I too found that reading the entire Yi made a difference to my "understanding". But then I realised that I had no way of knowing if that "understanding" was because I had undertood anything fundamental or becuase I just had a better information of the terms and structures of the book itself.

There are many sorts of divinatory tools, unless they have some underlying fundamental principles that guided there making they might just be the constructs of human minds and mean nothing beyond that. It is entirely possible to construct methods of divination tha are not based on anything at all and they work very well. There were various "interpreations" of the I Ching back in the 60's and 70's. I saw one that had rewritten the Yi from a psychedelic perspective and it worked brilliantly. I saw one that was based upon the same principles that David Bowie used to use to write his songs and that worked brilliantly.
From that "perspective" the Yi might be nothing more than another divinitory tool, there might be nothing special about it at all, and all the studies, academic and scholarly works as to what and where the Yi originated may mean nothing of any value at all.
Or, it might be that the Yi is based on, and a representation of, fundamental underlying principles. Then the divinatory "powers" of the Yi would be entirely distinct from those of the underlying "principles". The difference between a book of Oracle and a book of Wisdom.
Knowing the answer to that would then enable the examination of whether one could invoke both Oracle and Wisdom at the same time or if one would have to apprach the Yi with a different set of attributes for each.

The question has to be what is considered to be "understanding". That is fundamental to any answers.

For myself understanding is principally that if the underlying principles, of standing under, of starting fromthe premise that I dont know and require evidence rather than a set of beliefs that cannot be shown to be correct. Of direct personal experience of thise fundamentals. I consider myself fortunate in this regrad as the practice of Chinese Medicine gave me a very direct, hands on experience of those fundamental qualities of Qi, Ying and Yang, and the direct experience that when I applied what I had understood from that direct experience that the treatment improved beyond imagination and expectation. The problem with that experience was that it raised even more questions about 5E, as I didnt get any direct experience of those apparent qualities and the more I looked at it the more it became apparent that the "theories " that went along with it, and were applied to Trigrams and so impacted on the Yi, simply did not fit.
Part of my understanding has been a direct experience of Neuropsychology. That not only gave me a hands on an direct experience of what we now call Yin and Yang but also resulted in the understanding that so much if what we call "reality" is a construct of our Brain. It results in beliefs, which are another way of saying one doesnt actually "know" as if one knows something one no longer has to believe in it, it results in the need to have " answers " for things, that part of our Brain does not like vacuum and will fill in answers to avoid the possibility of admitting that it doesnt actually know.
The difficulty is that without a framework, a measure, a perspective that is from fundamental, underlying principles we have no easy way of determining if what we think we "understand" is a construct of our minds or an insight into what is reality.
Perhaps a rather "metaphysical" way of presenting things, but that would only be from one perspective, from another it is just a presentation that unless we "know" and "understand" the underlying principles of the Yi then we cannot really have an understanding at all, as the other possibility that it is all a fabrication, that the Yi would then be just the same as any other "tool" of divination, that all it gives is an insight into that which we allready know, but is locked away from us in our subconscious.
That is rather an over simplification of the possibilities of what the Yi, but if there is not even the discrimination between those two basic possibilites, the definition of what we "understand" about the Yi cannot even begin to be evaluated.

Is anyone familiar with the tale of the blind men and the elephant. Only when we can stand back far enough to see the elephant in its entirety can we know that what the blind man thinks as being the elephant - a trunk, foot, tail and ear being comepletely different as to what an elephant really is- can we say we have "understanding".

All the best

Dave

JukkoDave wrote:

"What's really opened up your understanding of Yi?" The underlying Principles,

Click to expand...

Your main advice to us is that we should understand the 'underlying Principles' which you've shared many times now - at length. If you want to explore that more, than it would be best if you started a new thread, maybe calling it "The importance of understanding the underlying principals of the Yi,' (or whatever name you'd like), which seems much better and more appropriate.

D.

Hi Freedda

My "advice", though where you got the notion that I am advising anyone to do anything, it to ask questions. In fact I am not adising anyone at all.

I have presented that. if, there are underlying principles then the use we make of the Yi, in every way imaginable would be different, that if there arent. It doesnt amtter if one knows about or chooses to recognise underlying principles or not apart frm the fact that it affects every thing that we think and do. If we dont state what we understand and know then there is a lot of confision as it would be impossible to know what or why anything anybody was saying and would appear then to contain many contradictions and a lack of rational, coherent, and logical argument.

The thread asked "What's really opened up your understanding of Yi?"
I merely pointed out that "if" there are underlying principles that "books and articles " are going to have a very limited impact on "understanding. It all helps of course but is there are underlying principles only if they are known can we evaluate if anything that is said in the books or articles is of any value and can help us understand. If they, the books and articles" are not correct or accurate then we may have "learnt" something but it would be "understanding". However if there are no underlying principles, then what we are "understanding" would be transient and might be changed by the next discovery and wouldnt even be that relevant as the "knowlede " that is passed down would just be something that seomone made up thousands of years ago.

