Have noticed that so many on here, including me, have relationship questions actively underway. Read back through some of the threads I've started or been involved with and pulled out this comment which I hadn't followed up before from Lucia:

Jesed offered a set of Q's for relationships a long while back which many people have adopted also. They are useful at the right time. And yes I think frame of mind is often relevant but once again not always. One builds up one's relationship with the ching - it is personal and as Meng says that in itself can have effects that knock on.

This is a tough area, confusing to me at least, and easy to ask the wrong question from a perspective that will only compound confusion. So, thought I'd enquire further what Jesed's perception was on asking relationship questions and along the way ask about whatever Meng had said, and recommendations from anybody else who is a past master of this area and can chime in. Thankx, Arabella

One builds up one's relationship with the ching - it is personal and as Meng says that in itself can have effects that knock on.

Click to expand...

arabella said:

This is a tough area, confusing to me at least, and easy to ask the wrong question from a perspective that will only compound confusion. So, thought I'd enquire further what Jesed's perception was on asking relationship questions and along the way ask about whatever Meng had said, and recommendations from anybody else who is a past master of this area and can chime in. Thankx, Arabella

Click to expand...

First, I dunno any masters, past or present.

Secondly, I wasn't sure what Lucia's "effects that knock on" meant, especially since she credited me for it, lol. You haven't provided the link, and I'm too lazy to search for the thread. But, I think the point that Lucia referred to was that, Yijing's answer is really between it and the one who asked the question. Even a past master like me (when I was young I knew everything ) considers very carefully the answers Yi gives me, particularly if my questions involve other people or circumstances. Is the Yi talking to me about my part in it, such as my outlook or attitude, since that's the part I have the most control of?

But as with the need to put limits on limits, I must reflect the opposite way too, since it could be an ego trip to think Yi's even talking about me in the first place. And, how often do we beat ourselves up unnecessarily over taking something too personally?

Every time is new for me, and I am continuously reminded to assume nothing.

This is why I remain skeptical of anyone telling anyone what their reading means in absolute terms. This is why I place the final responsibility always on the one who asks the question to determine, even after receiving insight and opinions from others, what Yi says to them.

Oh yes, sorry not to have posted the full link -- I'll try to find it again.

I suppose that knowing how to interpret has a couple parts and how you pose the question in the first place is of paramount importance if you want to be able to read the answer: que no? Of course, that doesn't mean that the IChing won't answer something you didn't ask anyway.

But in relation to relationships there do seem to be a few rules. One would appear to be that you waste your time asking how somebody else "feels" or "thinks" in the situation. You can really only enquire about the situation itself or what you should be doing yourself in the situation.

It also sounds like you are saying here, no matter what you ask, the IChing is simply going to reply with what you need to know, and it may not be about you either. It could be about the other person.

As reinventing the wheel is relatively pointless, I was interested to hear what questions Jesed has evolved to cope with relationship questions and how they are more evocative of information that is useful; also anybody else's experience with using his method of enquiry on relationships.

No biggie on the link.

I don't recall Jesed's protocol exactly, but I recall it being a very sensible approach, beginning with a "general diagnosis", and then funneling down to greater specifics.

I don't agree with never asking about how someone else feels, and have found that if my intent is to truly understand that person better, Yi' has answered succinctly. If someone is only interested in spying on someone with interests other than helping them, I think that's just wrong in the first place. Maybe it is my own sense of wrongness that admonishes me through Yi's answer. I do agree that in most cases Yi seems more concerned with our own condition and disposition toward someone or something, than with informing us of what others are doing and thinking.

As far as reinventing the wheel, I don't see it that way. I see the learning process as personal rather than duplicate-able.Sure, there's tips, tricks, methods, translations, etc, but nothing can replace your own hands on experience with it.

I think you've hit on a big point here. You're own sense of morality, fair play, whatever you want to call it, is certainly going to steer where you go with responses and maybe predict how much you derive from the IChing's guidance. You can be very self-serving [or selfish anyway] in your approach and get very little for your time, or try to share an even playing field with the rest of the human race and have a much broader experience of what the IChing offers.

Maybe Lucia and Jesed will come on here and clarify what they were saying about relationship readings, if they can remember!

arabella said:

Maybe Lucia and Jesed will come on here and clarify what they were saying about relationship readings, if they can remember!

