each reading, and there is nothing clearly stated in the Yi itself that non moving lines are to be considered more prominant than moving lines, then that method is incorrect.If antiquity is considered a major factor in knowledge of the Yi, then either the yarrow or the coins should be taken as the more relevant method and the other must be wrong.Both are wrong because both are not able to give the complete Yi for each casting. Both are wrong because the sequences they generate do not reflect even the probabilities that supposedly underlie them. Both are wrong because they are not in agreement with each other. Both are wrong because the Yi does not favour one type of line over any of the others.Or it doesn't matter and one can use any method. I am sure you can see the consequences of that would render most of what is considered relevant in the Yi as obsolete. So the method must be important. Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
Oh. I thought you'd agreed that Radiofreewill's summary of the probabilities was correct. I think we're just going round in circles here, so I'll bow out.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Oh. I thought you'd agreed that Radiofreewill's summary of the probabilities was correct. I think we're just going round in circles here, so I'll bow out.
Hi Hilary,It is not the question of the probabilities just being accurate. It is the question of "why", methodologies that don't agree with each other, that differently favour one type of line over another, that don't allow the full range of all 64 hexagrams at every casting, that she the availability of hexagrams in particular directions, that don't represent the " equality " of all the types of line, and consequently don't represent all types of hexagrams equally, should even be considered as valid methodologies.If it is just because that is the way that it was done thousands of years ago, and we don't even know if the record of what was retained was the genuine method or designed to hide the real secrets of the Yi, then the adherence to methods, just because they are "old", makes little sense. Surely we should be learning from the mistakes of those that went before, not copying their errors.The methodologies have no rational and coherent logic to them. They are not representative of all of the Yi, they aren't even representative of the underlying probabilities.You must have realised the ramifications and consequences of this as it impacts hugely on everything that we think about the Yi and how we use it, including the whole matter of if it can be taught or learned.Limited as I am, and supposed to be on a break and not doing anything but relaxing I don't have access to a word processor to be able to write it all down. But as there are obviously intelligent people participating in the discussions I will let all of you work out out. It is only a question of rational and logical thinking, and I have referenced most of the salient points in my posts, it only needs a bit of logic to see the enormous ramifications of what the apparently innocuous subject of the thread.It isn't going round in circles at all, unless one is ignoring the basic questions of why, and the consequences of the possible answers.All the bestDave
 
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