So completely on thread if if you dont understand the connections of why the consideration of if booksnad articles, underlying principles and everything else is relevant to the question of understanding. As it obviously is intimately connected and relevant so it must be pertinent to the thread.

All teh best

Dave

(Posts moved from this thread.)

Thanks Hilary, good title, couldnt think of one myself as to me it is all so interconnected. I was thinking of;life, the universe and everything, and is it connected to the Yi through Hexagram 42. (for those that remember Hitch Hikers Guide)

It will be intersting to see if anyone posts. That would be revealingas to why people are posting. An interest in the real nature of the Yi or just intersted in..... something else.

Dave

I think describing what that 'understanding' is would be hard, but recognising it is relatively easy. If your readings consistently change your life for the better, you understand Yi.

But there are inherent problems with that viewpoint.

We may be somewhat limited in our understanding, if understanding only comes from personal direct experience, but we can mitigate a lot of that by the application of rational, coherent and logical examination. Not only does the presence of logical, coherent and rational answers and arguments clear away a lot of the debris that prevents us from having a direct, or closer experience, but in itself it can be illuminating, and enalbe us to see new perspectives and vistas that reveal that our previous views were perhps rather elimited or even completely incorrect.

The first inherent problem is that it would be difficult for recognition not to be part of understanding. In the first instance it is recognition that enables an understanding and it is the ongoing recognition that enables the understanding to grow and flourish.

But the questions that I am raising are all to do with perspective. What measure, what framework, what perspective would one use to know if a recognition was of part of an understanding of underlying principles, (the Book of Wisdom,) or an understanding of constructed beliefs, (the Book of Oracle.)

Without the discrimination between the two it would seem impossible know what any understanding or recognition really was.

Part of the question is related to how anyone would determine "better". It is known that belonging and believing gives a human being a sense that would improve their lives from previously. But we are discussing here something more fundamental. It is a question of what is real.

Two basic possibilities.
The Yi was recognised from fundamental underlying principles, it was "discovered", and all the writings came after that realisation were from that illumination. I think that the fact that the Chinese were able to recognise the significance of 10 heavenly bodies, before they had any instruments to verify such a thing, the existence of Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicines, and while I can make no calims for Ayerveda I know that Chinese Medicine is a highly effective tool, it works, so its underlying principles are solid(though not those of 5), are all possibly indications of the existence those principles and the potential in us to them.
The other possibility is that the Yi is just another type of divination and they all work because it is just a way of tapping in to our subconscious. But it is known that one can construct a method of divination, that works very well, without recourse to any underlying principles. Vagueness and the possibility of different interpretaions enhance the potentials of those insights into the subconscious, if only because the subconscious is so vague and not precise, in terms of the conscious side of human beings. But that would mean that it wouldnt matter one jot about the history of the Yi, who wrote what or what a translation should really be. The Yi would be a construct with nothing significant about it whatsover.
Only if there were underlying principles and the Yi was written for a purpose and it revealed the inner workings of life would most of the structures that are surrounding the world of the Yi have any relevance at all.

Of course even if there were underlying principles that doesnt mean that is the only way of using the Yi, it could just as easily be used as a tool of divination. But the differences in how and why we use the Yi change dramatically depending on how the Yi is used at any given time. On one occasion we might use it with full appreciation of its relection of universal principles on another we might only require an insight into the subconscious. In the first the respect required to "resonate" with those principles demands a differerent approach than the demands of insight in to the subconscious. If we are appraching the Yi in the persuit of the subconscious then points that those that Harmon, and others point out are entorely relevant, it doesnt matter at all if one is focussed, if the question is clear, if one is sat in a quiet place or any of the other things that respect of fundamental principles might require.
Both have their validity and there can be no judgement on anyone, from anyone that chooses to use the Yi in either way.
But the understanding of if there are underlying principles, or not, what we are accessing when we consult the Yi, if it is the subconscious only or something greater, even if the subconscious is the "route" we are taking to get to the something greater, are so findametally different and impact on what we think about everything to di with the Yi, that they cannot easily be ignored.

Even if there are underlying principles there are a number of obvious and inherent problems in the information that we take from history and how we interpret it.

