almost all of the books out there on the i ching present the text as a tool for one particular form of divination. the divination is taken as a description of the attitude we should take, and of the most profitable course of action.

I have seen one book, "the medical i ching," that uses the text in a slightly different way, to produce TCM diagnoses.

coming from a background with the tarot, I have wondered about the possibility of using the oracle to ask more general questions, to get information about situations or individuals and not just one's conduct. this task is made more difficult because the texts are all phrased as though one asked "how should I act," forcing me to "translate" them into other terms.

however, in my experience the oracle seems willing to answer these types of questions when the information is useful and appropriate. and I am not fluent in chinese, but the more I look at the original text, the more I get a sense that there's a lot of imagery and poetry going on that both lends itself to this sort of inquiry.

so my question is, do others use the text in this way? if so, how do you look at the text? what translations/approaches do you find most useful? if not, do you think this is a misuse of the oracle? why?

Hi

just in case the comment could be useful

There are many ways to work with the Yi. Personally, I use it for political evaluation. If you are interested, you can see my blog to look how I use the text

http://changesonpolitic.blogspot.com/


Best wishes

soft_helion said:

.....coming from a background with the tarot, I have wondered about the possibility of using the oracle to ask more general questions, to get information about situations or individuals and not just one's conduct. this task is made more difficult because the texts are all phrased as though one asked "how should I act," forcing me to "translate" them into other terms.

however, in my experience the oracle seems willing to answer these types of questions when the information is useful and appropriate. and I am not fluent in chinese, but the more I look at the original text, the more I get a sense that there's a lot of imagery and poetry going on that both lends itself to this sort of inquiry.

so my question is, do others use the text in this way? if so, how do you look at the text? what translations/approaches do you find most useful? if not, do you think this is a misuse of the oracle? why?

Click to expand...

ICPlus (IC+) covers the roots of meaning in the IC are sourced in our brains and as such the symbolisms reflect categories usable across all scales for information processing. Understanding the methodology of self-referencing allows for acquiring finer details from these sorts of systems. E.g. see the XOR work:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

The general focus is IDM -

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html

The above mentioned XOR focus applies also to Tarot but will be vague if one only works with 32 cards (Major Arcana; or just the 16 court cards). Using the Minor Arcana in correct order should allow you to derive meaning in each card through all of the other cards (and so what is the four-of-cups-ness of the nine-of-wands?)

BTW - given the I C binary sequence, the minor arcana order is (yin) cups-disks-wands-swords (yang)

Chris.

My original mapping of IC to Tarot (circa 1995) is covered at:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/taro.html

The mapping of minor arcana to the binary ordering (and so allowing for XORing) is given as:

"These, at times, striking similarities suggest a common base. As we have seen in the major arcana on the tree of life, this pattern of correlation continues. Below is listed the full hexagram/minor arcana associations. The hexagrams are in their Fu Hsi order (binary):


As one goes through the associations, it is the generic patterns of meaning that I am attempting to show. These 'meanings' occur in the same positions on the template diagram (see the Template diagram for for the generic form). Since different systems (i.e. I Ching, Tarot etc), when placed on the template show correlations in meaning, this adds creedence to the author's argument that there is a template of meaning within the brain.

Where there is no apparent match, then either the card text has become corrupted or missassociated or there just is NO association.

The concept of corruption is evident, for example, in the association between the Major arcana card of "The Hermit" with the I Ching card "Darkening of the Light". The latter is pretty explicit in form and deals with hiding one's light within oneself until times change (hiding one's preferred path). The former, in it's modern form shows the image of a hermit holding up a lantern to show the way. In it's original form this card showed a hermit shielding the light of the lantern behind his cape. The association between hexagram and card is through path 20 which has the possible generic association of the clinging trigram as inner with ALL other trigrams as outers, implies guidance of some sought. "

so -- does the 10 of wands cover issues of infrastructure? (and rotated does it cover issues of returning?)

off the net we have - 10 of wands:

Upright - Conduct that is honourable. Great good fortune that is now a burden due to it's demanding nature and demands on time. Diseconomies of scale in business, a successful pastime that can no longer be administered by its creator. Lack of social life due to the demands of a project, job or overtime.

AND

24 Return & 27 Corners of the Mouth (Hungering)

Card 10 (transition emphasis) of Wands -

Normal - "You have been under pressure and experienced many
changes in life."

