44bob said:

I think the conflict is a result of different I Ching cultures. If an individual starts his I Ching career using Markert, he will see the I Ching in a creative problem solving perspective. However if he starts off using Wilhelm he will, unconsciously, absorb the mythic/synchronistic model. He is also likely to read further books with the same outlook which will reinforce that particular I Ching culture.

The question is, if Markert was wrong to give incorrect readings, how can we know that the "correct" readings would have been better/more productive? In other words that there is only one hexagram that will fit that person, in that situation, at that time?

From my point of view, no matter about the what and how of divination, does the answer feel right and, in modern jargon, is it fit for purpose?

Click to expand...

I have been thinking about what you say here and reminded me of some experiment done regarding optical illusions and how testing some people in primitive tribes were they didn’t have the concepts the optical illusion represent in the repertoire, so to say. Those illusions didn’t work on them; the people were not confused and could see whatever they were shown. What we see, how we perceive external stimulus, which of the parts of the stimuli we attend and which we disregard could be very personal/cultural. That we are expose to , seems it creates a framework , a field we navigate ourselves but the borders change when we learn new things.
I don’t feel Yi ching is merely a problem solving technique. It could be tho and would stand pretty well next to those you talked about at your original post. A part of Debono training, is to wear a certain color of hat and act from that. You wear your green and become more creative, you wear your black to see what might goes wrong and you wear your blue because it helps you organize better. I was introduced recently to that technique and had to work a bit and it really reminded me of Yi and how you “read” it. You learn to shift your mind to what requires attention at this specific moment , or the answers asks for that. Brainstorming wearing a black hat doesn’t bodes well… and so on. My teammates and I had to apply the six hat thinking during a project we were working on and he had to make those small rituals ( half joking here) so to be in the mood of the specific hat. Its like you pretend that the specific hat has this power to make your mind to work they way the moment requires. It doesn’t happen in a magic way, yet it seemed it needs some magic.. in a loose way Im using this word.

Yet, there are those time, we come across to some Yi answers that it makes you wonder and say “ what the heck is going on ?” , “ how that happens?”. And Im talking about those times were almost no interpretation is needed ( conscious or subconscious), those times that you just read the line and “see” the answer. Once I was searching a item I had lost and asking Yi got

Penetration under the bed.
Priests and magicians are used in great number.
Good fortune. No blame.

Well , what I was searching was under the bed. I believe this in an answer that leaves no much space for interpretations or doesn't require a lot of thinking (with the pros and cons). Such times, Cognitive science, its premises and theories , fail to give an adequate answer, or I haven’t come across to one so far. Such times, even the word coincidence seems not enough.

Theories, to me are just theories, working hypothesis that today seem valid, at least to some, yet a small bit of new information can make them fall apart. And those days , with the evolution of neuroscience, we see older theories being out of time and probably false. There is a difference between " it appears to be" and " it is that" and we know so little about our brain and how it functions to say : " that is what happens".

meng said:

Co-creates, possibly re-invents reality. What we see is not the tree but a reconstruction of the tree. I like it, but it also creates funny images. One is of the tail wagging the dog. Another is knitting a person to fit a sweater. Gosh, if this is what we're really doing, we need help, or maybe just a good tailor.

Click to expand...

lol . . isn't weaving one of the ways to understand 'reality'?
Seriously, the metaphor you used is exaggerated (besides, who said there's a sweater finished already? All I said was that it, too, is in process of creation) but thinking about it, it doesn't fall too far away from trying to guess things we don't know . . Say when we ask how a plan will pan out, or what's the best way to go about doing something: we receive an answer, try to understand it and plan, at least partly, influenced or based to the interpreted answer - isn't that like trying to fit a pair of shoes on a yet unborn child?

I think that in divination we imagine a version of reality as prompted by an answer and then proceed, based on our best possible imaginations . . Reality is a fluid thing imo, half hard facts and half the way we choose to view them and, to the degree our pov gets colored by Yi answers, well, then these too play a part in our reality - hence co-creation . . of course that's only how I've come to understand things - I wouldn't dare be absolute about it all

Bob, it's a complex matter what you've brought about and too much experimentation (a la Markert) is often not too popular . . I think that trying too hard to pinpoint what is really about might miss the point of it though: in divination knowing how to swim might be more important than catching the Big Fish

Most metaphors are exaggerated, like the IC "images and judgments". Don't take it personally. I agreed with your points, then pointed out the accompanying humor, to me.

no worries, I didn't -I enjoyed reading your comments and they bred new thoughts in my mind that I wanted to share

This is more or less what I implied by not seeing the tree but a reconstruction of a tree, our brain is the camera/computer with reconstructive software , and Yi's answer is the tree.