There is no rational logic for 5E and yet we use that in all sorts of ways and apply that to Trigrams.
Without the understanding of why there are broken and unbroken lines, and if the symbolism of those lines is significant, or could be replaced by any othere sort of symbolism the "images" that we might construct from Trigrams has to be debatable at best.
There is no consistency in the arrangement of Trigrams. Steve Moore in The Trigrams of Han details 3 arrangements. But even then, without the understanding that can explain why and how in a rational and coherent manner, we have no way of knowing if any of those arrangements are correct and there is another one that is more coherent and rational.
We know that China was a warring country. We know that warring regions dont generally share their tools of war, the tools of divination, with one another, they would be closely guarded secrets. Given that unification only started with the Han, with no evidence that despite the attempt sat that time to destroy all other works and replace them with versions of their own construction, that anyone went along with them, the fact that there had to be burnings clearly demonstrates there was resistance.
A logical and likely scenario is that there were many variations of divination from ancient times, some may have been reflections on underlying principles and some may have been tools of divination, designed or thought to gove one side an advantage in whatever type of conflict was present. One would not obviously be using a tool of self illumination in the world of warfare and so the to methods of divination would most likely have been very different.
How then, without the knowledge of whether the remnants from history are representations of access to the world of the self or tools of war, and whether any remains are representative of the tools of divination at the time, they might just be the remants that survived the burnings and only because they had some way to hide them better than the others, but that would not mean they were representative or even relevant to what was known and used at the time.
We know that it would be difficult to memorise 64 Hexagrams and so memory techniques would provide an easy way to do that. Breaking the Hexagram down into two Trigrams and giving then strong images of mountains and lakes would be a way of doing that and it ehn becomes not only easy to remember 64 Hexagrams but the results of hundreds of not thousands of readings, all without the use of any paper and all the a constructed use of imagery through Trigrams.
And that doesnt even include the possibility that it was teh lines themselves that were read and the construction of Hexagram came later, there is even evidence to suggest that they started of with Pentagrams and the Huns added a sixth line for some reason.
But without the understanding of whether references are being made to representations of underlying principles or tools of divination how would we know. It is not as though there was ever likely to be one consistent system, unless it was one representative of the fundmental underlying principles.
It is actually more logical to use Bigrams than Trigrams. Chinese Medicine breaks the body into 3 Jiao. Then the Hexagrams start to make more sense than what seems a more arbitrary mehtod of division into two Trigrams. unless of course the division by 2 is significant in some fundamental way.

So just as short way of saying I think "understanding" is entirely connected with "recognising".


All the best

Dave

I think you misunderstood what I was saying: I meant it is easy to recognise a person who understands Yi.

'Understanding' turns out to be a tricky word - it means quite different things depending on what kind of thing you're trying to understand. Understanding calculus means being able to give a logical, coherent account of its underlying rules. Understanding a screwdriver means being able to use it to insert screws... or then again, does it mean understanding the physics of how the force is transferred through the tool to the screwhead? Huh. It's not even obvious what it means to understand a screwdriver.

Now, what about understanding a symphony? A language? A historical event? A person?

And which of these, if any, is anything like understanding Yi? (I think it's somewhere between symphony, language and person.)

HI Hilary

No I dont think ot is easy to recognise a person that understands the Yi or not.

Firtsly one would have to know whether the person was considering the Yi from a perspective of one of sholastic and academic or from one of recognition of, or even the possibilities, of underlying principles.

I see plenty of learned persons that have written extensively on the Yi but I have no idea if they have any undesrtanding other than what has been taught or learned, and may possibly be nothing other than a fabrication of the human intellect. I am not saying that it is, only that it is possible, and without the "understanding", such that one can discriminate as to whether the Yi is a tool of inner knowledge or a tool of fortune telling, however that works, then we have no way to recognise if a person understands the Yi or not.

As you point out with the reference to a screwdriver, one can be very capable of using that tool, with absolutely no understanding of the Physics and Mechanics involved. One can still use a tool with no conception or understanding of any of the underlying Principles of Physics.
But you couldnt "recognise" from someones application of a screwdriver whether they had any understanding of Physics or not.

Actually I know people that were able to use Calculus to pass their Univeristy exams who acknowledged that they has no understanding of any underlying rpinciples at all. All they did was repeat what they had been taught. It wouldnt have mattered to them if it made sense, or if it works, or why it worked. But they "knew" the subject and flew through the exam and so could expound on the principles of Calculus without any understanding of any underlying principles at all.

"what about understanding a symphony? A language? A historical event? A person?"

Symphony: needs no understanding of anything at all, one expereince and either enjoys it because on likes that type of music or doesnt.Dont need to know anything about music, or symphonies or anything els,other thanperhaps being able to sit still and quiet.

Language. No understanding there other than one of an academic nature. The reasons for language however a rather different matter. Just because we think that we understand the semantics of language is no indicationthat we understand what is being said, why it is being said ir the need or reason in humanbegings to need language. But which language would that be anyway. English, Chinese, a click dialect of Africa. Common things in all languages because everyone has a need to describe ones environment, but when it comes to descriptions of things beyond the common physical plane, the knowledge of oneself in what ever way that might be, the knowing of the future, then language falls rather falt on its face and we have rather more vague generalisations and the problems inherent in translations because there are no reciprical direct correlations from one language to another.

Historical event. Which is really a question of perspective. a person that is on one end of a battle os going to geve rather a different account of what happened, even possibly years later as to who really won the battle. Psychology informs us that the human memory ofr any event is incredibly unreliable and also alter, changes and even distorts our experiences of the world and our memories, often just to maintain a consitency in our picture of the world.
I have witnessed events on TV that bore littel resemblance to the events that actually happened, yet they were obviously accurate in themselves, but the presentation givesa completly different view point.
And most of the time the historians cant even agree on wha th history is about any particular place or event and new evidence comes to light which alter our concepts of history anyway.
One onu has to llok back on what one is taught in school, which one then realises was only part of the picture and often wasnt even particularly accurate when one goes ont higher education. When does ot ever get that history is accurate that we can say that we truly undersatnd what happened in the past.