Reverse - "Talent, ability, skills etc., used in the wrong way"

There is a sense of change but also an overall sense of pressure to focus more on what needs to be done, there are demands to 'get on with it'. I can squeeze some meaning out of this but ther is a need to map out a 'better fit' than 10 of wands to hex 27.

BUT elsewhere we have the GENERAL focus on Wands to give us:

"When you think of the Wand cards, think of fire. You may actually see little images of burning objects on any of the Wand cards. Couple this with images of passion and desire, dynamic force, ambitions, creativity, vitality, self-development, growth, and
perception. The Wands represent forward future-oriented energy that is active and inventive. Drawing any of the Wand cards introduces possibility and movement in the reading. Of course, the image provided by any card in the Tarot has both positive and negative aspects. The negative associated with the Wands is the scorching side of the fire - restlessness, anger, violence, pride, mischief, disruption and willfullness. In astrological terms, the Wands are associated with the signs of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius."

The FOUR suits map in the I Ching to four DIGRAMS and the IC digram develops into the trigrams of thunder and fire.

Also note:

"The suit of Wands is associated with careers, business enterprises and work in general. If a reading brings up several wands, it points to career or work-related matters, especially organizational and creative aspects. If you are thinking about starting a new business or launch a new career, these are extremely informative cards to draw in a spread. If coupled favorably with some Coin cards, the new venture will be profitable. Often the wands also indicate the beginning stages of identifying and planning a new course for one's life, usually related to self-development and accomplishment."

so in these general descriptions we find a focus on fire as well as a focus on the 'new' - both covered in the IC on fire and thunder.

If we can establish an ordering of minor arcana to the pairs in the binary sequence so we can derive XOR from that, mapping tarot cards being used to describe details of other cards.

Chris.

the hermit and darkening of the light correspond pretty closely... in the archetypal sequence of the cards, the hermit represents the descent of spirit into darkness, into the underworld, for germination.

I don't totally follow how you arrive at your attributions, but you appear to have made an error in labeling disks as water and cups as earth... the correct attribution is the reverse. do you arrive at the attributions by a correspondence between the elements corresponding to the tarot suits and the base trigrams? I don't think dui works for air, nor sun for water. sun should be air and dui should be water.

ten of wands to 27 is a total stretch. 24 is a little less of a stretch.

but the definition that you gave for ten of wands strikes me as a little odd. it's important to be aware of the fact that there are two decks out there, that they appear the same but have differing interpretations for specific minor arcana. the two versions are rider-waite derived decks and decks derived from the hermetic order of the golden dawn's deck. most people think of this as being the "crowley" deck, but it actually predates crowley. although a.c. did make some modifications, which means there could be said to be three decks.

anyway, the definition you gave for ten of wands sounds like a rider-waite definition. the rider-waite deck doesn't match up very well with the tree of life. the golden dawn deck does a little better, but their understanding of the kabbalah derived from latin and not hebrew sources, and so some of their system actually derives from translation errors.

this whole IC+ thing strikes me as very interesting, but I am not sure it renders the task of my original question, how one might use the i ching to divine circumstances, any easier. from my work with the tarot, I found that having a tight correspondence with the kabbalah was useful in some circumstances, but if one wished to predict the future or divine distant conditions, rational analysis had to be dropped in favor of a trance-like or intuitive approach.

anyway, I am not trying to contradict you or question your authority, as you have clearly looked into this far more deeply than I. just giving you my $.02 as someone with passing familiarity of these subjects.

Thanks Chris, I originally posted a question what is your correct Minor Arcana ordering, but I deleted it to try to find out myself. Of course, I didn't arrive to anything like this...

Your idea to map Cups to Earth Digram (and so to Earth and Mountain Trigrams) is strange, but I think I like it. I'm not a big tarotist, but am familiar with basic cards meanings and when I was thinking about analogies to the Yi, I was naturally seeing Yin lines behind Cups suit, so Earth=Cups is ok for me.



For soft helion:

His untraditional suits/elements relationship is no error, it is described in the link he gave above, I will paste it here:

"The suit of Swords has a bad reputation and this maps the the I Ching concept of '[God] battles in the sign of the Creative'.

