Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
To war or not to war...that is the question
- Thread starter cal val
- Start date
I must be entirely alone in thinking the results of the experiment were devoid of any collective meaning. Though i thought it was a good idea and an interesting experiment, it just didn't feel right when I participated in the casting. Confused, maybe I can only deal with my bit of mind at any one time.
Chat rooms - never used one. Can you stand in a chat room and observe, or once in there do you have to chat ? I'd like to see whats happening, but have nothing to offer re the experiment.
Chat rooms - never used one. Can you stand in a chat room and observe, or once in there do you have to chat ? I'd like to see whats happening, but have nothing to offer re the experiment.
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,208
- Reaction score
- 3,463
Slow-loading topic page - yes, it is, and is because it's so long. Please do not click the submit button twice. Please do not click the submit button twice. I think that at this stage, if you can stand the wait while the page loads, it might be as well to keep all this together.
Louise - we'll know you're there, but you don't have to say anything, you can just watch the messages scrolling past. Please come!
You're not quite alone in thinking it without 'collective meaning' - Angel thinks the whole operation was misbegotten and consequently the results are just a jumble. For myself, I think if I could just crack exactly what 'collective meaning' meant, I'd be nine tenths of the way there (or changing like a tiger, maybe!).
I'm liable to disappear a bit today - I really must write the newsletter! Hope meanwhile all will agree to differ peaceably.
Louise - we'll know you're there, but you don't have to say anything, you can just watch the messages scrolling past. Please come!
You're not quite alone in thinking it without 'collective meaning' - Angel thinks the whole operation was misbegotten and consequently the results are just a jumble. For myself, I think if I could just crack exactly what 'collective meaning' meant, I'd be nine tenths of the way there (or changing like a tiger, maybe!).
I'm liable to disappear a bit today - I really must write the newsletter! Hope meanwhile all will agree to differ peaceably.
cal val
visitor
- Joined
- Apr 30, 1971
- Messages
- 1,507
- Reaction score
- 20
Louise...
If you'll read my post-consultation post again you'll see that my initial gut feeling was that the I Ching was reflecting everyone's individual feelings about the direction of the possible war. You are not alone in your thoughts on the lack of collectiveness in the collective consultation.
Although I LOVED Lindsay's very creative and entertaining story, I didn't get a collective feeling at all myself. But that's not to say I dismiss his concept that, through us, the I Ching was telling a detailed story of the events yet to unfold. It's a distinct and awesome possibility. However, if that were the case, and we were all to do what Lindsay did and glean a story from the 'collective' consultations, I suspect we would all come up with different stories that, again, would reflect our individual feelings about the direction of the possible war.
I was also quite clear that I'm ignorant of nuclear hexagrams and wanted insight which I did, indeed, get in this thread. And this is that there are only 16 possible nuclear hexagrams. That 'splains a lot Lucy. Thank you all!
I'm the one who threw the pure 11. That's how I feel about the direction of this war. I feel even more positive about the possibility of peace now that Hussein is appearing to cooperate more and Blair is (predictably) back pedalling. I really feel Blair's position in this crisis is integral to the balance of power. In his speech at the Labour Party conference in Glasgow, he said, "Remember, the U.N. inspectors would not be within a thousand miles of Baghdad without the threat of force...Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him...I hope even now Iraq can be disarmed peacefully with or without Saddam." That statement has given the Bush administration a window of opportunity to back down gracefully from it's hard line position and seek a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation. And the Bush administration has every incentive to do so...growing world (and US) opposition to a war. I truly believe the tide is turning toward peace.
Peace and out,
Val
If you'll read my post-consultation post again you'll see that my initial gut feeling was that the I Ching was reflecting everyone's individual feelings about the direction of the possible war. You are not alone in your thoughts on the lack of collectiveness in the collective consultation.
Although I LOVED Lindsay's very creative and entertaining story, I didn't get a collective feeling at all myself. But that's not to say I dismiss his concept that, through us, the I Ching was telling a detailed story of the events yet to unfold. It's a distinct and awesome possibility. However, if that were the case, and we were all to do what Lindsay did and glean a story from the 'collective' consultations, I suspect we would all come up with different stories that, again, would reflect our individual feelings about the direction of the possible war.
I was also quite clear that I'm ignorant of nuclear hexagrams and wanted insight which I did, indeed, get in this thread. And this is that there are only 16 possible nuclear hexagrams. That 'splains a lot Lucy. Thank you all!
I'm the one who threw the pure 11. That's how I feel about the direction of this war. I feel even more positive about the possibility of peace now that Hussein is appearing to cooperate more and Blair is (predictably) back pedalling. I really feel Blair's position in this crisis is integral to the balance of power. In his speech at the Labour Party conference in Glasgow, he said, "Remember, the U.N. inspectors would not be within a thousand miles of Baghdad without the threat of force...Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him...I hope even now Iraq can be disarmed peacefully with or without Saddam." That statement has given the Bush administration a window of opportunity to back down gracefully from it's hard line position and seek a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation. And the Bush administration has every incentive to do so...growing world (and US) opposition to a war. I truly believe the tide is turning toward peace.
Peace and out,
Val
Oh, to my mind, the Sanity at Clarity Award always goes to Louise.