A person. Seeing as we dont "understand" ourselves, or there would be nodiscussions or debates about any underlying or fundamental principles, it would seem obvious that we dont undertand others. From what perspective would we consider out understanding anyway. Someone that has string beliefs, no matter what they are is going to be influenced by those belefs and that will clour out perception and "understanding " of another person.

Only if we know and understand the underlying principles and only if we apply logical, rational and coherent thought can we at the very least have aperspective that might eliminate any of the beliefs and constructs of the human mind so at aleast to be able to discriminate if what we think is real or something that we believe in.

If it is somewhere between sympohony, language and person, taht would only leave history and seeing as we know nothing about that so as to be able to "understand" it, that would perhaps be a declaration that you dont think we can understand at all, that you dont consider there are underlying principles of Nature and the Ordinances of Heaven.
Is that your decalration that you consider the Yi to be a book of divination only.

Let me make my perpsective clear. It is both. It is a book of insight and wisdom but also a book of divination, and in that context no more special than any other method and in that context all of the history is completely irrelevant and pointless, as only if there weas some underlying rpinciples to be discovered and understood would anything that anyone though or said, whether that was 3000 years ago or more recently, be of any relevance, as a book or method of divination can be constructed with very littel imagination at all and it will work just as well as the Yi does.

There are two parts. The insights of the Yi, being a book that is a representation of the underlying principles of nature and the ordinances of heaven, enable us to see beyond the fabric of the physical and in that sense we dont even need to cast any readings ot use that part of the insight is the book.
The other side is the use of the book itslef to cast a reading, we can do that in either way, from the knowledge if underlying principles or just as a fortune telling method of divination. The methodology of each is substantially different and so any views or opinions that one might have on how we do a reading and how we interpret it are entorely dependent on whther we have cast the reading from one of respect and hopefully some understanding if the Yi, or if we have cast a reading to know what we already know, a method of fortune telling divination. Nothing wrong with either, but the "rules" of one to not transfer over to the other.
It is that lack of clarity that I am trying to address. There has to be considered the possibility that even if the Yi is a book of Wisdom and reveals the underlying priinciples that if it is overlaid with all sorts of ideas and constructs and theeories that it becomes impossible to even see the underlying principles, and they get all mixed and muddled up and there is little or no logical, rational or coherent explanations that can make sense of it all.

If there is logical, coherent and rational explanations and it all ties together and fits then that would make clear what, how and why the Yi is, and even if we didnt "understand" it in the way of direct personal experience there could be conifidence that we understood it an a rational way.

But the lack of that is what perhaps concerns me the most and why I am being so persistent. I know the Yi works and I know that it works becuse there are underlying principles. I also know that there is alot of other "stuff" that is generated and overlaid, such a 5E theory and some scholastic works dont help to dispel obvious discrepancies and contradictions in that and other notions and theories.
At the end of the day it doesnt matter one way or the other. I have been discussing 5E with hose in the Chines Medicine community for more than 30 years. In all that time not a single person has even come cles to coming up with a rational explanation that might exaplain the contradictions and discrepancies. I was hopeful and optimistic that given the statndard of some of the contributors to the Forum and because the 5E is so tied in with Trigrams and the Yi that someone would have some insight that no one in Chinese Medicine seems to have.
Not only hasnt that happened but it has revealed a myriad of contradictions and discrepancies that I never imagined existed in the Yi, as I had ever looked at it in that way previously

The lack of any coherent, logical or rational explanations of any of these fundamental questions is very disturbing indeed.


All teh best

Dave

jukkodave said:

But the questions that I am raising are all to do with perspective. What measure, what framework, what perspective would one use to know if a recognition was of part of an understanding of underlying principles, (the Book of Wisdom,) or an understanding of constructed beliefs, (the Book of Oracle.)

Without the discrimination between the two it would seem impossible know what any understanding or recognition really was.

Click to expand...

I think maybe it's not an either-or, at times. The two can run together, or blur, or whatever word you like.

I had a reading like that, recently.

I don't want to give details on a public forum, but the general idea is I asked, "Guidance about following-up about...?" (This would be making a phone call about something I'd done the week before.)

Yi gave me 10.1.3, with one other line which I think is about a different aspect.

Hilary's translation:

10.1
'Plain treading going on.
No mistake.'

10.3
'With one eye, can see.
Lame, can walk.
Treads on the tiger's tail:
It bites him. Pitfall.
Soldier acting as a great leader.'

I took from this that I shouldn't follow up. I haven't done anything more, and I'm not willing to, so it would be a meaningless, pro forma phone call which wouldn't serve any useful purpose or be of any help. I shouldn't call to demonstrate "caring," nor to satisfy my curiosity, nor even because I genuinely do still care (though not to the point where I'd offer to get more involved!). I know the situation is in good hands, and that should be enough.