Within Swords there is an emphasis on communication. The MBTI emphasis for the same 'area' is negotiation skills. The suit indicates 'wisdom wrestled from life often through painful experience."p144. other meanings are "strength acquired through pain or trial" and "will and intention tested by adversity". Swords is spiritual alchemy to the physical alchemy of Disks. Swords is called "The Mental Path" and accords well with artisans. e.g. "for [Shakespeare] is one of the foremost examples of the Mental Path".

The cup is a receptacle of everything, as is the earth. We therefore have a correlation with the I Ching digram of Greater Yin, an earth symbol that evolves into the trigrams of The Receptive(Earth) and Keeping Still(Mountain) and has an association with devotion.

The assignment of coins to water correlates with the attribute of commerce to coins (money is like water) and the correlation of the I Ching digram of Lesser Yang to commerce. This symbol evolves into the trigrams of The Abysmal(Water) and The Gentle(Wind).

There does not seem to be any argument about the other assignments, Wands to Fire and Fire to Lesser Yin; which evolves into the trigrams of The Arousing (Thunder) and The Clinging (Fire), and Swords to Air and Air to Greater Yang; which evolves into the trigrams of The Joyous (Lake) and The Creative (Heaven(Air)). "

But be warned:
Chris is not a diviner, he is the Scientist!

yick said:

But be warned:
Chris is not a diviner, he is the Scientist!

Click to expand...

See my essay "The Logic of the Esoteric"

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html

As well as the updated page on dichotomy:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dicho.html

.... as for the 'intuitive' approach, one need to develop such in that the associative memory skills come with experience. if one is PRECISE in that experience, rather than learning 'ad hoc' the one's intuitives become better.

There is NOTHING that you can experience and share with others than cannot be processed by the neurology. SO - understand the dynamics of the neurology and see how all metaphors are made (in that all of these perspectives are metaphors and so interchangable in describing 'all there is'. Specialisation can elicit some 'unique' aspect not yet covered in some other specialisation such that the logic in each specialisation can appear as different. it requires COGNITIVE analysis to link up the difference specialisations but I find Astrology and Tarot lacking in discipline in their origins - the IC maintains discipline and as such is better in dealing with universals ;-))

Astrology and Tarot are fine as typologies but IMHO can confuse the real and the imagined - as can the IC but it is more efficient in such dealings and so we can differentiate real/imagined easily.

if one wants to implement XOR in the tarot then the first step is to review methodology that allows for it.

Thus the self-referencing starts with earth/air and then we derive fire/water. That gives the four suits. Then comes the next iteration that gives us eight categories, two per suit. Then comes the self-referencing of all eight to give us 64 categories and repeat that to give 4096 and so on (or you could compress meaning through interpretations of a card by rotation).

this issue I found with using the Kabalah as a 'background' was in the idealism re tipareth/keter - remove them and you have eights from tens. The idealism is more so encoding the equivalent form of t'ai chi as potential and as actual (see comments on this in my original link) whereas in the IC that is IMPLIED - we are into change not the unchanging (T'ai chi extracts a particular form from Wu Chi - the 'void' or 'pool of forms' - we can map that if you like to hexagram 02 as the pool of potentials and the T'ai chi as each hexagram derived from 'yanging' the pool! - but things are better focused if we take T'ai chi initially as the 'uncarved block' and then customise it using yin/yang)

An interesting text covering eights is Derek Pugh's "Unveiling Creation" where he and his son cover a lot of metaphors rooted in eights (and in the universe, our very existence is tied to the Baryon octet that encodes symmetry breaking that allows for us to exist).

Working from my IDM perspective, since we have shown how XOR works in the realm of the binary, and how we have to get to eights to start to get any meaning that is useful, so to refine tarot, or to derive a hybrid form of divination based on eights, and so entangle tarot with IC, that will be more constistant in mapping the everyday etc, the focus needs to be on mapping tarot meanings with IC meanings with IDM meanings. The IC/IDM is done in IC+. I have not done any more work on the tarot than given in the above links.