Click to expand...

Arabella,

I am a "past master"... So much so that I forgot when I lost all of it. Like Bruce says, when I was young I used to know it all.

Regarding the structuring of the questions to the Yijing, Rodrigo (Jesed) follows a very specific school, that of a Chilean Yijing Master (Perhaps I am starting to change my mind and think that if others consider you a Master it is all in the eyes of the beholder and not my place to say otherwise) called Ricardo Andrée (his professional name). I have corresponded privately with Mr. Andrée many times and find him to be very honest and knowledgeable.

IMO, and what's important to you, and others with similar concerns, is that his approach works very well. Please read these old threads where Jesed explains the structure:

Structural sequence of questions (Second post)

Also here. (look for Jesed's answer to Laylab)

Here is a Google search specific to Jesed and relationship questions

arabella said:

I think you've hit on a big point here. You're own sense of morality, fair play, whatever you want to call it, is certainly going to steer where you go with responses and maybe predict how much you derive from the IChing's guidance.

Click to expand...

Yes, and some believe this is the Yi's primary intent: to develop true and reliable character, to follow ones well informed conscience.

I'm still not sure whether that's Yi's doing or our own personal priorities at work. Then there is also the realization that good character and doing the right thing do not guarantee material success, including successful relationships. Therefore, what is left to gain but a noble character?

i'm so sorry i'm missing the main meaning of this thread

Hello Neegula, my original thought was that there appear to be so many questions, especially in the Shared Readings,from various people and from me as well, having to do with relationships, and how to read for those. There are lots of suggestions given along the way -- don't phrase a relationship question this way or that way. Don't ask what another person is feeling is one thing often said. So I was thinking to bring the discussion to a place where we could address JUST that. What is the best way to phrase these, what can you do to get a proper answer. Why does it often seem that the IChing is addressing something ELSE perhaps and not the question you asked about the relationship especially. This is the gist of it.

And, on a thread within the archives there was a reference made to Jesed's prescribed method of questioning in regard to relationships and I was asking if anybody knew what that was. And Sparhawk has given the links to this information, above.

Jesed's Method of Relationship Questions

I have just cast the questions that Jesed recommends to "diagnose" a relationship and it's status and possibilities. As least, that's what I am thinking he intends with the stuctured questions he suggests. I have to say, this is the clearest reading I've ever done in regard to a relationship. It does play out in a very logical fashion and you can actually SEE what you have here. Thinking WHY that would be I'm guessing that, you are putting the alliance between two people at the centre of the questioning and asking for a snapshot -- almost like you are stepping back and viewing the connection dispassionately somehow and requesting a diagram rather than addressing the situation piece-meal or according to speculations on this emotion or that one, this behavior or another one. So, it is allowing the IChing to be more comprehensive and giving maximum play to feedback, including things the enquirer may never have considered before. The other surprising things is that I could recognise myself and the other person fairly readily. Often when I'm reading for this relationship I get the result and am totally baffled. Using this method nearly everything seemed understandable. Of course I haven't really analysed carefully the answers that I got, but in general, they look very useful.

The "general diagnosis" casting said that in the beginning we really didn't like one another. Which is absolutely true. Just as a start, interesting this came through clearly.

Thanks Luis, brilliant recommendation and I'll read through carefully now what I have here. Maybe anyone else interested in trying Jesed's method could give their comments too.

arabella said:

The "general diagnosis" casting said that in the beginning we really didn't like one another. Which is absolutely true. Just as a start, interesting this came through clearly.

Thanks Luis, brilliant recommendation and I'll read through carefully now what I have here. Maybe anyone else interested in trying Jesed's method could give their comments too.

Click to expand...

:bows:

I'd like to add, without wishing to start any new flame wars, that this is what separates "Yijing advise" from "fortunetelling". One must find a way to "dialogue" with the Yi, on a personal basis, to find, by oneself, the right answers.

sparhawk said:

:bows:

I'd like to add, without wishing to start any new flame wars, that this is what separates "Yijing advise" from "fortunetelling". One must find a way to "dialogue" with the Yi, on a personal basis, to find, by oneself, the right answers.

Click to expand...

Yup !! I'll second that..

Are Readings "Time Sensitive"?