That general lesson can be applied to other situations, but I learned it through a reading. So is that Yi as wisdom, or Yi as oracle? Both at once, I think.

Hi Liselle

I dont see anything of any correlation with the underlying principles of knowing ones own self in any of your question or interpretation. So nothing obvious that could"run" together.
I dont see how your example relates to "understanding" apart from just to you about you particular situation. But that is not the understnding of the Yi that I am referring to.

Learning from ones experience doesnt make it anything that the Yi imparted. I put my hand in the fire, it burns, I learn that any fire does the same thing. While that may be an underlying principle of nature it is not an underlying principle of the Yi.

Inherent in the question of "understanding" us the discrimination of what is outward and inward to oneself.

I do of course acknowledge that if one askes a question about the outer one may well get a guidance about the inner, but that would only make sense, one would only be able to recognise that it there was "understanding " of the differences between that part of the Yi that is "wisdom", which you dont even have to cast a reading to realise, and that part of the Yi which can be used for outward divinatory purposes.
OK the word "divine"atory is perhaps not the best word. I used what someone else had used in reference to it oracle function. I will come up with another word that doesnt have the "divine" and so possibly the underlying principles connections.

all the best

Dave

You made a distinction between Yi as a "Book of Wisdom" vs. a "Book of Oracle."

I was trying to demonstrate that in the act of consulting Yi as an oracle (whether to make a particular phone call), Yi-as-Book-of-Wisdom came through.

"No, don't make that phone call," said Yi.

"And, as a general principle of wisdom, don't impose upon people meaninglessly."


Maybe that's not what you meant by "Book of Wisdom," but it seems like wisdom to me. But I wouldn't have understood that particular wisdom just by reading those lines in isolation, without a question.


Also, to support Book-of-Wisdom, I would not have learned that if I'd consulted a yes/no oracle. I would have just gotten plain "no" as an answer to my question, and learned nothing more.

Jukkodave:

So we now have a thread dedicated to understanding the Yi. I have had a very hard time understanding what you've been trying to share with us. You use many, many words, and while you of course have the right to do so, I seem to have gotten lost in the sea of words, so I'm asking for some simplicity and clarification.

To get to that, I'll start with a few basic questions. And I hope your answers can help me better understand what you're sharing:

1) It seems that what you are saying is that there are 'fundamental underlying principles' to the Yi. Is that about right?

2) and building on that first question, are you saying that we can not really or truely understand the Yi unless we first know and understand these 'fundamental underlying principles'? Do I have that correct?

3) and to expand on no. 2, are you saying that without knowing or understanding these underlying principles that we can at best only have what you call a 'book of oracles' which might work brillantly at times, but that we can not have a 'book of wisdom', which would give us deeper truths about ourselves and the universe? Again, do I have that about right as well?

So ...

A request: you can be long-worded in your posts here. I'll ask then, can you make your answers to my questions more succinct and short? It would greatly help me understand what you're trying to say, otherwise I get confused.

Again, it's not a demand, only a request that would be helpful to me.

D.

jukkodave said:

Learning from ones experience doesnt make it anything that the Yi imparted. I put my hand in the fire, it burns, I learn that any fire does the same thing. While that may be an underlying principle of nature it is not an underlying principle of the Yi.

Click to expand...

i'd argue that although it's not the underlying principle of Yi, it is, after all, one of the principles of nature that, among others, Yi illustrates. to me, in case of I Ching, there's no clear distinction between the book and the oracle. i see it as some field of (possibly collective) consciousness, that we're immersed in as fish is immersed in water. we rarely ask ourselves about the makeup of it all, and even more rare is to establish some direct connection with that field... so i guess, i see its form as secondary to the principles it describes?

and from merriam webster on the word book:
3 : something that yields knowledge or understanding
the great book of nature / her face was an open book
4a(1) : the total available knowledge and experience that can be brought to bear on a task or problem
tried every trick in the book (2) : inside information or analysis;

what i'm trying to say is that someone who doesn't use Yi but learns from own experience might still be drawing insight from the source of what we call I Ching. from the same "book". and arrive at similar conclusions about life as an enlightened Chinese sage who studied it his whole life would, without ever looking into divination...

jukkodave said:

For myself understanding is principally that if the underlying principles, of standing under, of starting fromthe premise that I dont know and require evidence rather than a set of beliefs that cannot be shown to be correct.

Click to expand...

then one may ask what would such evidence be? i second Hilary’s opinion, both, in the sense of recognising someone who possesses a certain understanding (here the parent thread comes in handy, as explained by rosada - possibly someone who read Yi front to back might carry that „understanding” within and throughout, simply know how to „go with the flow”), as well as in the sense of „aha” moments for which I Ching or some other (divinatory or not) insight provides… it’s difficult to describe what understanding is but as you mentioned its opposition to belief, i thought i’d share Jung’s words on knowledge vs belief (sorry for the background music, but found this shorter clip more fitting than the whole interview, which is also available on yt).

jukkodave said:

But the questions that I am raising are all to do with perspective. What measure, what framework, what perspective would one use to know if a recognition was of part of an understanding of underlying principles, (the Book of Wisdom,) or an understanding of constructed beliefs, (the Book of Oracle.)