Rather than jump in on details, the best format is to flesh out the forms that will need filling in - and so we have:

earth = 00, cups (earth in earth) - we have the vague definitions of the tarot interpretations and can use those later as we flesh out details.
fire = 10, wands (earth in air)
water = 01, disks (air in earth)
heaven = 11, swords (air in air)

Then comes:

000 earth, cups
001 (air in cups)
010 water, disks
011 (air in disks)
100 (earth in wands)
101 fire, wands
110 (earth in swords)
111 air, swords

This can get messy in the formation stage so we can use an easier triadic form of building hexagrams from digrams -e.g. covering the binary sequence from 000 to 001 (trigrams of IC) now expressed as digrams (and so 16 forms covers a range)

00-00-00 cups in cups in cups (equivalent to hex 02 - pure receptivity)
00-00-01 disks in cups in cups (water in the cups, money in the cups, control?)
00-00-10 wands in cups in cups
00-00-11 air in cups in cups
00-01-00 cups in disks in cups
00-01-01 disks in disks in cups
00-01-10 wands in disks in cups
00-01-11 swords in disks in cups
00-10-00 cups in wands in cups
00-10-01 disks in wands in cups
00-10-10 wands in wands in cups
00-10-11 swords in wands in cups
00-11-00 cups in swords in cups
00-11-01 disks in swords in cups
00-11-10 wands in swords in cups
00-11-11 swords in swords in cups (hex 33)

repeat this for the rest of the diagrams and you will have a binary ordering of tarot qualities that then require filling in using tarot terms/associations. You will then find, due to the methodology used, that you can define each category by reference to ALL of the rest using XOR.

Note there is no room for the specialist use of Minor, Major Arcanas nore the 'communication' forms of the court cards but the method will take one way beyond such limitations! (and the Major Arcana is also open to extension, as are the court card patterns of the Minor)

The focus on a digram DOUBLED (as in 10-10) reflects the same traits as we have in the IC with a trigram doubled - the second form is a 'refinement' on the first form, this 10-10 covers wands doubled and so the second form is more proactive than the more reactive nature of the first form. How about the third? we can treat that is a mediation element that is beyond basic proactivity.... something like that.

the point here is that once you have the first 16, we can work out the second 16 by using the XOR of the first to flesh out the second. Then we have 32 to flesh out the rest etc.

Chris.

soft_helion said:

...this whole IC+ thing strikes me as very interesting, but I am not sure it renders the task of my original question, how one might use the i ching to divine circumstances, any easier.

Click to expand...

Have you worked you way through the Emotional IC work?

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/EmotionalIC.html

it is 'experimental' but it does seem to generate value and so show our emotions as an autonomous 'sense' of a situation that we can enquire of if we feel 'uncomfortable' but do not know why.

Chris.

I'll try to get back to soft helion's question, but I will not go too far away from IC+

If the question was "...using the oracle to ask more general questions, to get information about situations or individuals and not just one's conduct"

then maybe IC+ property of CONTEXT as PUSH can be useful

I can copy here an example of this from IC+ material and then I'll add my recent experience where this was useful in my reading (yes, although I like Chris's analysis I still toss coins! ).

(swapping the trigrams of 60 leads to 47)

"To 'go with the flow', any hexagram that is changing into hexagram 60 reflects an influence of 47 on that hexagram in that the 'flow' is in hexagram 47 and as such this reflects the need to adapt to that flow and so take-on the properties and methods of 47."

"As a marker of context, where context acts to PUSH instincts, 47 'demands' a preferred response of the qualities of hexagram 60, limiting, standardisation"

more on trigram swapping:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/clines.html



Last week I had three free days and wanted to use them for intensive training of my martial art. I asked the Yi if this was a good plan.

Answer: 10.4.6 to 60

I read it: hexagram 10 Treading, stepping was accurately describing my intention of following my martial path and doing my Taijiquan steps. But hexagram 60 was telling me to limit it. I couldn't understand why, I had enough time and no other duties.
Then I got really sick the next day and it was clear
I came back to my reading and used swapping of trigrams of resultant hexagram 60 to derive context hexagram - 47.

Now it was: (10) Stepping my taiji steps excesively in a context of (47) exhaustion, illness is not wise and I should limit it (60).

This gave me more information about the situation, not just what to do or not to do.

I enjoyed reading that account, yick. good link to chris' page, but god i am slow, i just dont understand how to generate a hexagram without coin toss, which is, in chris' work, the inferior method. certainly, my eyes must have glazed over it by now, but missed it for the forest. where are practical instructions on how to generate a hexagram to a problem using the superior method? "chris loftings iching for dummies", anyone?

i think there are many ways to get detailed information from the yi, chris' method is just one, hope newbies don't think it is the only way clarity memberships get detailed information from a reading.

hollis said:

"chris loftings iching for dummies", anyone?

Click to expand...

That version ain't coming anytime soon... You must suffer like everyone else that ventures into his material. Flogging for the mind, that is...

