Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
ewald said:Rutt's Zhouyi is based on the assumption that the received version of the Zhouyi (the poetry that is the core text of the Yi) is not the original text. Characters are supposed to be copied incorrectly in the course of time, resulting in the Zhouyi we know.
dobro said:But I want to *use* the Yi, and it makes it really difficult to do that if meanings keep drastically shifting all the time. The 'shifting meaning' problem makes communication about the Yi on a board like this one almost impossible, for instance. And it makes personal divination incredibly difficult as well. For instance, I take Hex 52 to talk about aspects of meditation, but Rutt says it talks about cleaving a sacrificial victim into bits. Those two meanings are so far apart as to be irreconcilable. It's not helpful for a Yi user.
cjgait said:And of course the Chinese is the best, even with my crude level of knowledge of the language.
So just devote the greater part of your time to studying ancient Chinese and you'll have one 'translation' that you can depend on, the original
dobro said:I'm grateful for the responses to this thread, but I'm feeling grumpy about the whole thing. I'm considering taking cjgait's advice and getting familiar with the Chinese version; I'm considering taking Chris' advice and getting familiar with his version. But that would be like climbing two mountains. That's why I'm grumpy.
lightofreason said:absolute rubbish. - unless you are stuck in a 10th century BC frame of mind - no wonder there are issues on this planet!
dobro said:I'm grateful for the responses to this thread, but I'm feeling grumpy about the whole thing. I'm considering taking cjgait's advice and getting familiar with the Chinese version; I'm considering taking Chris' advice and getting familiar with his version. But that would be like climbing two mountains. That's why I'm grumpy.
cjgait said:To label someone else's life's work 'absolute rubbish' is disrespectful.
cjgait said:As to the state of the planet, it's like the gag from an old Monty Python sketch: "Spot the loonie!" Or in this case: 'Spot the troll!'
lightofreason said:damn right - I have no respect for absolute rubbish. If you have spent your life proving the world flat and the day of publication of your work the world is found to be round then your work has become absolute rubbish. No issues of 'respect' etc applicable.
youve been spotted.
??the CD version of the Si Ku Quan Shu
'coagulative interspersion of the interpersonal sphere of hoopla'
cjgait said:Your postings, ALL OF THEM, are incoherent drivel. You are currently apparently railing against learning Chinese.
absolute rubbish. - unless you are stuck in a 10th century BC frame of mind - no wonder there are issues on this planet!
hilary said:??
For those of us who are really ignorant, not just pretending, what's that?
The resulting set of books, which took basically all the scholars in the country working for ten years, ran to some 36,000 volumes (2.3 million pages).
sparhawk said:You mean that whole library is on CD's?? Wow!! Google doesn't hold a candle to that text scanning effort...
L
sparhawk said:...Is interesting to see how your ideas seem to reconcile Logic with Spirituality and thus present a pathway for the advancement of humanity, as a species, to a higher level of self. Would it ever work? I seriously doubt it. Not because the ideas lack merit but because they are anomalous and complex in a culture where information is consumed and digested in a nanosecond scale.
lightofreason said:In other words it is the language that is holographic in that to be a language it MUST be able to describe itself (and so self-reference).
Language is NOT reality, language reflects the dynamics of map-making; this allows us to confuse the map with the territory but at the same time make the metaphor that is the word so tightly fitting the territory that we can fail to make the distinction of map/territory and so take the metaphors literally.
All of that said, since our neurology reflects the adaptation of cell to environment so it reflects the internalisation of 'out there' 'in here' - not the literal nature but the metaphoric nature. It is this internalisation that makes our maps so good but they are still examples of 'language' and not the 'thing'.
martin said:Yes fine, but the fact remains that your extremely yang way of communicating your views on this forum is counterproductive. And irritating too.
But if anyone dares to say something about it you explode and become insulting. Yangyangyang BANG!
sparhawk said:Here is where I get lost most of the time: How can you have it both ways? Language, in its holographic metaphor and as a distinct subset, is still part of the whole. Language may not be the "thing" but is still part of it. No? Language, in its map-making duty, is still a creation of the whole.
sparhawk said:
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).