...life can be translucent

Menu

Why did the dinosaurs become extinct?

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
155
Why did the dinosaurs become extinct?

57.3 - 59

Reptile dysfunction.
 

willowfox

Inactive
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
5,530
Reaction score
2
Hex 57.3 repeatedly delving into this question leads nowhere as it has been thoroughly investigated, therefore repeated questioning only causes fresh doubts and muddies the water.

Hex 59 they were dispersed, broken down by water and wind, disintegrated and scattered. They provided nourishment to the worms.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
willowfox said:
Hex 57.3 repeatedly delving into this question leads nowhere as it has been thoroughly investigated, therefore repeated questioning only causes fresh doubts and muddies the water.

Hex 59 they were dispersed, broken down by water and wind, disintegrated and scattered. They provided nourishment to the worms.
Bingo. Fanfare! Trumpets!

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
No no. They became extinct because of too much thinking about such eternal questions as "What shall I eat today?" and "Shall I marry X or Y or Z? Who is my soulmate?!"
They couldn't decide, so they either starved or had no offspring or both. :)
 

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
155
Actually I find that a valid interpretation, Martin. Dealing with creatures who lived 100 million years ago we probably would only get that their extinction was due to some very broad principle - like their not being able to decide an answer the major question, ie., "To be or not to be?'

And I love Willowfox's, and debro's wise agreement.

So now I'm wondering, what would your method say about this Chris? How would you go about answering the question? Do you start by tossing the coins, or do you not use coins at all?
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
234
You've lost me here Rosada. I thought Wfox and Dobro were agreeing this question is unecessary as the question has been well researched and there is no mystery to it. I thought Wfox was saying 57,3 was indicating you were asking a question thats already been asked and dealt with. So when you say you love their wise agreement do you mean you agree theres no need to ask this question ?

I thought they became extinct due to climate change they couldn't adapt to. I didn't think there was any mystery about it.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
There is no proven hypothesis as to why dinosaurs went extinct. While I thought Rosada’s question to Yi was playful, it wasn’t foolish or redundant; or at least not until there’s proof of the correct answer.

Perhaps a look at LiSe’s “Seals Bestowed” (DNA or place in environment), or Bradford’s “Adaptation” (i.e. territorial adaptations or adaptation to a changing environment) for 57 may offer something, beyond slapping the hand which threw the coins.

Note Brad’s translation for 57.3: “Recurrent Adaptations. Embarrassing.” Also, his commentary on this line is worth reading.

Adaptation is evolution.

I’d interpret the reading as saying, dinosaurs dissolved or scattered because they were not designed to fit into the evolving landscape. The earth also has a seal, far larger than the biggest dinosaur.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
trojan said:
I thought they became extinct due to climate change they couldn't adapt to.
I think this essentially echoes Yi's answer, only I wouldn't limit it to climate.
 

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
155
Hi Trojan,

Wfox didn't say SHE thought there was no need to ask the question or even that the IC was saying the question had already been dealt with. She said she interpreted 57.3 as meaning in this instance that further asking of this question would not lead to new information. I thought that - "true" or not - her interpretation fitted the words, "Repeated penetration. Humiliation." I also felt her interpretation of 59. Dispersion, as meaning the bodies of the dinosaurs had been scattered was also particularly apt. I didn't get that she was saying the IChing rejected the question. I would not have agreed with that idea!
Bruce, as always :), senced the underlying motivation. I was being playful. Didn't anyone get my pun?
When I read "Repeated penetration. Humiliation" I thought erectile dysfunction = Reptile dysfunction.
Like maybe Dino needed a little Viagra?
Auugh, not that funny when you have to explain it.

Anyway, I still like Martin's idea that maybe they simply couldn't get it together to decide to choose to live. That fits with the Abraham/Hicks theory that when we focus on what gives us joy we keep living and keep evolving. On the otherhand, maybe the dinsaurs didn't become extinct. Maybe they just made some bad adaptation choices. Maybe they're still here, reincarnated as SUV's. From Thunder Lizard King to Suburban Utility Vehicle - now that WOULD be embarassing!
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
234
rosada said:
Hi Trojan,

Wfox didn't say SHE thought there was no need to ask the question or even that the IC was saying the question had already been dealt with. She said she interpreted 57.3 as meaning in this instance that further asking of this question would not lead to new information. .
Must be a matter of how you and I interpret the posts differently then. For me the I Ching saying that "further asking of this question would not lead to new information'" is pretty much the same as saying theres no point in going further into this enquiry ? For me 57,3 invariably comes up when repeated questioning is pointless. My view on your answer is the Yi is as I think Wfox suggested simply deflecting your question, (I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong)

In other words I think while you may have been being playful the Yi didn't seem to be playing back, cos I think as I said its saying theres no use in trying to penetrate further with this question. Just my opinion, sorry I'm aware I'm sounding grouchy.
 

sparhawk

One of those your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,068
Reaction score
5
trojan said:
Just my opinion, sorry I'm aware I'm sounding grouchy.
Hmmm, if I type "grouchy" in the M-W Thesaurus it refers me to read "irritable and fussy". If I type "crabby", I get basically the same result...

"Crabby" it is then--more colorful--although you are just being "fussy" and "irritable"... Hey, I live very close to the Chesapeake Bay; crab country here. :D

L
 

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
155
Is Trojan being grouchy?

9.1.2 - 53

How could there be blame in this?

He allows himself to be drawn into returning.

Good fortune.

The superior man abides in dignity and virtue,
In order to improve the mores.
--
Yeah, maybe a little but it's part of your charm. Besides, you don't stay that way long and you only do it to keep us on our toes.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
234
sparhawk said:
"Crabby" it is then--more colorful--although you are just being "fussy" and "irritable"... Hey, I live very close to the Chesapeake Bay; crab country here. :D

L
Ha yes perhaps 'crabby' is better especially as i am a Cancerian.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,974
Reaction score
234
rosada said:
Is Trojan being grouchy?

9.1.2 - 53

How could there be blame in this?

He allows himself to be drawn into returning.

Good fortune.

The superior man abides in dignity and virtue,
In order to improve the mores.
--
Yeah, maybe a little but it's part of your charm. Besides, you don't stay that way long and you only do it to keep us on our toes.
LOL , funny I threw this recently myself, line 1 anyway.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
Perhaps there is something in my idea, Rosada, but I was being playful too ..:)

Btw, not all dino's are extinct. Some of the bird-like ones evolved and our birds descend from them. Biologists nowadays classify birds as 'dinosauria'.
How do I know that? Google! :D
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
I'm not at all sure that the Yi is saying with 57.3 that further questioning is pointless.
Because it's still not clear why exactly the dinosaurs (at least most branches) became extinct. There are different theories about it: gradual climate changes, ice age, volcanic activity, asteroids, disease, ...
How do I know that? :)
 

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