L

Here is Chris' method using questions for deriving hexagrams:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/indexJ.html

But I never know how to answer those simple questions

The Emotional IC system is also value:

program:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/icplusEProact.html

Preamble:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/lofting/myweb/EmotionalIC.html

The questions cover aspects ABOUT the situation in that these are picked up by the unconscious. Thus we get a better 'best fit' to the context than the use of more traditional methods.

Our emotions are very good at assessing a situation but can lack precision - the precision is filled-in by consciousness.

Chris.

:\

it strikes me that the mathiness of all this unduly privileges one system of "meaning construction" over others (e.g. narrative, emotional, etc.), while the statements about dichotomy, tho positing a unity between intuitive and intellectualized approaches, verge precariously on mentalism.

I'm also not sure what this all has to do with my original question, or why this whole IC+ thing should a priori be an exclusive response to said question. to the extent that I'm almost sorry I asked it...

soft_helion said:

:\

it strikes me that the mathiness of all this

Click to expand...

'mathiness' - is that a word?! ... or is that an example of student lazyness! ;-)

The use of the XOR operator comes from logic and the representing of yin/yang as 0/1 is a natural representation. There is no easier way to discover the X-ness properties of hexagrams other than through using XOR or EQV etc. The use is REALLY simple so I dont see what the issue is. Have you gone through

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html ?

soft_helion said:

....unduly privileges one system of "meaning construction" over others (e.g. narrative, emotional, etc.), while the statements about dichotomy, tho positing a unity between intuitive and intellectualized approaches, verge precariously on mentalism.

Click to expand...

IMHO the attempt to be formal hides the failure in understanding what is going on. Furthermore the Emotional I Ching works off emotions! The indication in your prose is you are not following links!

The IDM focus is on how the brain derives meaning and the focus is on the use of self-referencing of a dichotomy (and the term 'dichotomy' covers both forms of meaning - opposites and complements (bifurcations), see:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dicho.html

The proof of such a dynamic, self-referencing in the brain, is covered in the references etc for IDM as presented in the lists of such at the bottom of the TofC of IDM:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html

soft_helion said:

I'm also not sure what this all has to do with my original question, or why this whole IC+ thing should a priori be an exclusive response to said question. to the extent that I'm almost sorry I asked it...

Click to expand...

Others have the ability to reply to your question so if they dont that is not my problem. This thread covers "asking the oracle for detailed information" and the XOR material shows how that can be done. Due to the monadic structure of the IC hexagrams, resulting from their derivation through self-referencing, all hexagrams are linked together, they allow for one hexagram to describe itself through reference to all of the others as sources of analogy. Simple. ;-)

An important difference in thinking styles is that thinking symmetrically ( common when we focus on emotions) allows for a lack in precision when compared to thinking asymmetrically. The main issue is in the distortion of the IMPlies operator (IF...THEN...) where its natural asymmetric form is distorted to be symmetric and so IF...THEN becomes IF and only IF - in other words the converse of IF-THEN is considered true e.g. If I love X then it implies X loves me - in formal, asymmetric logic this logic is false but symetric thinking will always distort the asymmetric. Symmetric thinking is about use of emotions as it is metaphor in that as a primate species we instinctively try to convert difference to sameness. The price of such can be a loss in precision and confusion about causality etc etc all due to the lack in precision of the logic.

For more on this I suggest:

Matte-Blanco, I., (1975,1998)"The Unconscious as Infinite Sets" Karnac

or an intro to the perspective:
Ryner, E., (1995)"Unconscious Logic" Brunner-Routledge

or consequences of symmetric thinking:
Bomford, R., (1999)"The Symmetry of God" Free Association Press

IMHO you need to read more grasshopper. (BTW when submitting posts they get sent off to others in email quickly. Thus the below does not appear in your post here (implying you edited it out) but it does appear in the post to me:

"put more succinctly, the inability to express one's premises in language understandable to the uninitiated often results from the laziness of the teacher, not the stupidity of the student."

you need to read more grasshopper - IDM/IC+ moves one into tertiary levels of understanding, I dont teach high school nore primary school - in fact I am not a teacher, just a researcher sharing info and if you dont 'get it' then it is not my problem since enough do 'get it' that I dont waste energy on those who dont given the amount of prose available covering both IDM and IC+... if you feel out of your depth I suggest some swimming lessons - but dont expect them from me.

cordially,

Chris.

lightofreason said:

'mathiness' - is that a word?!