Singing spirituals saves me from time to time, as does reading hexagrams, meditating mystically on the symbolic meaning of the president, watching a flock of geese fly across the moon...
As far as getting meaning from this experiment, I see it as another data point we can relate to Dharma's question What is the Planetary State (or something like that?) last spring. In that case, one person asked a question about the state of the world, and many gathered around the one answer to interpret it. There was some discussion about how asking a question repeatedly from multiple perspectives would likely be very confusing.
Rereading some of that discussion, I, (who, in my religious orientation, you could probably charitably call "syncretic," or "passionately confused"), for the first time, see some genuine spiritual value to the idea of the central priest, one person asking the collective question on behalf of all, and then everyone joins in the interpretation. Not sure.
What do I really think of Bush? I think it suits him just fine to be seen as crazy. I think through either muddle or brilliance he's latched onto the idea of polarizing a deeply complex situation to move an agenda. Deep in my heart, I think he's gotten the poles wrong. It's not Good and Evil. It's love and fear.
I don't think that feeling that your (my) hands aren't clean incapacitates you for action, or maybe better stated, for taking your rightful seat at the Round Table of action. There is the concept of the "control file" - the "dirt" that someone somewhere has on a politician or some public figure, or anyone anywhere - the fear that if something terrible they've done is exposed, that they'll be ruined. And thus the controlled person does not what they feel is right, but what they feel is safe. They don't really show up.
I think the split down the middle of the human heart is modern alienation of person from god, person from planet, men from women. Self from self. Responding in terms of a self- or other- imposed "control file."
Love or fear.
Singing spirituals saves me from time to time, as does reading hexagrams, meditating mystically on the symbolic meaning of the president, watching a flock of geese fly across the moon...
As far as getting meaning from this experiment, I see it as another data point we can relate to Dharma's question What is the Planetary State (or something like that?) last spring. In that case, one person asked a question about the state of the world, and many gathered around the one answer to interpret it. There was some discussion about how asking a question repeatedly from multiple perspectives would likely be very confusing.
Rereading some of that discussion, I, (who, in my religious orientation, you could probably charitably call "syncretic," or "passionately confused"), for the first time, see some genuine spiritual value to the idea of the central priest, one person asking the collective question on behalf of all, and then everyone joins in the interpretation. Not sure.
What do I really think of Bush? I think it suits him just fine to be seen as crazy. I think through either muddle or brilliance he's latched onto the idea of polarizing a deeply complex situation to move an agenda. Deep in my heart, I think he's gotten the poles wrong. It's not Good and Evil. It's love and fear.
I don't think that feeling that your (my) hands aren't clean incapacitates you for action, or maybe better stated, for taking your rightful seat at the Round Table of action. There is the concept of the "control file" - the "dirt" that someone somewhere has on a politician or some public figure, or anyone anywhere - the fear that if something terrible they've done is exposed, that they'll be ruined. And thus the controlled person does not what they feel is right, but what they feel is safe. They don't really show up.
I think the split down the middle of the human heart is modern alienation of person from god, person from planet, men from women. Self from self. Responding in terms of a self- or other- imposed "control file."
Love or fear.
Me sane ! Ha Ha Thankyou Willow
Well I think you're pretty sane too Willow. Good thinking to remind us of that discussion with Dharma.
Val, you're right, I'm not alone.
BTW I would like to wish Leonard a happy 30th for yesterday - well I've seen his photo - can't be more than 30 surely. "I am unaquainted with the intricacies of crack reading" cracked me up. Where I come from, middle England, such a thing could not be said in polite society - don't people use it to mean that in America ? Maybe they do and Leonard was just being wicked.
Totally off topic, although Americans and English people supposedly speak the same language, I actually think they don't at all - if you know what I mean ? Its not so bad here, but in the flesh, for me, theres a subtle, but nevertheless real, communication problem. Apart from that they just don't understand the necessity of tea.
Well I think you're pretty sane too Willow. Good thinking to remind us of that discussion with Dharma.
Val, you're right, I'm not alone.
BTW I would like to wish Leonard a happy 30th for yesterday - well I've seen his photo - can't be more than 30 surely. "I am unaquainted with the intricacies of crack reading" cracked me up. Where I come from, middle England, such a thing could not be said in polite society - don't people use it to mean that in America ? Maybe they do and Leonard was just being wicked.
Totally off topic, although Americans and English people supposedly speak the same language, I actually think they don't at all - if you know what I mean ? Its not so bad here, but in the flesh, for me, theres a subtle, but nevertheless real, communication problem. Apart from that they just don't understand the necessity of tea.
C
candid
Guest
Suzy - A short while back, Lindsay made the preposterous statement that I was the sanest person here at Clarity. I've never felt deserving of such a claim, and so it was with relief and gladness that I passed the torch to Willow after reading his commentary in this thread.
Louise - I have (at this point) no idea whether the Ching answered collectively or not. What I thought was interesting and truly appreciated was a) Lindsay's roll-out story concept, and b) Willow's outstanding narrative on his reflections. I also appreciated Val's initiative in leading the way to this discussion, and Hilary's nurturing dedication to do what she always does so well - make it all happen for us.
