Very new too all this

[justdee]

Greetings all,

I've been reading quite a bit here and you all seem so friendly. But I must admit that I'm very new to all this (and a bit skeptical - hope that you don't take that the wrong way).

I am curious tho - I used the "online I-Ching Reading" to ask a single question. Basically I asked "Is the research I'm doing related to <personal subject> on track?" What I got as a result, I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand. (I suppose in all fairness the question was not only about the subject of the research and whether I should continue researching, but whether the research is significant/important enough for me to continue moving forward with too.)

Primary - 25
Relating - 17
Moving Line(s) - 6

I tried to read some of the beginner/introductory text - but am still quite confused. I was wondering if someone might have a moment to help me understand how the results apply to the question I asked?

Thank you in advance for any help and thank you for providing such interesting information about the IChing.

JustDee

 

[willowfox]

I've been reading quite a bit here and you all seem so friendly.

Try going to the "moderation" and "open space" threads and you will see how unfriendly people on here can be. At times its like a viper's nest on here.


Anyway, enough idle chat and on to your skeptical question.

Line 25.6 This suggests that you stop doing this particular line of research as continuing will not give you a successful outcome. One probably reason being that now is not the right time to be researching what you are researching.

 

[hilary]

Well, there are a few personality clashes round here, but we're trying to sweep them all into a corner so they don't get in the way of the readings.

Anyway... no, something is definitely not on track about this research. Could it be that there is something more you need to be doing about the issue? Is there a position you need to take less detached than 'researcher'?

As for scepticism... maybe we should do a poll one of these days on how many people here started out that way. Probably most of us!

 

[Sparhawk]

As for scepticism... maybe we should do a poll one of these days on how many people here started out that way. Probably most of us!

Maybe we should set the poll in Twitter...

 

[deedeebird]

Well, there are a few personality clashes round here, but we're trying to sweep them all into a corner so they don't get in the way of the readings.

Anyway... no, something is definitely not on track about this research. Could it be that there is something more you need to be doing about the issue? Is there a position you need to take less detached than 'researcher'?

As for scepticism... maybe we should do a poll one of these days on how many people here started out that way. Probably most of us!

Started out that way?

Meaning, not so much anymore?

That tickles me. Everything is relative, I guess, but there are plenty of vets here who might as well not even bother asking Yi questions based on the level of trust they place on answers.

 

[bamboo]

Maybe we should set the poll in Twitter...

No see my new thread in open space, and do it there

 

[justdee]

Thanks so much everyone - for the response. Perhaps it might help to give a little background...I'm very interested in how you all might assess the IChing response as related to the subject and perhaps background can clarify.

Background:

I am a very skeptical/rational/logical thinker. I analyze (probably over-analyze a great deal as well) just about everything - and typically, if I cannot see it with my own two eyes, hear with my own two ears...etc. I would be "skeptical" of the veracity of whatever it is that I'm seeing/doing/being told, etc.

Then recently, a series of personal experiences occurred that were beyond my ability to explain with typical empirical evidence - well, at least thus far. And so I'm wondering ... if my researching into the "unexplained" and this sort of hypothesis I came to as a result - is the reading saying stop seeking the answers to the experience itself or is it saying the experience(s) itself was false or that the hypothesis that I've made about these experiences is false/in the wrong direction. And finally, does any of the reading suggest something to do with duplicity or manipulation?

See, here's the deal - I went from, as a result of these experiences, a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist (and largely cynical) to someone who began to explore topics related to such things as: "enlightenment", "spiritual awakening", "alien origins/directed panspermia", "animism", etc. (even started to feel a little optimistic again - but then I started wondering if that optimism were false - based largely on a "want to believe" attitude than a realistic (cynical) attitude. Ironically, I recently jettisoned most of my Christian beliefs as well - no offense to anyone with those beliefs intended - and I do often ask myself if this "research" or newfound line of thinking of mine might not be my subconscious mind simply wanting to trade one fairytale/mythos/idealism and trade it in for another (new age, spiritualism,etc.)?

I know these are deep questions and certainly not easily answered by anyone. I'm just asking, given that information (very personal) about me - how would you interpret the IChing response in relation.

Also, for those of you somewhat knowledgable about IChing - is it possible the question needs to be asked again in a broader context. The question I noted in my first post is pretty much what I was thinking when I used the Online IChing reading. (I'm assuming that's all one needs to do - is think of the question they're asking for answers/guidance on and then do the reading?)

Thank you again to all who took the time out to respond. It's certainly an interesting topic in general. (And sorry if I stepped into a touchy subject re: the atmosphere here - I probably didn't read deeply enough - but everything I did read felt pretty genuine/nice/sincere - for whatever that's worth. )

Dee

 

[justdee]

Side comment: I did read up on the various commentaries in "Open..." as suggested by some of the posters, and you are right. Lots of bad vibes. To bad *sigh*. You'd think that even when discussing issues like peace, self-improvement and love of ourselves and our neighbors, you could find human beings with the ability to have a civil exchange/discourse without insisting on the whole, "I"M RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT" and "You're WRONG WRONG WRONG" and NOTHING you SAY will CHANGE me (mostly because I stopped _hearing_ and _listening_ a long while back).