I think it's noteworthy that the camera/computer/observer does the physiological reconstruction, but the image is still the same image it originally was: a tree. Something moves, something is stationary, like Yi's answer?

Course I don't know, just kicking a can around the street.

Pretty impressive what they're showing in that article - although I can't say for sure that I fully grasp how they translated into visual imagery the brain's activity . . but yes, this does help me better 'get' what you meant about re-inventing the tree

Recently I posted about a reading of mine that described, quite literally, two things happening at once: my own action, painting a piece of pottery and my teacher's reaction to it. I think that's another aspect of what occurs in readings, the 'wave' aspect of it, which you have often brought up.
Sometimes there are impressive readings like that one, that seem to bypass the 'reconstructive' phase, and which, often, also capture reality in more-than-one ways at once; I like thinking of those readings as surfers do, when catching a very nice, 'thick' wave, or 'fold' of energy . . an act of synergy (and again, I can't seem to get too much away from the notion of swimming - seems my brain's reconstructive system has seen one too many sea 'films', lol)

I can easily relate to that, the ocean imagery, in so many ways. There's the matter of depth one chooses or is able to dive. There's the danger of water over water, repetitive nature or a habit, but also thrilling and edgy. Ad to that all the rich mythology belonging to the ocean, from muses to sea dragons, gods and goddesses. And an octopus's garden, in the shade.

Sorry Anemos, but Markert doesn't provide any information about his "false reading" experiments. He does mention that he created his own oracle by adding popular sayings to wise authors, following visits to temples inTaiwan where he came across their stick oracles. His comment was, "The answers I got by this method were surprisingly "accurate" and "meaningful"".
As I said before, all the suggestions from my first posting have already been tried by Markert! I'm obviously a late starter.

Meng, you haven't mentioned the Yellow Submarine.

44bob said:

Meng, you haven't mentioned the Yellow Submarine.

Click to expand...

As a man-made object, that would be either 48 or 50. Yellow submarine: 50 line 5 - 'the vessel has yellow ears', changing to 44, maybe to 44bob?

44bob said:

Sorry Anemos, but Markert doesn't provide any information about his "false reading" experiments. He does mention that he created his own oracle by adding popular sayings to wise authors, following visits to temples inTaiwan where he came across their stick oracles. His comment was, "The answers I got by this method were surprisingly "accurate" and "meaningful"".
As I said before, all the suggestions from my first posting have already been tried by Markert! I'm obviously a late starter.

Click to expand...

... Its ok Bod, thanks. Would be very interesting tho if he had provide more info. It helps the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Since you are into that, you might enjoy Kahneman & Tversky 's work ( most of them can be found easily ) and Kahneman's latest book aswell.

meng said:

This is more or less what I implied by not seeing the tree but a reconstruction of a tree, our brain is the camera/computer with reconstructive software , and Yi's answer is the tree.

Click to expand...

great link ! thanks
What it says , especially the example with the colored pixels, makes sense. Its what my painting teacher said on how to learn capture the object on the paper. You forget about the object and you try to see shapes formed by a specific color. its those shapes you reproduce and if lucky the original object appears !

There has been a plethora of opinions and insights on this thread. I need to read it again more than once. I think I can now define my position as follows:

The I Ching is at least a creative problem solver. As an outsider, in many ways, I'm almost content with this.

However, practicioners and regular users come to appreciate the I Ching in different ways. They may have recourse to mythological, mystical or poetic language to express their experiences. I rarely divine and never read for someone else. Pocossin would encourage me to do so:

If you would dive in and attempt to help your fellow human beings through divination, you would learn by direct experience how the I Ching works.

Click to expand...

I must concede that a lack of actual use limits my understanding. However I could only accept tempered and restrained use of mythic terminology which is generated by experience. Flamboyant claims are still my bete noir!

maybe, sometimes , we need to De-mythologize and De-mystify something in order to meet it

all the best for your trip and thanks for the interesting thread

44bob, I'm very happy to read this thread. I'm also a 'secular' and now I know that I'm not the only one on this forum. I like your idea to make your own oracle, for example, an oraclebook composed with Nietzsche quotes! (BTW: when I do a reading, one of the first things I do, is go looking at the quotes section by Bradford Hatcher, very informative!)

A Myth is metaphor, just as every hexagram and change line is a mythical metaphor. It penetrates more deeply through personal experience but it can be mentally simulated and intellectually grasped, historically repeated archetypes in all parts of the globe. Folk tales tell a story that's intended to put those who hear it on a path.