Now here's another basic question I suppose, and could be about relationship readings, or any others certainly. That is, whether all readings "expire" or whether some are for all time. I've heard both points of view. One the sort of "chaos theory" version that butterflies moving their wings can be viewed as an "event" that changes elements of probability endlessly. And then there's the school that says, particularly judgment readings NEVER change. That is, this is the view for all time.

From what I know empirically, a reading that lasts endlessly is impossible. And even as I continued with the castings I've just done for this relationship, something changed and I could see what the casting had been saying was the "future"! And I believe it's already happened. So, based on what I'm seeing, Jesed's "future" can be an hour from now, not months or years. However, that having been said, there are those that advertise IChing readings as a "permanent" answer and would argue I'm reading something wrong.


This relates back to other parts of the relationship casting as well; that is, when one element changes in a relationship, do you redo all of Jesed's diagnostics to see "Where are we now?" And, when we're asking about the "future" view for a relationship as Jesed suggests, does the time factor vary in every case and mine just happened to be in one hour from now? New can of worms, I realise. And maybe one only he can answer.

arabella said:

Hello Neegula, my original thought was...

Click to expand...

thanks so much! :bows:
so, relationships-Yi: instruction for use

arabella said:

Now here's another basic question I suppose, and could be about relationship readings, or any others certainly. That is, whether all readings "expire" or whether some are for all time. I've heard both points of view. One the sort of "chaos theory" version that butterflies moving their wings can be viewed as an "event" that changes elements of probability endlessly. And then there's the school that says, particularly judgment readings NEVER change. That is, this is the view for all time.

Click to expand...

Great questions, IMO. I have a few thoughts about this. I am closer to the school you associate with "chaos theory," with more than a touch of quantum mechanics ideas. If you haven't already, I'd like to suggest you read Borges' "The Garden of Forking Paths" That's a great translation by Donald Yates.

Now, blame it on the Yi, my mind works in metaphors, analogies and allegories, so, bear with me. What I'll share next is a metaphorical interpretation that helps me understand my relationship with the Yi and part of my concept of reality. Let's talk about "observation" first.

When it comes to divination, I've come to understand the Yijing as an "observation tower". That is, the tower, the center of your life circle, remains fixed from your perspective but it moves with you. What you observe from it, on the other hand, is in constant flux and is affected both by the natural flow of events ("natural" meaning unaffected, or rather ignored by your conscious observation--see wu wei) and by conscious observation itself. A way to visualize this is to place yourself in the tower and you'll have a circular field of view around you. Remember also that, even though a circle can be divided in 360 degrees, each degree can be infinitely divided and angular movement (rotation of the observer in this case) has great effect on what's observed in the circumference, which will become obvious next.

The "circumference" contains all possible paths you can take in life. The area inside of the circle, which grows with you as you age, but does not end with you (think of you as a stone thrown in a pond and the ripple you create is your life, which also intersects with other ripples, etc.), is all that you'll experience in your life. It grows with you, but does not end with you, because you are not the pond but a ripple in it. It fades and goes back to the source.

Now, let's visualize the radius of the circle as "time". The longer the radius/time, the longer the arc section on the circumference that is affected by the observation. Even though we think we are focusing on a point on the circumference, by our own imperfect and imprecise nature (we are not calibrated machines with precise angular movements...), when we rotate to "focus on a point" in the circumference, we are in fact looking at an arc section. Even though we believe that what connects us to the circumference is a straight line, it is a narrow cone of sorts; the longer that section is in length, due to the length of the radius/time, the blurrier the focus and margin of error of what we interpret from the observation. Minute, inadvertent rotational movements that occur while observing (present life circumstances, decisions made, choices, "forks in the path," etc. ), will further affect the length of the arc section. If you could leave your place at the center of the circle and place yourself at that arc section (the "realm of possibilities"), depending on the length of your choice of radius/time, you could, in theory, walk all your life on it, exploring all possible outcomes, and not reach its end in a natural lifespan, even though from the center it looks like a single point; or it could be very focused (short radius/time and thus a very short arc section), offer a few clear possibilities, and last but a moment.

When you are observing you are "collapsing," coalescing, fixing a "possibility." That is, you are affecting what you are observing and are also affected yourself by what's observed. The problem is, you could be observing a closeup or a smeared set of possibilities. It is logical, although not perfect, to believe that a decision based on a closeup observation will have a better chance of succeeding that one based on a "smeared set of possibilities" observed at a distance. And this is one big caveat.