Lindsay - Basically, the approach you took in the story is exactly the one I use most often here. The difference being, I unite two hexagrams in the story whereas you managed to unit a myriad of impressions into a sane (smile), logical and continued pattern. I was glad to see that you included intuition as a contributing element. (Did you really fit all that onto a cocktail napkin?)
Personally, I lean toward Val's explanation that Yi addressed each where they were at the time they threw their reading. That's what I was trying to convey by the 'German soldier during WW2 asking Yi about a battle' analogy. Yi isn't associated with which side we, as a group, think is in the right, politically, and is undaunted by public opinion. It meets each person within the field of their own life experience. Yet collectively, its as Willow described so beautifully in his 'going down to the river to pray' song. I loved that! We all are watching, but there is only one well. There is only one, period.
Candid
Louise - I have (at this point) no idea whether the Ching answered collectively or not. What I thought was interesting and truly appreciated was a) Lindsay's roll-out story concept, and b) Willow's outstanding narrative on his reflections. I also appreciated Val's initiative in leading the way to this discussion, and Hilary's nurturing dedication to do what she always does so well - make it all happen for us.
Lindsay - Basically, the approach you took in the story is exactly the one I use most often here. The difference being, I unite two hexagrams in the story whereas you managed to unit a myriad of impressions into a sane (smile), logical and continued pattern. I was glad to see that you included intuition as a contributing element. (Did you really fit all that onto a cocktail napkin?)
Personally, I lean toward Val's explanation that Yi addressed each where they were at the time they threw their reading. That's what I was trying to convey by the 'German soldier during WW2 asking Yi about a battle' analogy. Yi isn't associated with which side we, as a group, think is in the right, politically, and is undaunted by public opinion. It meets each person within the field of their own life experience. Yet collectively, its as Willow described so beautifully in his 'going down to the river to pray' song. I loved that! We all are watching, but there is only one well. There is only one, period.
Candid
cal val
visitor
- Joined
- Apr 30, 1971
- Messages
- 1,507
- Reaction score
- 20
In another thread, Louise, I would love you to explain, in your words, the necessity of tea. I can only imagine. Of course, I went scouring the net for some insight. I plugged "the necessity of tea" into the google search window, and found a rather interesting discourse on the history of tea in England and its political impact...particularly on the relationship between England and America. The Necessity of Tea
I, too, see a difference in the languages. But then, I come from the western US and my only real exposure to the English version was in the Cotswolds and Cheltenham. I very much enjoyed it.
Cheerio the noo,
Val
I, too, see a difference in the languages. But then, I come from the western US and my only real exposure to the English version was in the Cotswolds and Cheltenham. I very much enjoyed it.
Cheerio the noo,
Val
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Hi All,
I have been considering many things regarding this discussion and the thought which keeps re-ocurring seems to boil down to, "What are we here for?" In my case the answer is simple; Clarity concerning the IChing. All of us have our varigated views on politics and I see nothing wrong with that. Many of us have strong, extremely strong, political world views, mine verging just to the left of Anarchism. But I don't believe those views are contributing very much towards the primary goals of the site.
I know that my political views will not be swayed by any arguments presented here. I'm sure that follows for many of us. So, why present them? If they don't relate to attaining clarity concerning the Yi they are just so much mental/semantic masturbation contributing to the bolstering of our individual egos.
There are thousands of sites available on the net for furthering one's views on political issues and I am glad they exist. This site doesn't happen to be one of them.
I personally apologise to the members of this site for expressing my political views and straying from the primary objective. It has been my life experience that the discussion of politics always leads to polarization and that extreme polarization usually contributes stress and anger amongst we humans. I see stress and anger as being counter-productive to clarity.
When I joined Clarity last spring I was thrilled by the honesty and compassion exhibited here. Sure, we had our brief heated exchanges, but in the main, they concerned various interpretations of the Yi and were usually resolved quickly. Hopefully all came away from those exchanges with their knowledge of the Yi furthered. I know I did.
During the many years I spent studying the Tarot I would frequently come across references to the fact that its divining aspects were present mainly to keep it 'alive' in order for its deeper spiritual knowledge to not be lost. The more I study the Yi the more I am convinced that the same principle applies.(Dear Hilary, no disrespect is meant here with regard to your life's work which definitely is in accord with my view of the Yi's purpose. This site contributes immensely towards exposing the Yi for all the planet to see, and that is surely a wonderful and gracious contribution by you!) Sure, I consult the Yi with divination in mind occasionally(and at times MUCH more frequently), but I try to never lose sight of what I believe to be its 'primary purpose' as the oldest instruction manual on the planet for gaining enlightenment.
During those times when I am feeling lonely, depressed, confused, and need spiritual solace, I know that I can just open the 'book' and whatever I read at that random spot will offer insight and perspective, usually 'spot-on' concerning the difficulty I am having at that moment. I believe that to be the 'alchemical gold' contained within its pages. Thats why I have never become involved with the intricacies surrounding nuclear hexagrams and detailed analysis. I WANT to see the forest, not just the trees.
Finally, I would like to say this. Wars are fought over politics, I have never seen enlightenment as a by-product of war. I promise the members of this forum that I will strive in the future to not express political views in my posts.
Peace be with all of you forever.
