Time for Salary increase: 7.2 ->2?

[lightofreason]

As for the second part, I've always wondered about that. But if you assume or know about an essential unity of all things, then I suppose that allows for one person to be useful to another person to help them understand something.

Sure - but there is lots of evidence on this thread and others for an imposition of interpretation to REPLACE those of the enquirer rather than GUIDE (and so coexist).

The universal perspective is more rigid (e.g .the species IC) but is so in setting down guidelines to then customise. The issue is in the sharing of space where this is only possible through emotional contact - either direct or by projection/transference where the latter can aid in identifying unconscious dynamics. The Emotional IC work utlises this projection function and so can bring out censored material not covered in a 'traditional' interaction.

The original descriptions and narratives of the traditonal IC cover material derived from attempts to describe universals by reference to local history/myth etc and so a social dynamic loaded with rich metaphor and analogies of 10th centry BC thinking. The universals however, being universals, apply to the species and cover all history since the species (or more so the neurology and so they exist in other neuron-dependent species but less differentiated than in us) such that to make them 'fit' with 21st century AD thinking some 'refinements' are required - and that includes learning the Science behind the Art. ;-)

If we can present all aspects of the universal involved in some reading, so we leave the final 'collapse of the wave' to the enquirer as they make their local connections within the universal focus; as such the issues can be over-focused, we are too focused on the trees and so miss the forest. Ground things in the forest, showing all the tracks across it etc and the enquier is given a general, but still detailed, map to use beyond what they are dealing with.

IF someone asks for assistance in something then they are practising negative feedback in trying to establish a relationship that can result in getting 'closer to' the 'point', the constant. The moment we 'reach' the point there is the 'a-HA' focus that can change the feedback into positive form where the point, the constant, sets the context and we rush off into associations WITHIN that context (prior to this we operated BETWEEN) - thus negative now operates WITHIN a positive, the 'point' identified.

The problems with projections is with issues of transference - if I project into a hexagram you have drawn MY local experience in a strong enough manner I can load that emotion onto the hexagram and seed you with it unconsciously. In other words it can make you see more than is there. (this is common in that many interpretations of a hexagram will often run into the qualities of other hexagrams AS IF they belong to this one)

If I offer guidance only, in other words a detailed but general map, then the projection is not that strong and there is room for the enquier to work it all through.

(there are issues with a universal being in its own context as well. e.g the trigram of Lake has different qualities when in lower vs upper positions. The HEXAGRAM of Lake covers more the top level qualities beneath which are the trigram qualities - they are not 'equal' in that the hierarchic format present ensures refinement issues when making comparisons)

Chris.

 

[willowfox]

Hello listener,

"kind of like a character out of a Harry Potter movie, and she has us all imagining her as a wild-haired fortune teller with pets."

Perhaps Sybill Patricia Trelawney?

 

[dobro p]

"The problems with projections is with issues of transference - if I project into a hexagram you have drawn MY local experience in a strong enough manner I can load that emotion onto the hexagram and seed you with it unconsciously. In other words it can make you see more than is there."

Yeah, or something other than what is there. I mean I can misinterpret the Yi for myself, and the possibilities for interpreting it for another person seem even more open to getting meanings wrong. But there is this: you know how you can see somebody else's blind spots better than you can see your own? Well, I sometimes think that I might sometimes be able, on a parallel principle, to see something you don't see in a Yi draw. But I see this difference: if I see one of your blind spots and point it out to you, you will in all likelihood feel attacked or threatened and you'll respond defensively or with some form of denial. (You can see that in threads here too.) But with a reading, people seem not take it personally if I point out something they haven't seen.

"If I offer guidance only, in other words a detailed but general map, then the projection is not that strong and there is room for the enquier to work it all through."

Okay, but how do you do that? How do you communicate what you see without adding a lot of the person who sees it? And even if you *do* communicate a significant amount of the person who sees it, can't the other person still resonate with enough of the truth to be helped sometimes? Two questions. I think the first one is a better question.

 

[lightofreason]

"Okay, but how do you do that? How do you communicate what you see without adding a lot of the person who sees it?

By understanding the general methodology we all use as a species to derive meaning and so add an 'objective' bias, element, to the guidance.

Until our time, no one has come up with an understanding of meaning derivation processes etc - with the work on neurosciences and the dynamics of sel-referencing we can now map out our methods.