To me, when someone says they have a secular belief or interpretation, secular is as mythical and theoretical as any other religious metaphor. It's another construct or idea that is believed in. I think Nietzsche would probably agree, as would the Buddha.

But it's not as if there's one path, and we are chained by our ankles to follow it. That was a metaphor. If I tell it in story form, it's myth.

meng said:

To me, when someone says they have a secular belief or interpretation, secular is as mythical and theoretical as any other religious metaphor. It's another construct or idea that is believed in. I think Nietzsche would probably agree, as would the Buddha.

Click to expand...

I have a different understanding of ‘secular’, meng. In my view, a secular person is a person who want to build his worldview on facts, not on beliefs. Facts who can be verified in an empirical way. This doesn’t mean that all facts who are not empirical verified are beliefs or have no meaning. But if you speak about concepts like ‘Synchronicity’ or believe in the existence of ‘spirits’, then you must now that you speak about concepts who are not compatible with scientifically laws of nature.
I don’t know if Nietzsche would agree, but scholars say, and I ‘believe’ ;-) them, that for every statement in his work he gives also the opposite statement. That’s one of the reasons why I think his work is appropriate for making an oracle book.

So then, secular equals facts? Or to use J. Campbell's phraseology, secular bows before the facts. I think your facts are limited to your understanding of science: Newtonian, classical science.

And, other than in illustrations of nature, which are to be interpreted symbolically, where are these facts? Is it the Book of Facts or the Book of Changes? I think the Book of Cause and Effect would have been a good name, but I didn't write the book, I just interpret it. Facts, hmm....historical facts of kings and dynasties, or what a given work REALLY meant 2500 years ago in China; yes, I can understand the specialized interest in those kinds of facts. But those aren't facts I'm especially interested in; and I guess that brings back to our differences. :bows:

"So then, secular equals facts? Or to use J. Campbell's phraseology, secular bows before the facts. I think your facts are limited to your understanding of science: Newtonian, classical science."

I prefer my facts limited by my understanding of science (whatever kind) above your beliefs unlimited by your fantasmas . Especially in mathers that really care's.

"Facts, hmm....historical facts of kings and dynasties, or what a given work REALLY meant 2500 years ago in China; yes, I can understand the specialized interest in those kinds of facts. But those aren't facts I'm especially interested in;"

Me neither.

"I guess that brings back to our differences."

Let a thousand flowers bloom. :bows:

My colorful illustrations (back to metaphor) are backed with reasoning, always. The cognitive process involves use of both hemispheres of our brain. I don't recall ever stating a religious belief here, because I don't claim to know the facts of the matter. Maybe that makes me secular too.

Exclusively believing in classic science and Newtonian law really doesn't answer anything about oracle reading, factually. If your interests aren't in historical accuracy and language, what facts are you searching for in the IC, what hard facts, beside what is evident in nature and/or require use of your creative facilities, have you found?

What is a fact ?

scientists, imo, just try to scribe maps, but are those maps the territory ?

meng said:

My colorful illustrations (back to metaphor) are backed with reasoning, always. The cognitive process involves use of both hemispheres of our brain. I don't recall ever stating a religious belief here, because I don't claim to know the facts of the matter. Maybe that makes me secular too.

Exclusively believing in classic science and Newtonian law really doesn't answer anything about oracle reading, factually. If your interests aren't in historical accuracy and language, what facts are you searching for in the IC, what hard facts, beside what is evident in nature and/or require use of your creative facilities, have you found?

Click to expand...

I'm not searching for hard facts in the IC, I'm looking for meaning. The only thing that I want to say is that I appreciate this statement of 44Bob because its points at a psychological explanation for the how and why the IC is working, instead of supernatural explanations like Jungs synchronicity or the belief in 'spirits' or what soever (see his post). I dont want to reduce the world of meaning to a simple cause -effect relation.
There is fascinating scientifical psychological literature about the way people think (for example: Thinking, Fast and Slow from Daniel Kahneman) which could be very valuabele to understand why and how divination works and eventually not work. For bringing this into account we have to de-mythologizing and de-mystifying the IC. The starter of this thread is, imo, trying to do so.
anemos: your short question is a deep philosophical one, I should love to reply on it but, the answer can not be short and my native language is not English, so I dont gona give it a try... If you are serious, I advice you to read a good introduction in the philosophy of science.

jiang said:

anemos: your short question is a deep philosophical one, I should love to reply on it but, the answer can not be short and my native language is not English, so I dont gona give it a try... If you are serious, I advice you to read a good introduction in the philosophy of science.