Namaste,
Leonard
I have been considering many things regarding this discussion and the thought which keeps re-ocurring seems to boil down to, "What are we here for?" In my case the answer is simple; Clarity concerning the IChing. All of us have our varigated views on politics and I see nothing wrong with that. Many of us have strong, extremely strong, political world views, mine verging just to the left of Anarchism. But I don't believe those views are contributing very much towards the primary goals of the site.
I know that my political views will not be swayed by any arguments presented here. I'm sure that follows for many of us. So, why present them? If they don't relate to attaining clarity concerning the Yi they are just so much mental/semantic masturbation contributing to the bolstering of our individual egos.
There are thousands of sites available on the net for furthering one's views on political issues and I am glad they exist. This site doesn't happen to be one of them.
I personally apologise to the members of this site for expressing my political views and straying from the primary objective. It has been my life experience that the discussion of politics always leads to polarization and that extreme polarization usually contributes stress and anger amongst we humans. I see stress and anger as being counter-productive to clarity.
When I joined Clarity last spring I was thrilled by the honesty and compassion exhibited here. Sure, we had our brief heated exchanges, but in the main, they concerned various interpretations of the Yi and were usually resolved quickly. Hopefully all came away from those exchanges with their knowledge of the Yi furthered. I know I did.
During the many years I spent studying the Tarot I would frequently come across references to the fact that its divining aspects were present mainly to keep it 'alive' in order for its deeper spiritual knowledge to not be lost. The more I study the Yi the more I am convinced that the same principle applies.(Dear Hilary, no disrespect is meant here with regard to your life's work which definitely is in accord with my view of the Yi's purpose. This site contributes immensely towards exposing the Yi for all the planet to see, and that is surely a wonderful and gracious contribution by you!) Sure, I consult the Yi with divination in mind occasionally(and at times MUCH more frequently), but I try to never lose sight of what I believe to be its 'primary purpose' as the oldest instruction manual on the planet for gaining enlightenment.
During those times when I am feeling lonely, depressed, confused, and need spiritual solace, I know that I can just open the 'book' and whatever I read at that random spot will offer insight and perspective, usually 'spot-on' concerning the difficulty I am having at that moment. I believe that to be the 'alchemical gold' contained within its pages. Thats why I have never become involved with the intricacies surrounding nuclear hexagrams and detailed analysis. I WANT to see the forest, not just the trees.
Finally, I would like to say this. Wars are fought over politics, I have never seen enlightenment as a by-product of war. I promise the members of this forum that I will strive in the future to not express political views in my posts.
Peace be with all of you forever.
Namaste,
Leonard
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Thank you, Louise for a wonderful birthday present. I regard humour as one of the greatest gifts we are able to bestow on others. And, yes there was a bit of double entendre on my part in that post. It was not aimed in the wicked direction that I assume you were referring to because I happen to be aware of the more common words you Brits use for that part of the anatomy.
And yes, I agree that we do speak different languages. Sort of like 'step-brothers born of one Mother'. I have to say I really envy the Brits for their seemingly innate ability to be so suscinct(sp?). Until an American has been verbally shredded by a Brit they really have no concept of the experience. And you guys do it with such grace and subtlety that its actually an artform!
Dear Louise, as much as I appreciate your sanity, I would have to say that I can only bestow 'first runner-up' to you. I would have to say that Hilary is still the sanest individual I've encountered here.
Thank you ever so much for the compliment regarding my age. You have now been elevated for life to my 'extended family' status, with all the attendant perqs therewith.
...and while on the subject of photos; I once again ask the question, "Why do most of the members insist on remaining mostly incognito?" I mean, if I have the cojones to put my ugly face on my profile, whats holding the rest of you abstainers up? ;-))
Namaste,
Leonard
And yes, I agree that we do speak different languages. Sort of like 'step-brothers born of one Mother'. I have to say I really envy the Brits for their seemingly innate ability to be so suscinct(sp?). Until an American has been verbally shredded by a Brit they really have no concept of the experience. And you guys do it with such grace and subtlety that its actually an artform!
Dear Louise, as much as I appreciate your sanity, I would have to say that I can only bestow 'first runner-up' to you. I would have to say that Hilary is still the sanest individual I've encountered here.
Thank you ever so much for the compliment regarding my age. You have now been elevated for life to my 'extended family' status, with all the attendant perqs therewith.
...and while on the subject of photos; I once again ask the question, "Why do most of the members insist on remaining mostly incognito?" I mean, if I have the cojones to put my ugly face on my profile, whats holding the rest of you abstainers up? ;-))
Namaste,
Leonard
Val, I can't start a thread on tea ! Suffice it to say tea is the backbone of our nation, preferably with biscuits ('cookies' to you) Without it we are tetchy, miserable, mentally unstable, physically incapable and just unfulfilled
. Thankyou for the link, it does look interesting. Forgive me forum for being trivial, I will stop it right now - but first can anyone tell me what Americans mean by biscuits ?
Candid I thought Willow was a lady ?
Candid I thought Willow was a lady ?
Everyone:
As a relative newcomer to the site, I would like to humbly offer a few thoughts about our political discussion of the past few days.
First of all, obviously this is a site about the I Ching, not a forum for political debate, and we mustn't allow its primary purpose to be subverted. Along those lines, I too apologize if my political comments offended anyone or distracted from the main point.