I find it ironic (pardon my personal commentary as an outside observer and take it for whatever its worth in that context) that lovely people will often debate the cruelties exacted on others - like discussing the horrors of war - without realizing that such wars, start as soon as we stop listening and start insisting OUR way is the ONLY way. I remain cynical and fairly certain our own inability to still our personal feelings/passions and/or temper them with the balance of logic and and an open mind will be the end of humanity in total in the not-too-distant future.

People might laugh and say, "So what if a bunch of people online are arguing over some spiritual stuff" - but murders, torture and war have been the result of far more trivial issues starting with a seemingly simple disagreement or opposition of opinion and until we can all learn to balance our passions with our minds and our spirits - we will remain violent, barbaric animals ultimately. But then, maybe that's as nature intended it? *shrug* (To be fair: I certainly struggle with my own issues in this area as well)

 

[willowfox]

And so I'm wondering ... if my researching into the "unexplained" and this sort of hypothesis I came to as a result - is the reading saying stop seeking the answers to the experience itself or is it saying the experience(s) itself was false or that the hypothesis that I've made about these experiences is false/in the wrong direction. And finally, does any of the reading suggest something to do with duplicity or manipulation?

No, its not saying the experience is false at all but the "unexplained" is a minefield for the beginner as you have so many opposing views and ideas, from the sensible to the plain idiotic. It takes careful thought not to be led astray by the bright lights of utter nonsense. The "unexplained" is real but your answer is warning you not to get carried away with every theory, idea etc on the internet, just because Hoagland and Lear say that there are buildings on the Moon and Mars, does that make it true?
When you read up on these subjects let your brain kick in and see/analyze if some of them are potentially true or not, of course some will be true but a lot of what passes for the "truth" on the internet is nonsense.
Your answer seems to suggest that you were racing full tilt into the exotic and false, stop and consider what you have read to date, then cast out the rubbish and narrow it down to the plausible.

 

[deedeebird]

Side comment: I did read up on the various commentaries in "Open..." as suggested by some of the posters, and you are right. Lots of bad vibes. To bad *sigh*. You'd think that even when discussing issues like peace, self-improvement and love of ourselves and our neighbors, you could find human beings with the ability to have a civil exchange/discourse without insisting on the whole, "I"M RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT" and "You're WRONG WRONG WRONG" and NOTHING you SAY will CHANGE me (mostly because I stopped _hearing_ and _listening_ a long while back).

I find it ironic (pardon my personal commentary as an outside observer and take it for whatever its worth in that context) that lovely people will often debate the cruelties exacted on others - like discussing the horrors of war - without realizing that such wars, start as soon as we stop listening and start insisting OUR way is the ONLY way. I remain cynical and fairly certain our own inability to still our personal feelings/passions and/or temper them with the balance of logic and and an open mind will be the end of humanity in total in the not-too-distant future.


That last part may be true, but you could not be more wrong about the smack-talk !!

People might laugh and say, "So what if a bunch of people online are arguing over some spiritual stuff" - but murders, torture and war have been the result of far more trivial issues starting with a seemingly simple disagreement or opposition of opinion and until we can all learn to balance our passions with our minds and our spirits - we will remain violent, barbaric animals ultimately. But then, maybe that's as nature intended it? *shrug* (To be fair: I certainly struggle with my own issues in this area as well)

I think wars start when communication stops, so the only way to prevent war is by managing a productive argument. It's there that the problem's found--each person brings her own frame of reference to the plate and, unfortunately, some frames are much more narrow than others. There are common seeds that draw us here, so hopefully the views will expand over time. But it's not the arguing that's the problem. It's the not listening that's the problem. People's defenses kick in before the second word gets out.

 

[hilary]

You wouldn't think 'you all seem so friendly' could be such a contentious remark, would you?

About 25 line 6 - thank you for sharing some extra background. So you ask, 'Is this research I'm doing on track?' and Yi says something like,

'Not entangled, and still Following...

"Without entanglement,
Acting brings blunders,
No direction bears fruit." '

- which is a clear way of saying that you're off track somehow.

Hexagram 25 moves spontaneously - no agenda, no preconceived ideas, no fixation on things that aren't your business - and all that is basically a Good Thing. But when you get as far as line 6, and connect it up with 17, the idea of Following the currents and going with the flow, I think being 'without entanglement' has gone too far. Allowing yourself to be guided is one thing, but where do you actually want to get to with this? What difference do you want it to make?