Click to expand...

many people besides myself use it. I imagine that qualifies it as a word in some sense.

lightofreason said:

The use of the XOR operator comes from logic and the representing of yin/yang as 0/1 is a natural representation. There is no easier way to discover the X-ness properties of hexagrams other than through using XOR or EQV etc. The use is REALLY simple so I dont see what the issue is.

Click to expand...

I know what XOR is and that's not what I was talking about. your work seems to be a continuation of a particular school of i ching interpetation, I think called "line and number," that became popular during the middle ages, which saw the geometric and mathematical relationships primary to the text itself. this school has declined in popularity in china over the centuries, for the obvious reason that most people find math unpalatable.

lightofreason said:

Have you gone through

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html ?

Click to expand...

I have actually

lightofreason said:

IMHO the attempt to be formal hides the failure in understanding what is going on.

Click to expand...

that may be the case. but I always write like this, it's just a habit. I'm a recovering academic, so I always write like an academic. sort of how your writing always sounds like code

I deleted the quoted statement because I decided it was snotty. sort of like calling somebody "grasshopper."

soft_helion said:

....I know what XOR is and that's not what I was talking about. your work seems to be a continuation of a particular school of i ching interpetation, I think called "line and number," that became popular during the middle ages, which saw the geometric and mathematical relationships primary to the text itself. this school has declined in popularity in china over the centuries, for the obvious reason that most people find math unpalatable.

Click to expand...

My work comes out of consideration of what the neurology does in the derivation/generation of meaning and as such has no consideration of any ancient methods. As such the IC+ work shows how the IC can work and furthermore extends the traditional perspectives to bring the IC into the 21st century AD.

If you suffer from maths blindness that is unfortunate - since to derive precision from thinking one has to work from the asymmetric as well as symmetric; the latter comes with 'logical errors' and so is not suitable for details - limited to the more emotional 'every day' realm. ;-)

SO - hang in there grasshopper, read some more. To get the idea of self-referencing from a philosophical perspective consider Leibnitz and the dynamics of the monad:

http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/leibniz/monadology/monexpl.html

For computational monadology:

http://testweb.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosophy/COURSES/PHIL312/LEIBNIZ/DEFAULT.HTP

XOR appears to comes out of this perspective.... and the monad focus is on emphasising a brain dynamic we can call 'monadic thinking' where the containment of noise elicits order (the chaos game) and as such a monadic dynamic of self-referencing that covers the XOR property where each is described by all.

The coverage of XOR overall (without reference to the monad but with references to supporting neurological work) is in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html

Chris.

Just to flesh out this monad focus. The orginal IDM focus has been on 'given the neurology/senses, what comes out of that?'.

The material on dichotomy covers self-referencing but in doing so has brought up some issues on the use of Cartesian coordinates in that the visual bias 'hides' the emergence of the time dimension in tandem with the 3rd spacial dimension - see recent comments added to:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dicho.html

Searching through for alternative perspectives I came across the Monad focus where a lot of its properties are reflected in the self-referencing of dichotomies, and that includes the XOR findings - and Leibniz's Monadology was developed to offer an alternative to Cartesian perspectives.

Some extracts from a website covering the 'spiritual' aspects of the modadic mindset as done in early times (note IDMs identification of the roots of Mathematics in self-referencencing....and not the focus on 'indivisible' where THAT focus brings out the XOR dynamics in the IC):

"Monad, in the sense of "ultimate, indivisible unit," appears very early in the history of Greek philosophy. In the ancient accounts of the doctrines of Pythagoras, it occurs as the name of the unity from which, as from a principle (arche), all number and multiplicity are derived. In the Platonic "Dialogues" it is used in the plural (monades) as a synonym for the Ideas. In Aristotle's "Metaphysics" it occurs as the principle (arche) of number, itself being devoid of quantity, indivisible and unchangeable. The word monad is used by the neo-Platonists to signify the One; for instance, in the letters of the Christian Platonist Synesius, God is described as the Monad of Monads. It occurs both in ancient and medieval philosophy as a synonym for atom, and is a favourite term with such writers as Giordano Bruno, who speak in a rather indefinite manner of the minima, or minutely small substances which constitute all reality. In general, it may be affirmed that while the term atom, not only in its physical, but also in its metaphysical meaning, implies merely corporeal, or material attributes, the monad, as a rule, implies something incorporeal, spiritual, or, at least, vital. The term monad is, however, generally understood in reference to the philosophy of Leibniz, in which the doctrine of monadism occupies a position of paramount importance. In order to understand his doctrine (see LEIBNIZ) on this point, it is necessary to recall that he was actuated by a twofold motive in his attempt to define substance. He wished, in accordance with his general irenic plan, to reconcile the doctrine of the atomists with the scholastic theory of matter and form, and besides he wished to avoid on the one hand the extreme mechanism of Descartes, who taught that all matter is inert; and on the other the monism of Spinoza, who taught that there is but one substance, God. All this he hoped to accomplish by means of his doctrine of monads. "