Of particular interest is the use of self-referencing where it comes with properties that allow what is derived from self-referencing to describe itself. The IDM work, through IC+, brings this out in the XOR material.

Thusm give hexagram X, we can use the IC to describe what 'it' sees and so limiting the subjective elements of what I see WITHIN what is generally seen.

Most people using the IC use it for a 'quick fix' and are not prepared to do the 'work' of getting into details. This is unfortunate but allows for a 'market' of interpreters - however the interpreters will more often entangle their subjective perspectives into the objective perspectives - they are driven to add their ego's contribution in addition to the IC generality - in other words the presentation of a particular is overshadowed with that of a singular.

When one consults a universal one is seeking guidance IN GENERAL that one can then customise to fit the local context. When one works through an interpreter so one is one step removed from the general in that what is 'said' by the universal is now filtered through, and so coloured by, the interpreter prior to getting to 'you'.

The consultation is more so a seeking of guidance regarding what has one MISSED in that if one had covered it all one would not need guidance. Thus the issue is on what aspects of the WHOLE has the enquirer missed and how can one bring that to the enquirer's attention and minimise personal colourings at the same time? (e.g. see most comments on hex 12 - they are negative when the fact is the hexagram covers both positive and negative but Wilhelm et al have 'coloured' it enough to present it as a universal when it isnt (no universals have 'colour' as such in that they reflect both positive/negative perspectives - if they didnt then they would no be universals!)

The discovering of the properties of self-referencing being able to describe itself allow for presentation of determined data in an objective form; e.g. the 27-ness of 32 will always be some generic 'vibe' described by analogy to characteristics of 14. This is not my subjective opinion, this is a 'fact' in that the methodology used hard-codes these relationships. (but then note that shift scal and hex 14 is the representative of 64 dodecagrams worth of finer details!)

Thus presenting a hexagram's spectrum that covers its nature WITHIN, and then add aspects, again objective in form, covering its nature BETWEEN other hexagrams (and so the PAIR focus - e.g .32 pairs with 50 etc) gives the enquirer a set of aspects to consider in dealing with the whole.

Thus the enquier is presented with a richer, more organised, map of the whole where their focus at the moment is too on one part and so excluding all else (or else they have used traditional methods that lack precision re what is being covered in general - or else are too precise in giving local legends/myths as examples and so requiring specialist understanding of ancient China to understand what they are getting at!)

The presenting of the map says "this is our realm, our symbolisms, and as such the descriptions of 'all there is'". The enquier then can see the 'big picture' and where they currently 'fit'. THEN comes seeking of finer guidance that DOES elicit subjective elements as on one's particular experience of this location but this is all done within th bounds of the general map - a map the traditional material does not cover or else covers in an extremely 'vague' way!

Using the traditional sequence, and combined with Wilhelm-sourced translations/interpretations is NOT accessing the general map and as such, due to lack of understanding about methodologies etc, can elicit 'false readings' or let imagination loose where there is no need and it can even do damage.

The first level of focus on communicating is getting the full map to then guide that communication - that map comes out of our brains and as such transcends each of us and so is objective - and it is this objective element that allows for sharing of meanings at the universal level and spanning cultures.

Since the I Ching can describe itself so the first level of communication is to identify what the IC 'sees' through use of XOR etc etc where that is not part of you or me.

THEN comes sharing of personal experiences of these patterns, recognising we are adding our own colourings, not IC colourings where there are none. As such we add to what the IC sees in contextualising the universals and the enquier can contextualise as well; recognising that the input of us is in addition to the IC input that is always general.

(The Emotional IC can bypass a lot as well in that it can communicate with the unconscious and so we add an 'internal' interpretor who generates an image based on an emotional interpretation of the contex that can be at odds with the rational interpretation and so something to work on without any other input in deriving the original meaning etc)

Chris.

 

[Trojina]

Interesting to me is how Hilary , because she is the matriarch of this forum, kinda gets the projection of "good mommy/ bad mommy" cast on her.....theres a little bit of "mommy likes you better" in there too. I think she stays amazingly neutral for the most part.
and I think there is also wisdom in the idea of simply persistently addressing the reading instead of challenging WF......because it is sorta like fighting a paper tiger. I dont think she is real, but "she" is really good as an actor, she plays the role so well. she seems so real!