However, the subject of Val's experiment was, in fact, world politics, and it's hard to see how we could have had a meaningful exchange without some political speech creeping in. Especially since the Yi's responses turned out to be so individual, and possibly tuned to each person's own perspective on events (though I'm not dismissing the elegant narrative proposed by Lindsay or Willow's vision of a collective impetus). In studying the individual results, it helps a great deal to know that the diviner may have been thinking "how can we stop this?," or may regard Bush or Saddam as the embodiment of evil, etc., etc.
The trick, of course, is to engage in political speech without devolving into ranting or mudslinging. And on that score, I think the posters on this forum did a pretty good job. Some of us slid into intemperate speech from time to time, but always came back with a re-statement of general respect for each other. I'm impressed by that. As older and wiser heads have pointed out, talking politics almost always leads to polarization and bad feelings. That may be more true now than ever, since our national discourse (in the U.S.) has become so dominated by a talk-radio style of extreme, "you're an idiot" ranting. But on this forum, it seems to me that the mutual respect you all evince has exerted a moderating influence, allowing us to express even extreme disagreement without huffing off into a permanent funk. It's probaby no coincidence that all of us are of course students of the I Ching. The Yi certainly doesn't advise ignoring politics -- if I've got my history right, its original purpose was largely to answer political questions -- but it does advise quieting one's ego, cooling one's passions, and looking dispassionately at the whole picture.
I, personally, continue to hope for a style of political discourse that is balanced and broad-minded. Theoretically, it should at least be possible to disagree almost totally with someone's point of view, yet still a) regard the viewpoint-holder herself with respect, and b) to figure out the merit in her position. Hah! Easier said than done!
Best wishes to all of you. I have enjoyed the discussion.
As a relative newcomer to the site, I would like to humbly offer a few thoughts about our political discussion of the past few days.
First of all, obviously this is a site about the I Ching, not a forum for political debate, and we mustn't allow its primary purpose to be subverted. Along those lines, I too apologize if my political comments offended anyone or distracted from the main point.
However, the subject of Val's experiment was, in fact, world politics, and it's hard to see how we could have had a meaningful exchange without some political speech creeping in. Especially since the Yi's responses turned out to be so individual, and possibly tuned to each person's own perspective on events (though I'm not dismissing the elegant narrative proposed by Lindsay or Willow's vision of a collective impetus). In studying the individual results, it helps a great deal to know that the diviner may have been thinking "how can we stop this?," or may regard Bush or Saddam as the embodiment of evil, etc., etc.
The trick, of course, is to engage in political speech without devolving into ranting or mudslinging. And on that score, I think the posters on this forum did a pretty good job. Some of us slid into intemperate speech from time to time, but always came back with a re-statement of general respect for each other. I'm impressed by that. As older and wiser heads have pointed out, talking politics almost always leads to polarization and bad feelings. That may be more true now than ever, since our national discourse (in the U.S.) has become so dominated by a talk-radio style of extreme, "you're an idiot" ranting. But on this forum, it seems to me that the mutual respect you all evince has exerted a moderating influence, allowing us to express even extreme disagreement without huffing off into a permanent funk. It's probaby no coincidence that all of us are of course students of the I Ching. The Yi certainly doesn't advise ignoring politics -- if I've got my history right, its original purpose was largely to answer political questions -- but it does advise quieting one's ego, cooling one's passions, and looking dispassionately at the whole picture.
I, personally, continue to hope for a style of political discourse that is balanced and broad-minded. Theoretically, it should at least be possible to disagree almost totally with someone's point of view, yet still a) regard the viewpoint-holder herself with respect, and b) to figure out the merit in her position. Hah! Easier said than done!
Best wishes to all of you. I have enjoyed the discussion.
Leonard, I remain incognito to retain my privacy from people I know, friends, family etc. I figured if they know I use this forum (which they do)it would be easy for them to find - and then they'd know things about me I don't want them to.
Paranoid maybe. But I've thought if I wanted help with a reading of a personal kind - here I can feel uninhibited about asking - but I'd feel inhibited if for example a man I was asking a question about could read my posts ! Its occurred to me with Anita - she writes alot of her boyfriend - but what if her boyfriend, knowing she used the site came here and read all her posts ! That would be embarrasing for her wouldn't it ? (pardon me Anita, just making an example) Well thats my reason for not doing the profile - shame as its nice to see the face of the people you're talking to. Am I paranoid ?
Paranoid maybe. But I've thought if I wanted help with a reading of a personal kind - here I can feel uninhibited about asking - but I'd feel inhibited if for example a man I was asking a question about could read my posts ! Its occurred to me with Anita - she writes alot of her boyfriend - but what if her boyfriend, knowing she used the site came here and read all her posts ! That would be embarrasing for her wouldn't it ? (pardon me Anita, just making an example) Well thats my reason for not doing the profile - shame as its nice to see the face of the people you're talking to. Am I paranoid ?
Thanks Suzy (re biscuits) ! I agree it would be virtually impossible given the nature of the question we addressed, to not have any political discussion. Therefore I don't think anyone need give themselves a hard time over this. I learnt quite alot from it.
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Gee, Louise,
I'm hardly qualified to answer that question. That said, I would have to say NO! You are not.