Let's move on...

From what I know empirically, a reading that lasts endlessly is impossible. And even as I continued with the castings I've just done for this relationship, something changed and I could see what the casting had been saying was the "future"! And I believe it's already happened. So, based on what I'm seeing, Jesed's "future" can be an hour from now, not months or years. However, that having been said, there are those that advertise IChing readings as a "permanent" answer and would argue I'm reading something wrong.

Click to expand...

Those who claim so are fortune tellers and believe in determinism. Like life is simply Newtonian. Not only that, to add insult to injury, some of them firmly believe in what they determine for you as the "right" reading. The Yijing is NOT a deterministic system. I understand it to be fluid observation and the collapsing of states. A reading is a placeholder, a flag in a timeline that isn't straight but branches every time you place one and decide to act on it. Furthermore, when you ask something of the Yijing, nobody but you knows, exactly, how it applies to your situation; what to do when a fork in the path presents itself. You are not "reading something wrong," you are reading what you feel is right for you. The rest, when it comes from outside and is presented with "authority," is cheap fortune telling. Alas, is not always their fault, when they are de facto or implicitly invited to opine and, right or wrong in their conclusions, they usually have the best of intentions, really.

This relates back to other parts of the relationship casting as well; that is, when one element changes in a relationship, do you redo all of Jesed's diagnostics to see "Where are we now?" And, when we're asking about the "future" view for a relationship as Jesed suggests, does the time factor vary in every case and mine just happened to be in one hour from now? New can of worms, I realise. And maybe one only he can answer.

Click to expand...

A couple of things on this: 1, you are missing the "timing" part of what Jesed presented, how time frames and dates are calculated, which is a whole other thread to discuss...; 2, I have given above some clues as to what I believe happens when you do a reading.

You don't have to redo a diagnostic reading and start again with the first question in the structure. You will or should, in fact, be looking back at previous "placeholders" for guidance and placing new ones to move forward. You must know where the path have forked before to properly take the next fork. However, IMHO, there is great peril in collapsing too many states on a given situation as the more branches we are forced to contemplate along our path, the greater the risk of getting lost, or worse, affecting the outcome in a negative way.

I hope I haven't confused you too much...

Thank you Sparhawk for all your work on this reply and on a first read through I see so much that I agree with right away. I'll read all of what you've said more carefully of course. I am already a big fan of Jorge Luis and of magical realism, and have even passed that along to my son who, because of a similar fascination with Borges, is studying to be a cognitive scientist now. So I am right with you there. Because of some of the better known, yet fairly recently developed, principles of quantum physics, such as those which appear to govern the behavior of photon pairs and their "faster than the speed of light" communication, it does appear that we create our own reality. On that basis alone it seems to me that no reading of the IChing can be "forever," because we can't see forever, we are still thinking it through. In the same way, this begins to explain to me why it is difficult to do an accurate "how is he/she feeling about this" casting -- because what is turning up in the IChing is our subconscious and what we really already "know." And we don't know what is affecting another person the way we know our own minds/behavior except, of course, what we observe -- which may be fairly accurate in some respects but certainly isn't so definitive as what their subconscious could say to the IChing.

So this appears to be a mysterious connection based on inspiration -- which can always change on a moment's notice. And, the other thing that fascinates me in this respect: how does the IChing pick up those changes from us? Is this electrical? Is this in some form of light? I tend to think light because electricity is too slow. But where does the light come from and how does it reach the IChing, especially with online divination and several other media between? There is so much to know.

Sparhawk, have read your metaphor several times now and it is very effective way of looking at how the IChing informs both point for point, and as a continuum. And relating this to quantum physics and issues of a casting "expiring" this also brings to mind a few further codiciles of physics that we are supposedly confronting. One, the law of entropy, second law of thermodynamics, that says the Universe presumably creates conditions in which we can not go backwards in time, since everything is collapsing behind us. The IChing really doesn't say the same, does it? You can go back quite effectively, And isn't it interesting that myths keep emerging about the Hadron Collider potentially creating, either black holes, or a reversal in time that could "destroy" us? I've read several fascinating bogus "news" stories" about people appearing from the future to warn us off the collider's dangers. None yet about anybody appearing from the Past, but why not? [All just Blog-ular fun, but interesting like mad to think about.] Meanwhile, the Yi sees it all -- front to back and in random order as well -- and no one is threatened. And in the struggle of physics to emulate in a practical sense today what the Yi has seen for thousands of years, here again is a very good example of the Future catching up with the Past -- which science so far says isn't possible. Although, don't you get the feeling that will change soon?