**** this is patronizing. To disregard the real issue and degrade it to a 'good mummy/bad mummy issue invalidates all the points I was trying to make about what i saw happening, all you are saying to me (and others ?) is "this wasn't happening its all in your mind". Its completely innapropriate psychoanalysing.

Why are you reopening the issue anyway it was finished with as far as I was concerned.

In your last address to me a few weeks ago you said words like this "shut up Trojan you don't know what you are talking about " I would like to return those words to you replacing the name Listener rather than Trojan.

BTW being and feeling alot older than Hilary I find it pretty sick that you should imply there is such a projection going on. Yuk

 

[hilary]

It made me feel better, though - the 'amazingly neutral for the most part', that is. (Not so sure about the matriarch bit.)

 

[Sparhawk]

It made me feel better, though - the 'amazingly neutral for the most part', that is. (Not so sure about the matriarch bit.)

Hmmm, I don't know... I can imagine you with an apron, a tight hair bun, hands white with flour, baking scones for the rest of us.... Pass the tea, please...

L

 

[bruce_g]

(Not so sure about the matriarch bit.)

Sometimes we do what we do without knowing why we do it.

Actually, it is completely matriarchal and maternal, in a primitive way. The mother protects her youngest from their older siblings. If the older ones leave, they can fend for themselves.

 

[hilary]

Sometimes we do what we do without knowing why we do it.

True. But I think my reactions round this all stem from the childhood experiences I was on about before. My experience tells me that groups are powerful and individuals are vulnerable, and I'm hypersensitive (way beyond rationality) about any individual being on the wrong side of a group, without allies.

But Listener was speculating on why people react to me as they do - which is a whole other kettle of worms.

Luis, I think you've got me confused with my Mum. Or maybe her Mum, who even had the bun.

 

[dobro p]

Hilary, you're no matriarch. lol You're just balanced, is all. And young too, from my vantage point. If it gets wearing being an orphan, I'll adopt you, if you like. lol Have to check with my wife first, though. I think the bit about the scones will be a point in your favor...

 

[hilary]

I can find Mum's cheese scone recipe - any good?

 

[dobro p]

Sigh...

Okay, I checked with my missus and she says she'd rather have another cat. Nothing personal, she hastens to add.

But perhaps we can continue to have a successful internetical sort of relationship. I can be sort of avuncular, and you can be sort of...well...young. I'll miss the scones though.

 

[mudpie]

Trojan ,
why do you get so defensive? I wasnt addressing that post to you in specific at all, and if you reread it over, all i say is that in my opinion, WF is created persona who enjoys being controversial and that confronting her is not going to achieve anything except to make her giggle.....and that Projections about "mummy" go on in EVERY kind of setting, no matter how old the people are . it is not patronizing, it is awareness.

YOu always defend the right to argue on this board and yet because one time I admonished you not to "throw eggs" when you didnt seem to understand the concept (IMO), you seem to have a vendetta for me. I apologize, Okay? let it go

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis, I think you've got me confused with my Mum. Or maybe her Mum, who even had the bun.

Well, I never had the privilege of meeting your Mum but if she left recipes around I'll send you my address and you send me a box of scones for Christmas... Is all in the genes! LOL!

L

 

[mudpie]

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/trelawney.html

yes exactly

 

[mudpie]

(Not so sure about the matriarch bit.)

Face it Hilary, you're an old soul.

 

[dobro p]

But old souls don't have wrinkles, right? I mean, not necessarily, right?

I ask merely for clarification, you understand.

 

[hollis]

scones? w/ jam?

Mum's scone recipe?! Can we start a thread? Do long green tails and big teeth like that sort of thing?

 

[dobro p]

Do long green tails and big teeth like that sort of thing?

Almost always. Makes one's scales shiny too. Some say it's all the dairy. I say just have another scone.

 

[mudpie]

But old souls don't have wrinkles, right? I mean, not necessarily, right?

No, of course not. That's the beauty of being an old soul. They've gotten the wrinkles out of everything already. Put it this way: in human form they will never need botox

 

[dobro p]

Okay, let's see if I've got this straight...

Old souls don't get wrinkles. Hm. I've got wrinkles. No, that can't be right...

Gee, I don't like where this is going.