Thus we see the seed of the idea of the monad is in the method used by the brain to derive meaning. This stems from the 'containment of noise elicits order' - a universal as covered in 'the chaos game'.

The rest of the Monad article that brings out properties of the IC and self-referencing in general. The focus here is on properties of self-referencing in general that cover categories we derive instinctively and the neurology implies a monadic process. As such the hexagrams are ASPECTS of the I Ching where the IC is the whole and each moment brings out some aspect. Resolution power then determined if we are working with two aspects or eight aspects or 64 aspects or 4096 aspects. As such we can see from the neurology where the notion of a monad comes from.

"The monads are, therefore, simple, unextended substances, if by substance we understand a centre of force. They cannot begin or end except by creation or annihilation. They are capable of internal activity, but cannot be influenced in a physical manner by anything outside themselves. In this sense they are independent. Moreover, each monad is unique; that is, there are no two monads alike. At the same time the monads must have qualities; "otherwise", says Leibniz (Monadol., n. 8), "they would not even be entities". There must, therefore, be in each monad the power of representation, by which it reflects all other monads in such a manner that an all-seeing eye could, by looking into one monad, observe the whole universe mirrored therein. This power of representation is different in different monads. In the lowest kind of substances it is unconscious - Leibniz finds fault with the Cartesians because they overlooked the existence of unconscious perception. In the highest kind it is fully conscious. We may, in fact, distinguish in every monad a zone of obscure representation and a zone of clear representation. In the monad of the grain of dust, for example, the zone of clear representation is very restricted, the monad manifesting no higher activity than that of attraction and repulsion. In the monad of the human soul the region of clear representation is at its maximum, this kind of monad, the "queen monad", being characterized by the power of intellectual thought. Between these two extremes range all the monads, mineral, vegetable, and animal, each being differentiated from the monad below it by possessing a larger area of clear representation, and each being separated from the monad above it by having a larger area of obscure representation. There is then in every created monad a material element, the region of obscure representation, and an immaterial element, the area of clear representation. Everything in the created world is partly material and partly immaterial, and there are no abrupt differences among things, but only differences in the extent of the immaterial as compared with the material. Minerals shade off insensibly (in the case of crystals) into living things, plant life into animal life, and animal sensation into human thought. "All created monads may be called souls. But, as feeling is sometimes more than simple perception, I am willing that the general name monads, or entelechies, shall suffice for those simple substances which have perception only, and that the term souls shall be confined to those in which perceptions are distinct, and accompanied by memory" (Monadol., n. 19). "We ascribe action to the monad in so far as it has distinct perceptions, and passivity, in so far as its perceptions are confused" (ibid., n. 49). If this is the only kind of activity that the monad possesses, how are we to account for the order and harmony everywhere in the universe? Leibniz answers by introducing the principle of Pre-established Harmony. There is no real action or reaction. No monad can influence another physically. At the beginning, however, God so pre-arranged the evolution of the activity of the myriads of monads that according as the body evolves its own activity, the soul evolves its activity in such a way as to correspond to the evolution of the activity of the body. "Bodies act as if there were no souls, and souls act as if there were no bodies; and yet both act as if one influenced the other" (Ibid., n. 81). This pre-established harmony makes the world to be a cosmos, not a chaos. The principle extends, however, beyond the physical universe, and applies in a special manner to rational souls, or spirits. In the realm of spirits there is a subordination of souls to the beneficent rule of Divine Providence, and from this subordination results the "system of souls", which constitutes the City of God. There is, therefore, a moral world within the natural world. In the former God is ruler and legislator, in the latter He is merely architect. "God as architect satisfies God as legislator" (ibid., n. 89), because even in the natural world no good deed goes without its recompense, and no evil deed escapes its punishment. Order among monads is thus ultimately moral.