And so I'm wondering ... if my researching into the "unexplained" and this sort of hypothesis I came to as a result - is the reading saying stop seeking the answers to the experience itself or is it saying the experience(s) itself was false

No, I don't think it's saying either of those things. (What is a 'false experience'? False interpretation of experience, yes, but how could you have a false experience?)

or that the hypothesis that I've made about these experiences is false/in the wrong direction.

Maybe... or could it be that being centred in the experience itself is more important than pursuing the hypothesis?

And finally, does any of the reading suggest something to do with duplicity or manipulation?

Not that I can see.

 

[justdee]

No, its not saying the experience is false at all but the "unexplained" is a minefield for the beginner as you have so many opposing views and ideas, from the sensible to the plain idiotic. It takes careful thought not to be led astray by the bright lights of utter nonsense. The "unexplained" is real but your answer is warning you not to get carried away with every theory, idea etc on the internet, just because Hoagland and Lear say that there are buildings on the Moon and Mars, does that make it true?
When you read up on these subjects let your brain kick in and see/analyze if some of them are potentially true or not, of course some will be true but a lot of what passes for the "truth" on the internet is nonsense.
Your answer seems to suggest that you were racing full tilt into the exotic and false, stop and consider what you have read to date, then cast out the rubbish and narrow it down to the plausible.

Thank you for the response. Actually you'll find I tend to err in the other direction. I've never, ever, in my life had any personal so-called, "paranormal" experience and so my approach comes from a perspective, that while I don't like to denigrate anyone for their opinions or beliefs, no matter how "silly" I might chose to perceive them, I do prefer hard, cold, scientific fact as opposed to online "readings" for example.

As for scientific opinion, sadly, you'll find the the zealotry often associated with religious systems is often the similar to the rhetoric and dogma you find in the science and academic communities. Each one comes from their own cultural viewpoint and is typically unwilling to consider anything "outside the box" - from either side's view. A good example - less than 10 years ago scientists who were studying DNA, remanded a good portion of the material in DNA (90%) as "junk" DNA - and had a theory, widely adopted by the entire scientific community that this "junk" DNA was basically, as implied sort of "leftover stuff" that wasn't of value. In the past 5 years, they've managed to uncover that "junk" DNA - or certain sections of it they've been able to decipher thus far - remains useful to our evolution in a number of significant ways. Of course, they still are certain that the remaining 89% or so of junk DNA is still junk DNA. Makes one wonder what they will discover in another 10 years.

But have no fear, I'm not off chasing ghosts, or spirits or little gray guys with teardrop shaped eyes for my answers. But I do think the "experience" I had was significant, and I'm fairly certain that I'm not "nuts" either. I'm just trying to understand WHAT the experience was. And if it turns out I ate some really bad food or there is some unexplained EM field in the area of these experiences, I'll be fine with that. And thus far my research has taken me into the areas of "origins of life" stuff - with some compelling evidence in specific directions, certainly - but still mostly more questions than answers.

Ironically, the IChing factored into my research - which is what ultimately led me here. I'm actually studying the archaeological findings related to the origins of the IChing - had never even heard of it before researching it. And I'm not certain that I believe in the veracity of an "IChing" reading - and I've read that there are many people w/differing views. Such as some who follow the wisdom in the IChing do NOT consider it some sort of prophetical device or "fortune telling" guide - but tend to view IChing as more of "sage wisdom of the ages" - a tool for guidance as opposed to prognostication. While still some believe it does have a deeper, more spiritual "source" and that it can indeed provide a sort of "divine providence" in terms of helping you make decisions, etc. I don't subscribe to any particular view on IChing - as I'm pretty much a neophyte. But I wouldn't be very open minded, even if skeptical, if I didn't explore the possibilities of IChing readings/guidance and see if there was significant applicability to it or evidence that suggests it is more than ancient philosophy shared orally originally, and then passed to written form several thousand years later.

Oh, and a final though - "cherry picking" is a funny thing. I'm always startled how some individuals will say, "That's a bunch of boohockey" when considering something, but ONLY everything else but what THEY believe to be true. Human beings - eh? We're such a mess. LOL! So, like a person who believes in Christianity might say I believe in the science of math and that 2+2=4, or that gravity is real, but I DO NOT believe in "Big Bang" or that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old (and likely older). Apparently then, one can assume, FACT is only FACT when the person evaluating the fact deems it to be FACT for them (or by large group consensus).

 

[justdee]

You wouldn't think 'you all seem so friendly' could be such a contentious remark, would you?

LOL - yeah, and then I had to stick my big ol' nose into the fray and add my on .02 worth. (And worse yet, *gasp*, I'm an outsider).

Hilary, you're interpretation of the reading I received intrigues me. You also seem to have quite a comfort level with the IChing readings. Would you be interested in talking with me one to one - and perhaps we could share some "research" notes? Please let me know best methods by which to contact you...

Thanks again - and thank you to everyone who took the time to respond. Your time and thoughtfulness is very appreciated.

 

[hilary]

Yes, of course we can talk. Start by clicking my name just above this post ^^^ and sending me a private message.