Heres my perspective on the profile/photo issue:
1. This is a forum and if we were not holding it over the IT, we would all be speaking face to face.
2. Imagine the Roman Senate orating away with sacks over their heads.
3. Imagine Parliment with all their members enclosed in little 'confessional-like' boxes.
4. Imagine Congress....oops...lets skip Congress!
5. In my case, it has to do with "the courage of my convictions". Here I am folks, warts and all, and I am still going to have my say, put all my cards on the table, stake out my own little soapbox, and if anyone wishes to know who/where I really am, all they have to do is look at my profile. Hell, I would have a detailed biography on the darn thing if Hilary had provided the space. Complete with mailing address and phone number. I mean, we all get fairly personal at times on this site and it would, at least for me, be helpful to know that I am speaking to a real person and not a 'construct'. I like to be able to see a persons eyes, it helps me to 'know' that person in my mind, and I do think they are "the windows to the soul".
But, thats just one members opinion. That and a buck will buy you a cup of coffee in New York. (Adjusted for inflation I guess that and a British pound 'might' get you that cup!)
Namaste,
Leonard
I'm hardly qualified to answer that question. That said, I would have to say NO! You are not.
Heres my perspective on the profile/photo issue:
1. This is a forum and if we were not holding it over the IT, we would all be speaking face to face.
2. Imagine the Roman Senate orating away with sacks over their heads.
3. Imagine Parliment with all their members enclosed in little 'confessional-like' boxes.
4. Imagine Congress....oops...lets skip Congress!
5. In my case, it has to do with "the courage of my convictions". Here I am folks, warts and all, and I am still going to have my say, put all my cards on the table, stake out my own little soapbox, and if anyone wishes to know who/where I really am, all they have to do is look at my profile. Hell, I would have a detailed biography on the darn thing if Hilary had provided the space. Complete with mailing address and phone number. I mean, we all get fairly personal at times on this site and it would, at least for me, be helpful to know that I am speaking to a real person and not a 'construct'. I like to be able to see a persons eyes, it helps me to 'know' that person in my mind, and I do think they are "the windows to the soul".
But, thats just one members opinion. That and a buck will buy you a cup of coffee in New York. (Adjusted for inflation I guess that and a British pound 'might' get you that cup!)
Namaste,
Leonard
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
One more point, in regards to Anita, I have not seen anything she has written in her posts that would affect her relationship one iota(insofar as her boyfriend's accidental reading of them). If I were in love with her and were her BF, I would be proud of what she has written. She is in love and it shows, nothing to be ashamed of there at all.
Namaste,
Leonard
Namaste,
Leonard
Leonard, I'm still laughing at the image of the Roman Senate orating with sacks over their heads. Cicero Incognito. I suppose I shall have to find a picture to post that shows my eyes. I thought it would be enough to see my dogs (who are much prettier than I am, anyway).
Louise, I forgot to add that we generally don't add raisins and things like that to our biscuits either, though I suppose it could be done. We eat 'em plain, with butter and jelly, or (Southern style) with gravy. Funny, I just went through the reverse of this with my Dad awhile back. He's a fabulous cook, and I said, "make us some scones! I adore scones, have been craving them." He said, "what is a scone???" I found him a recipe, he baked them, they were fab. He and my Mom both said, "Oh. Sweetened biscuits."
Hey, what about the size of these protests! I'm snowed in with a bum leg, but watching the news. Astounded at the turnout in London. I'm going to go back through the readings with an eye towards that. I've been humming along with my NATO/UN interpretation -- which I still think is incredibly spot-on given what's happened this week -- but I haven't put much faith in the peace protests to have an effect on events. Perhaps it's time to re-think.
Louise, I forgot to add that we generally don't add raisins and things like that to our biscuits either, though I suppose it could be done. We eat 'em plain, with butter and jelly, or (Southern style) with gravy. Funny, I just went through the reverse of this with my Dad awhile back. He's a fabulous cook, and I said, "make us some scones! I adore scones, have been craving them." He said, "what is a scone???" I found him a recipe, he baked them, they were fab. He and my Mom both said, "Oh. Sweetened biscuits."
Hey, what about the size of these protests! I'm snowed in with a bum leg, but watching the news. Astounded at the turnout in London. I'm going to go back through the readings with an eye towards that. I've been humming along with my NATO/UN interpretation -- which I still think is incredibly spot-on given what's happened this week -- but I haven't put much faith in the peace protests to have an effect on events. Perhaps it's time to re-think.
No, no nothing to be ashamed of, thats not what I meant. But when you talk things over about a relationship, you don't want that person to hear do you ? I did not mean it would affect his love for her, only that she might feel embarrassed. Anyway I just used Anita to illustrate - I'm really talking about me. If I was confiding in a friend about my boyfriend I wouldn't exactly want him to have a transcript of the conversation. The very fact that I needed to talk to someone else about it would mean there were certain things I couldn't say to him.
Be interesting to hear why others don't do their profiles.
Be interesting to hear why others don't do their profiles.
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Dear Susy,
If your dogs actually sometimes type or contribute to your posts by all means post pictures showing their eyes, also!
Namaste,
Leonard
If your dogs actually sometimes type or contribute to your posts by all means post pictures showing their eyes, also!