Click to expand...

borrowing from Jung again, i’d dare to say that the perspective needed for both is boundless, that is - unbounded by space and time. so to me the question of measure or framework is irrelevant in terms of understanding. they might help with building connections but whether we search for wisdom in the situation at hand or look for glimpses into possible future outcomes, we are working at discovering and (re)learning the existing principles that have their source beyond this plane of reality (that’s why cognition of Yi happens at more symbolic or mystical level - through the lens of the right brain possibly, rather than in the world of measure or framework which are domains of the left brain)… maybe synchronicities serve to help solidify a particular understanding of certain principles?

and although „understanding” can be carried out only inwardly, i think it also shows itself in person’s behaviour, actions, way of being (by application of the ineffable principles into one’s life). the right understanding, to me, appears to be full of compassion and free of doubt - intuitively this kind of understanding is what i would trust (when i recognise it in myself or others).

Liselle, Freedda and Legume

As your posts deserve proper answers I shall not rush, and have other matters requiring my attention for a while anyway.

Actually I can answer Freedda

1) Yes
2) No, you dont have that "correct"
3) Yes but no, the question cannot be answered without consideration of all the factors.

Its all in my posts. But if you want a more detailed response I will be happy to resond when I have the time.

All the best

Dave

jukkodave said:

Actually I can answer Freedda
1) Yes
2) No, you dont have that "correct"
3) Yes but no, the question cannot be answered without consideration of all the factors.

Click to expand...

Okay, one down, good start.

For my second question, where I said: 'are you saying that we can not really or truely understand the Yi unless we first know and understand these 'fundamental underlying principles'? ... I based my question on what I read in your posts, including this (and other similar statements):

J-Dave said: There are many sorts of divinatory tools, (but) unless they have some underlying fundamental principles that guided there making they might just be the constructs of human minds and mean nothing beyond that.

Click to expand...

So, my question was trying to get to and confirm that I understand what you are saying.

You say 'no' I don't have that right, but what is the correct answer then - and again, if you can give it in a more consise manner, that would be helpful. And maybe another way of stating my second question would be:

2a.) Are you saying that unless we have some underlying fundamental principles that guide us, (by which I take it you mean that we know and understand these) that what we come up with might just be the constructs of human minds and mean nothing beyond that?

... and, a bit more than 'no' would be helpful in my understanding. (And to make it easier for me to understand, I will set aside the third question for right now.)

D.

Hi Freedda

I will respond to you more fully when I do have the time to properly do that. But while I may have recognised the "existence" of underlying principles, the Yi in the commentaries references and references such as that from Hex 52 about meditation and contemplation reveal it to be in the text, diesnt mean that I know and understand what they are. If I did then I would know one way or the other if 5E theory was correct or not, I have expressed that despite the lack of rational confirmation from anyone over more than 30 years that until it is definitively established one way or the other, by knowing, experience understanding or even rational, coherent logic, that I reamonopen to the possibility that 5E might have some validity.

If I did know then I wouldnt need or even want to be posting and getting into what are sometimes rather personal exchanges, which I do find rather unnecessary and distateful as I am only here for the truth, whatever that might be, and however challenging and painful it might be to let go of dear and precious old thoeries and beliefs.

I think that I do need to emphoasise that if the Yi was a construct of the human mind, that wouldnt be a judgement on it. But it would alter how and what we use it for and how we interpret the readings and the scholastic information that comes our way. Personally I think that it has both capabilities. It is the knowing and discrimination of that, if it is the case, that might be findamentally important to our understandings. On one hand if the Yi is a means of insight into our inner world, a means of growing as individuals to reach our maximum capacity, whatever that is for each individual, then that would set the Yi apart from most other forms of "divination", bearing in mind that it is possible to "create" a method of divination based upon no underlying principles at all, and they work, certainly for the type of questions that one might ask about ones daily life, in other wwords if we dont want to go towards the inner world then just about anything is possible and just about anything will suffice as a divinitory tool. Bones, sticks, made up cards, shadows, cloud formations, all can work in some way, though it does seem the more hands on and personal it gets the better so perhaps shadows and clouds were poor examples.

My experience is that the Yi works on a deeper more fundamental level, so does the Tarot, so does Astrology, so does Chines medicine. That is not to say that all of them cannot be used at the more "external " level" and they can all be very good tools for doing that, but they allhave the capacity ot go beyond the exterior, that to me is the exciting part and that is the part that says, if they are working on a deeper and more fundamental level, and what they be but external if it wasnt "underlying principles", then they should all have rational, coherent and logical ways of connecting them all together.

The logical, coherent and rational view is that if there arent ways of connecting them all together then probably there isnt a proper understanding of them.
On top of that I know what neuropsycholgy reveals, that the human mind is a bag of tricks and most of what we do is to delude ourselves. That is a rather larger subject than can even begin to be properly discussed here, but some of the more obvious signs of that very common self delusion and illusion is the presence of a lack of coherency and rationality. Logic is one of the tools for clarification but we have to be so careful to include coherence and rationality as without them logic on its own can easily rum amok. Insight, illumination, clarity are among the other tools we have.