Since Leibniz' time the term monad has been used by various philosophers to designate indivisible centres of force, but as a general rule these units are not understood to possess the power of representation or perception, which is the distinguishing characteristic of the Leibnizian monad. Exception should, however, be made in the case of Renouvier, who, in his "Nouvelle monadologie", teaches that the monad has not only internal activity but also the power of perception. "

Chris,

I think many here would prefer it if you would start a new thread in Open Space on the topic of Liebniz's philosophy of monadology and how it relates to XOR. Or put it on your website. It's interesting stuff, but only tangentially related to soft_helion's original question. And it's completely unrelated to divination discussion and questions about readings.

P.S. Don't try to tell me that it's related to divination because of self-referencing and local context derivation, as explicated in XOR, etc. etc....

Back to soft_helion's original question(s) (in case you've forgotten)...

soft_helion said:

I have wondered about the possibility of using the oracle to ask more general questions, to get information about situations or individuals and not just one's conduct.
...
so my question is, do others use the text in this way?

Click to expand...

I've used the oracle in this way many times. Obviously, you will get an answer no matter what kind of question you ask. It's all in how you interpret the answer.

soft_helion said:

if so, how do you look at the text?

Click to expand...

If I ask a general sort of question, then I just expect a general sort of answer. Not really ''This is what you should do'' but ''This is the situation at the moment.''

soft_helion said:

what translations/approaches do you find most useful?

Click to expand...

I'm partial towards Brad's and LiSe's online translations, and Thomas Cleary's pocket-sized ''I Ching: the book of change'' which is small enough to fit in the inside pocket of my jacket wherever I go.

soft_helion said:

if not, do you think this is a misuse of the oracle? why?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a misuse of the oracle. There don't seem to be any hard and fast rules about what you should or shouldn't ask. Just don't keep asking the same question or the Yi will get annoyed.

getojack said:

.... And it's completely unrelated to divination discussion and questions about readings.

Click to expand...

disagree. Show me how it does not relate given the IC and each hexagram is interpretable as a monad and allowing for extracting details from a reading.

getojack said:

P.S. Don't try to tell me that it's related to divination because of self-referencing and local context derivation, as explicated in XOR, etc. etc....

Click to expand...

LOL! such amazing denial!

getojack said:

If I ask a general sort of question, then I just expect a general sort of answer. Not really ''This is what you should do'' but ''This is the situation at the moment.''

Click to expand...

agreed. to this end I often use Ritsema-Karcher, and look at the lines and hexagrams more as picture-poems than as statements. but I can nearly always find an alternative reading that falls into the sort of passive-aggressive "now I am going to tell you why you shouldn't care about this question" type of interpretation that a lot of the more self-consciously spiritual texts focus on.

getojack said:

I'm partial towards Brad's and LiSe's online translation

Click to expand...

I will have to check out LiSe's. Brad's translation always provides interesting food for thought.

getojack said:

I don't think it's a misuse of the oracle. There don't seem to be any hard and fast rules about what you should or shouldn't ask.

Click to expand...

I don't think so either, but it seems that from e.g. carol anthony or brian brown walker's perspectives it might be seen as a misuse.

getojack said:

Just don't keep asking the same question or the Yi will get annoyed.

Click to expand...

yeah, I personally refer to 4 as the "shut the @!&%* up" hexagram, tho I find I also get 47 and 23 when it gets annoyed with me.

I used to live near Cornell University and spent a fair amount of time reading translated materials from Big China and Taiwan and stuff like nine star ki astrology, but ultimately found that it added layers of confusion rather than clarifying things, and that I got the best results just from sort of stewing over the images.

have you seen "The I Ching for a New Age" by Robert Benson? despite the horrible title, I have found it to be surprisingly accurate.

thanks for replying to my question

Hi soft helion

Has you checked the link I posted? Could it answer (in practical way) your question?

Best wishes

lightofreason said:

disagree. Show me how it does not relate given the IC and each hexagram is interpretable as a monad and allowing for extracting details from a reading.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to show you, if you post a new thread in Open Space on the topic.

jesed said:

Has you checked the link I posted? Could it answer (in practical way) your question?

Click to expand...

yes, I did. good stuff. exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I will keep your blog in my bookmarks.