Namaste,
Leonard
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Dear Louise,
I (slaps forehead briskly) just realized the answer to your dilemma. It was right before my eyes. When posting something 'personal' about boyfriends/girlfriends/whatever Hilary has provided us with the 'Anon' option. So, we may have our cake and eat it also. Problem solved!
Namaste,
Leonard
I (slaps forehead briskly) just realized the answer to your dilemma. It was right before my eyes. When posting something 'personal' about boyfriends/girlfriends/whatever Hilary has provided us with the 'Anon' option. So, we may have our cake and eat it also. Problem solved!
Namaste,
Leonard
Leonard, yes, thats a good idea - but - then no one here would know who you are either - unless a code was used (chortle). So you'd be requesting advice from people you feel you know, but be in disguise yourself. Anyway maybe theres something to be said for talking with 'sacks over the head' - to some extent it means we avoid preconceived notions of each other. We make all sorts of assumptions on appearance don't we - we can't help it. Then again, I agree eyes are important, but so are shoes Leonard and I can't see yours
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Dear Louise,
I believe 'more fully conceived' would be the term I would humbly apply. I just happen to have a picture of my shoes(well, one pair at least) which I would be more than happy to transmit to you via private email, if you so desire. "Next time, pardner, you look me straight in the toe when you say that!".
Namaste,
Leonard
I believe 'more fully conceived' would be the term I would humbly apply. I just happen to have a picture of my shoes(well, one pair at least) which I would be more than happy to transmit to you via private email, if you so desire. "Next time, pardner, you look me straight in the toe when you say that!".
Namaste,
Leonard
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,208
- Reaction score
- 3,463
OK, here's an attempted synthesis:
18 and 11 are the 'pillars', the basic scenario. Great things have to happen; something has to be done. They share the core of 54, change that's (in this situation) really under no-one's control, and that might just lead to a better order and a new dynasty...
The two earlier readings both deal with the build-up toward war, in terms of the Western powers and US in particular. 52 >> 46 is practically 52 versus 46: 'Keep still, don't rush into it!' versus 'Forward! Liberate Iraq! No cares!' Results appear in line about bound at calves and (as I read it) still having much forward impetus.
3 >> 63, the hunter already committed to the hunt even if he has no clue how to get in and out of the forest.
Moving up to war, will the first shot be fired? LiSe's maybe/maybe not pair go here: 26 >> 18 and 44 >> 43. Great build-up with nasty 18 issues unresolved. Growing unease and need to make decisive gesture. It would be good to stop, but can it be done? (Thought for later, especially for the hunter imagery: is Saddam the scrawny pig trying to escape?)
Also here goes 6 >> 44, from someone whose dim view of the US government is maybe at the forefront of consciousness. 6 - something is wrong, must fight it! 44 - maybe the creeping unease in the US post-911? That something unknowable, alien is out there, you can't ally with it and you never know what it might do next?
I think that nourishing oneself on ancient de could be the sense of an imperial 'duty' in the world. Ancient enough - the UK used to believe in it. The feeling that since the US is free, it should liberate oppressed peoples everywhere and make the world safe for democracy. 'King's business' has no achievements: I doubt the US will achieve such war-aims as these.
Concluding from that lot that conflict is next-to-impossible to avoid, on to the course of it.
64 >> 48 - another 1st line reading. Uncertainty about readiness and capacity, about whether the well-rope is long enough. An early setback: shame. I notice that many of the bad lines in all the readings speak of 'shame': 44,6; 6,3; 3,3 and 64,3. I think US and allies are more likely to embarrass themselves somewhat through starting with grandiose aims than to cause major disaster.
32 >> 50. 50 sounds like ambition for 'New World Order', new dynasty, even new empire. (If not that, then regime change in Iraq at the very least!) Not a good ambition when the times call for adaptability and constancy.
8 >> 2 Saddam's last chance. Will the scrawny pig opt to surrender himself to the hunting king before 'collateral damage'?
Outcomes - Anita's 41 >> 56 sounds like 'Not really getting involved! Just passing through! 56 is once again trying to relate to a completely alien part of the world. This isn't just US in the middle East, it's all of us divining about it. How much clue do we have? Those lines of 41 I can follow also sound like getting out asap.
Finally, I realised that having naturally asked from our own point of view, we were rather missing one. So I asked about the outcome for the Iraqi people. 10 changing to 51. Our only 51 in the whole sequence! I think line 2 is a calm and resolute people protecting themselves by keeping quiet. Line 5 sounds like a second attempt at overthrowing Saddam. Line 6 - dare we hope, success? But the contact with ancestors suggests that the government they would aim for might not be what the West would have in mind for them.
The 2 readings I haven't mentioned I think are all about Western alliances. Suzy's NATO reading, 13 >> 47. 22 >> 17 must be about the diplomatic effort to 'court' allies through presentation, and it seems that the rest will naturally Follow the US when it comes down to it. 60 >> 8 may be a more serious matter, defining the terms, or the war objectives, for NWO-building alliances. (Hexagram 8 begins with the myth of Yu summoning lords and spirits after the flood to found a new civilisation. The one who came late to that was executed for it.) At line 1, domestic objectives are good. At line 2, failing to look out beyond the gates is not good.