Using those tools and some basic knowledge of the history of China and hyuman beings in general there are a number of things that jump out. There was no or little paper in China and memory was needed for lots of things. It is known that visual imagery is a very powerful tool to memorise comlex and large amounts of information, and seeing as the Trigrams make little rational sense and there are various interpretaions of how they might be arranged, so no consistency, it may be entirely possible that Trigrams were an aid to memorising both the Hexagrams, the lines and the readings. 2 Trigrams with an image of a lake over water, connected to what ever the Hexagram means would be a very descriptive way of remembering. Given the possibility that things are connected the use of Trigrams does ntosit easily with Chinese Medicine, the use of Bi grams make more sense, but 3 Bigrams are harder to remeber than 2 Trigrams. Ther area myriad of contradictions in the academic side. We know that the regions of China were in frequent conflict and there would most likely have been little sharing of knowledge. If the methods of divination gave one side an advantage they would be developing and keeping their methods to themsleves. So it is likely that there were many versions of the Yi and we really have little idea if any of the finds are representative of the Yi that was the original. If we do not actually know then it is hard to place much value on what we think academically.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction and discrepancy is that, if the Yi is a work that is an inner guide and the academics and scholars do not understand taht then the interpretatins they place everything is going to be coloured by the limits of what they understand. If the Yi is also. or alternatively just a book that one could construct like any other method of divination then the conclusions of academia and scholars would have no relevance at all.
I am not saying one way or the other. What I think is in that sense irrelevant. But the question of whether the Yi is a book of the inner world, whether it is a book of the outer world or capable of being both, the questions of whether one is using the Yi in what context plays a huge impact on ones perspective on what the Yi is, and what it can be used for and what the readings mean.

To me these are such findamental questions. So when someone says, just for example, and no judgement meant, that one doesnt have to concentrate or focus ones questions, or a thousand other considerations, the context of whether the Yi is being used and "understood", and I appreciate that understanding is a difficult thing to pin down, at least without the discrimination of what the Yi is and if there is an inner world, the context of whether the Yi is being used as an "inner" tool or an "outer" tool is vital to understanding what anyone says about the Yi. Which Is why I keep bringing it balc to the same thing again and again. Because without that decalration I have no idea if someone is referring to the Yi as an inner book or as an outer book. I dont think of course that it is a simple as black and white but I do think that the understanding that there are two very different and divergent potentails in the Yi is important as without that nothing really makes a lot of sense other than one believes it.
People have "believed" world was flat, the Sun went around the Earth, and all sorts of other things, big and small, Science is littered with them, on the other hand some theories have not only stood the test of time but have been shown to be insights of genius. But we have use the tools of logical, rational, coherent examination to establish if they are correct or not.
I dont see a lot of that present in the world of the Yi. I do see a lot of belief, but a dont see a lot of rational, coherent undersatnding and the consideration of anything that might disrupt any beliefs seems to raise great consternation, or just gets ignored.

Does that help in any sort of way.
Perhaps I should write a book myself, highlighting all the discrepancies and contradictions and presenting any logica,rational and coherent arguments that I amy have. But as I have many more questions than answers, which may be why I appear to be so negative to so many, when all I am doing is saying , I have asked for rationality and coherence, I think the questions I have asked deserve it, and I am not willing to accerpt or ignore any response that arent logical, rational and coherent or are ignoring the bigger pisture of what I am trying to say, even if that bigger picture, becuase it involves so many connected factors, may be difficult to express in just a few lines.

Sorry about the yes, no answers. I have to admit I was being more than a tad facetious, you dont deserve that. Ihope that I have gone some way to address your points and anything that is still not clear I shall attend to when I have more time, though I suspect that may be a week or so.

All the best

Dave

Freedda
Very quickly. One can know the existence of the underlying principles without fully knowing them. That is the part of growth. Of having more direct experience. Of developing clarity and understanding.

One example might be those that tak of "near death " experiences. Many come back from those absolutely confident that what they experienced is real. But that was a single experience.Life changing perhaps and one that means that they know that ther is that underlying principle, but it doesnt mean that they understand it.
In Eastern practices it might be the difference between the Buddhist path and the attainment of Samhadi. The expreiences along the path would be glimses of that reality but only in the experience of Samhadi would it be realised, known and fully understood. I am not comparing the Yi to Samahdi, just the sugestion that it is pointing us in the same direction as the inner path of any such religions might be.

So "knowing " that something exists is not the same as knowing it more fully. That is part of the process and one of the reasons that I talk about knoocking walls down to see what is ont the other side and perhaps to get a clearer view of what lies beyond.

I think perhaps thatKarcher was trying to be far to clever. Even if he is correct at a fundamental level it seems rather unfair to not explain fully what that means. Or perhaps he did, in one sense that could be taken as one of the dynamics of Yin and Yang.