Click to expand...

mine neither . I didn't meant to be philosophical, and I'm not at all anti-science-d , and as a matter of fact I love all those experiments and the process. I asked that question having in mind the trail of those facts. The facts/results are the product of a certain method, which is chosen based on the epistemological and the ontological assumptions of the researcher which in a loose way ( or not) its a belief. Its from where they are coming from.

I like Kahneman's work a lot, but the fact is that in the same field he is ,there other scientist that have totally different facts. Who's right and who is wrong ? Which facts are valid and which not ? What is a fact is, most of the times, is associated with the initial assumptions. Thats why I asked , for you what is a fact.

Searching for meaning through empirical facts. How's that been working out for you?

Jung's synchronicity is more science and psychology than supernatural. In fact, words like supernatural, spiritual, wisdom or meaning, have very little meaning to me since the terms themselves are ambiguous and mean different things to different people. So maybe we need to choose just one meaning and call it a fact? I've never associated Jung's work with supernatural or spiritual, nor as fact. More like acute observation and exploration.

To me, there's a big difference between a meaning and a purpose. As Campbell would ask, "What is the meaning of a flower? Life has no meaning!" ...other than what we give it.

When you're searching for the meaning of life, you're philosophizing. When you're searching for the meaning of the Yijing, then you're fantasizing.

anemos said:

mine neither . I didn't meant to be philosophical, and I'm not at all anti-science-d , and as a matter of fact I love all those experiments and the process. I asked that question having in mind the trail of those facts. The facts/results are the product of a certain method, which is chosen based on the epistemological and the ontological assumptions of the researcher which in a loose way ( or not) its a belief. Its from where they are coming from.

I like Kahneman's work a lot, but the fact is that in the same field he is ,there other scientist that have totally different facts. Who's right and who is wrong ? Which facts are valid and which not ? What is a fact is, most of the times, is associated with the initial assumptions. Thats why I asked , for you what is a fact.

Click to expand...

Anemos,
In my view, a scientifical fact is an empirical verified statement about any subject in the world, as long as it is not in contradiction with another, better verified statement. Because of this I choose a medical doctor if I need surgery, and not a voodoo priest. Of course, no science is free of assumptions. But some assumptions are better then others. They are better because the can be verified and you can make predictions based on that assumption, who can also be empirical verified. It is not because scientific statements contains assumptions that they are equal or from the same level as religious beliefs, which can not be empirial verified.
Not all our statements about subjects in the world can be empirical verified. For example, when you say that a flower is beautiful or a taste is good. This is not about facts, buth about value and meaning. We have to agree about value and meaning and understand (‘verstehen’). When I consult the IC I’m in the field of value and meaning, I want value and meaning, no facts. But when I’m thinking about how divination works, I prefer facts, not beliefs.

I see facts as plausible explanations; the raw data we study and the means we have to explore them play a important role to the interpretation we give, imo. Yet , even those gathered data are influenced by what we believe is a valid information; for those assumption I was talking.

Secular vs circular is always an interesting subject and to me, those words do not always point to a scientific vs religious belief, just a way of approaching a phenomenon. Beliefs are not always a problem, convictions could be an obstacle. In hard science things are more straightforward but when it comes to studies of what means to be a human and how our mind and body works acknowledging our limitations and the fact that we are the experimenter and the subject matter simultaneously.

My Stats Prof’s advice was: Even the results are statistically significant check the outliers too because sometimes they have an interesting story to tell.

I can agree with what you write here, anemos.

I started this thread so now I'll finish. Taking my own advice about constructing an oracle, I have posted two on the www.scribd.com website. Creative Divination is a revamp of one I constructed years ago. It uses a ten sided die. It's rather surreal and depends predominantly on the diviner's intuition. My latest is the Wisdom of Dominoes. This uses a double-six set of dominoes. I have yet to upload a full set of readings but I'm nearly there. This work is based solely on the meanings of the numbers 0 to 6.
The interesting contrast between the two, quite unintentional, is similar to the Xiangshu and Yili approaches to the YiJing.
So it is reasonably easy to construct some sort of divinatory system. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating !!!

I found this and other items by you but not Creative Divination and Wisdom of Dominoes.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122415795/De-mythologising-the-I-Ching

Hi Pocossin. Sorry you're having trouble. If you just use the link and then put the book titles in the search box it should work. You can't find them if you include the title in the address, which is perhaps what you're doing?
Hope this cures the problem.
Regards, Bob

NB I just checked the link you used where you found the de-mystitying article. If you scroll to the end of the article there is a note, "More from this user" and you can access my other articles this way.
You'll get there one way or another !!
Bob

44bob said:

I just checked the link you used where you found the de-mystitying article. If you scroll to the end of the article there is a note, "More from this user" and you can access my other articles this way.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I found them.