I waded through this lot without once referring to Lindsay's narrative. Now for the comparison! I wasn't aiming for a narrative - I was thinking more in terms of a poem cycle, where one will pick up on the theme of another, some will form natural groupings, some will be keystones - and so forth.
See you in 55 minutes...
http://www.onlineClarity.co.uk/I_Ching_chat/chat/index.php3
18 and 11 are the 'pillars', the basic scenario. Great things have to happen; something has to be done. They share the core of 54, change that's (in this situation) really under no-one's control, and that might just lead to a better order and a new dynasty...
The two earlier readings both deal with the build-up toward war, in terms of the Western powers and US in particular. 52 >> 46 is practically 52 versus 46: 'Keep still, don't rush into it!' versus 'Forward! Liberate Iraq! No cares!' Results appear in line about bound at calves and (as I read it) still having much forward impetus.
3 >> 63, the hunter already committed to the hunt even if he has no clue how to get in and out of the forest.
Moving up to war, will the first shot be fired? LiSe's maybe/maybe not pair go here: 26 >> 18 and 44 >> 43. Great build-up with nasty 18 issues unresolved. Growing unease and need to make decisive gesture. It would be good to stop, but can it be done? (Thought for later, especially for the hunter imagery: is Saddam the scrawny pig trying to escape?)
Also here goes 6 >> 44, from someone whose dim view of the US government is maybe at the forefront of consciousness. 6 - something is wrong, must fight it! 44 - maybe the creeping unease in the US post-911? That something unknowable, alien is out there, you can't ally with it and you never know what it might do next?
I think that nourishing oneself on ancient de could be the sense of an imperial 'duty' in the world. Ancient enough - the UK used to believe in it. The feeling that since the US is free, it should liberate oppressed peoples everywhere and make the world safe for democracy. 'King's business' has no achievements: I doubt the US will achieve such war-aims as these.
Concluding from that lot that conflict is next-to-impossible to avoid, on to the course of it.
64 >> 48 - another 1st line reading. Uncertainty about readiness and capacity, about whether the well-rope is long enough. An early setback: shame. I notice that many of the bad lines in all the readings speak of 'shame': 44,6; 6,3; 3,3 and 64,3. I think US and allies are more likely to embarrass themselves somewhat through starting with grandiose aims than to cause major disaster.
32 >> 50. 50 sounds like ambition for 'New World Order', new dynasty, even new empire. (If not that, then regime change in Iraq at the very least!) Not a good ambition when the times call for adaptability and constancy.
8 >> 2 Saddam's last chance. Will the scrawny pig opt to surrender himself to the hunting king before 'collateral damage'?
Outcomes - Anita's 41 >> 56 sounds like 'Not really getting involved! Just passing through! 56 is once again trying to relate to a completely alien part of the world. This isn't just US in the middle East, it's all of us divining about it. How much clue do we have? Those lines of 41 I can follow also sound like getting out asap.
Finally, I realised that having naturally asked from our own point of view, we were rather missing one. So I asked about the outcome for the Iraqi people. 10 changing to 51. Our only 51 in the whole sequence! I think line 2 is a calm and resolute people protecting themselves by keeping quiet. Line 5 sounds like a second attempt at overthrowing Saddam. Line 6 - dare we hope, success? But the contact with ancestors suggests that the government they would aim for might not be what the West would have in mind for them.
The 2 readings I haven't mentioned I think are all about Western alliances. Suzy's NATO reading, 13 >> 47. 22 >> 17 must be about the diplomatic effort to 'court' allies through presentation, and it seems that the rest will naturally Follow the US when it comes down to it. 60 >> 8 may be a more serious matter, defining the terms, or the war objectives, for NWO-building alliances. (Hexagram 8 begins with the myth of Yu summoning lords and spirits after the flood to found a new civilisation. The one who came late to that was executed for it.) At line 1, domestic objectives are good. At line 2, failing to look out beyond the gates is not good.
I waded through this lot without once referring to Lindsay's narrative. Now for the comparison! I wasn't aiming for a narrative - I was thinking more in terms of a poem cycle, where one will pick up on the theme of another, some will form natural groupings, some will be keystones - and so forth.
See you in 55 minutes...
http://www.onlineClarity.co.uk/I_Ching_chat/chat/index.php3
lenardthefast
visitor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 1971
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 1
Dear Hilary,
Hear! Hear!
Well analyzed, and extremely well put. Thank you for a well-rounded synthesis. You are still my heroine!
Namaste,
Leonard
Hear! Hear!
Well analyzed, and extremely well put. Thank you for a well-rounded synthesis. You are still my heroine!
Namaste,
Leonard
C
candid
Guest
Hilary,
Thank you. Remarkable! But I'll save my remarks for the chat in a few minutes.
Remind me to ask you about "poem cycle."
Thank you. Remarkable! But I'll save my remarks for the chat in a few minutes.
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,208
- Reaction score
- 3,463
Sorry, Louise, just a typo. I did read the right line - soaked tail and all.
hilary
Administrator
- Joined
- Apr 8, 1970
- Messages
- 19,208
- Reaction score
- 3,463
Ok, make that two typos and reading the wrong relating hexagram...
Will somebody please mend my synthesis for me?