In the simplest sense the dichotomy of the brain in the way each hemisphere functions, forget the common perspectives those that study such things know that what has become poplar knowledge is way off being accurate. One part of the brain is outward looking and one part is inward looking. Or ouy might consider Maslows peak experiences as inner.

"understanding on is proof, evidence, and rationality?"

Actuially I have been very careful her to avoid the use of evidence and proof in any general sense, as there are inherent problems with what could be established as proof or evidence. However rationality, logic and coherence can be used as a measure to evaluate if proof or evidence might be able to be considered as rational. Unfortunately a lot of what consitutes proof and evidence, the scholastic and academic side is very difficult to be ssen as rational, coherent and logical.


As far as 5E is concerned I would say that I am 99% confident that it doesnt work. But I cannot ignore that 1 or 2%. As much as I try not to be influenced by numbers, ther are an awful lot of people putting an awful lot of faith in 5E theories. It would be rather arrogant to dsimiss even a 1% possibility until one was completely sure. Perhaps that can only happen when I understand the connections between the Yi and systems that base on factors of a different numerical basis. I can see the contradictions in an 8 Trigram system, but I know from Chinese Medicine, because I have experienced it dorectly for myself and know that it works, that the underlying principles of TCM, which we now call Yin and Yang work. I can see how that equates to a system of 6 and then to 12, what I cant do is see how 5 and 8 fit into that system. The advantage with TCM is it works, and it works very well and I know that if one applies the underlying principles of Yin and Yang that it works better when one doesnt use 5E. If the Yi is a fundamtal representatioin of nature then it should be able to correlate the 2 together. That is where it all starts to go pear shaped. That is where the threories of the Trigrams starts to unravel. I dont think they are "wrong", they cant be that are iterations of the same underlying principle that makes TCM so effective, but perhaps they have been so overlaid with various belifs and concepts over the last 2 thousand or so years that maybe we no longer have an accurate insight into their function. The there is the very real possibility that the Trigrams and why they are "labelled" as mountains and lakes is nothing other than a way of memorising them.

I think then that we do have "proof" about Yin and Yang, or TCM wouldnt work in the brilliant way that it can do. I can certainly testify first hand to the existence of Yin and Yang. That is certainly an underlying principle. As far as the Dao goes, of one knows it then one knows it, there would be no proof, but the person would know for themselves. God or no God. anyone can argue for ever there is no God but for semone that knows, even if they could never prove it God is real. Even in a more mundane sense someone that knows that a particular animal exists, even if no one else has seen it and they had no pictures or any kind of proof would still know. Even if we cannot prove something dies not make it not real.

"if we were to come to some understanding about these terms,"

I ackkknowledge that language can throw a lot of difficlties in the way. My only concern would be that the the understanding of terms and language might possibly be the way of establishing a belief that we think we agree, just because we agree to use the same terms. There is a Professor of Neurosceince, I think at Sussex University, Anil Seth I think, that has said, based on his research m that we all hallucinate and when we hallucinate the same thing we call it reality. Which I think kind of declares how fragile reality is. But hallucination is all about the outside world, the inner world doesnt hallucinate, it is the inner world that is the measure of whether the hallucinations of the outer world haveany valdity. Which of course they do, we have amazing technology and would be able to communicate like this if it wasnt for that "outside " world. So everything has its place, and just as there is communication betwee the inner and the outer worlds, so there is likely to be communication bewtween the inner potentail if the Yi and the outer potential. But I think that unless we have an understanding, a recognition of the difference aand which one is which at any goven time it is so easy for the hallucinating part of the brain to make things up. That is a large aprt fo what I see with the schoalstic and academic wourlds of the Yi. It may be right but it may not and without the inner, underlying fundamentals, such as Yin and Yan, such as coherence and rationality to guide us it is difficult to see what measures are being used ot evaluate any theories or positions.

I will get back to the orignial questions of 1,2 and 3 when I get back and have time to respond properly.

All the best

Dave

i thought about something else still. knowing I Ching to the point of understanding the hexagram (its symbolism, remembering the lines) without having to reach for any book or translation. and then also knowing at times, what answer Yi is going to give - the moment of realisation just before the cast, when later I Ching just confirms the understanding. the first one is about the left brain understanding, learning, remembering meanings, connotations, etc. the second about the right brain, being "one" with Yi and its principles, and actually not needing the reading.

Hi Liselle

"No, don't make that phone call," said Yi.

"And, as a general principle of wisdom, don't impose upon people meaninglessly."

No that is not what I meant by "wisdom". Even though that may be a wise thing to learn I thought that I had made it clear that I intended Wisdom to be correlated with underlying principles of mnature and ordinances of heaven.

Dave

Hi legume

That is an intersting, but rather outdated view of Right vs Left Brain.

You do make an important point though that the Yi itself is not the "source" of our understanding, but we are and when we open ourselves the "answer" is aready there. The question is how far can we take that, what is available to us when we open ourselves and then that follows what is the Yi, is it a book that is guiding us to that place that we can know for ourselves because we consciously understand the underlying principles.


Dave