Oh, nearly forgot. Where did I miss on the timing part from Jesed? I have seen some of his predictions of time frames, but didn't see any indication of how he derived those.

Hello Luis,

Just like to say thanks for your 'pond' analogy - very applicable and helpful. Could it be taken further, perhaps, by visualising a primary, universal wave form upon which our individual ripples are super-imposed. That is, a universal process of change and flux with which our individual causality interacts. The closer our actions are to the universal source, the more our ripples will be congruent and in phase with this universal process; when our actions are detached and distant from this process then we create diffraction, wave-interference and a multiplicity of 'forking paths.' Add to this the compound effect of other people's karmic waves intersecting with our own and you have the potential for non-deterministic chaos. But, and here our views might differ, even within chaos there can emerge underlying patterns and, arguably, patterns of patterns that reduce all processes back to the underlying universal flux - ie. they are immanent within it.

I suspect that the I Ching super-imposes our individual wave potentials upon this broader universal flux and describes back to us the likely resultant pattern. In this broad sense it is predictive - but only by implication. In directing our path it implicitly allows for certain future events and implicitly excludes others. It is, from my personal experience so far, primarily path-specific rather than event-specific, that is, it seeks primarily to guide our individual growth and development rather than simply act as a predictive tool. Other methods, such as Plum Blossom Numerology, are designed to be more specifically predictive but offer no moral guidance whatsoever.

Any guidance we give to others can only be to help them identify and understand the 'patterns' they receive from the I Ching - to recognise, if you like, the 'segmental arc of probability' that you describe so well. Within that arc we are shown potential events, any one of which we can choose to collapse into a causal actuality. I see this as a balanced interplay between free-will and determinism. We are often faced with unavoidable karmic situations but we often have a free choice as to how we respond to them. Peter

peter2610 said:

Hello Luis,

Just like to say thanks for your 'pond' analogy - very applicable and helpful. Could it be taken further, perhaps, by visualising a primary, universal wave form upon which our individual ripples are super-imposed. That is, a universal process of change and flux with which our individual causality interacts. The closer our actions are to the universal source, the more our ripples will be congruent and in phase with this universal process; when our actions are detached and distant from this process then we create diffraction, wave-interference and a multiplicity of 'forking paths.' Add to this the compound effect of other people's karmic waves intersecting with our own and you have the potential for non-deterministic chaos. But, and here our views might differ, even within chaos there can emerge underlying patterns and, arguably, patterns of patterns that reduce all processes back to the underlying universal flux - ie. they are immanent within it.

I suspect that the I Ching super-imposes our individual wave potentials upon this broader universal flux and describes back to us the likely resultant pattern. In this broad sense it is predictive - but only by implication. In directing our path it implicitly allows for certain future events and implicitly excludes others. It is, from my personal experience so far, primarily path-specific rather than event-specific, that is, it seeks primarily to guide our individual growth and development rather than simply act as a predictive tool. Other methods, such as Plum Blossom Numerology, are designed to be more specifically predictive but offer no moral guidance whatsoever.

Any guidance we give to others can only be to help them identify and understand the 'patterns' they receive from the I Ching - to recognise, if you like, the 'segmental arc of probability' that you describe so well. Within that arc we are shown potential events, any one of which we can choose to collapse into a causal actuality. I see this as a balanced interplay between free-will and determinism. We are often faced with unavoidable karmic situations but we often have a free choice as to how we respond to them. Peter

Click to expand...

Great stuff Luis and Peter!

Yes, I see all this as branching probabilities / potentials on an expanding spiral that is both individual and collective. If reality is fluid then the future is entirely open, but this fundamental truth (and I think that this is an objective truth) is only relevant if we are able to create the conditions within ourselves to allow it to happen. This process rather than the end result at some indeterminate "point" on the Arc - is what is pertinent I think. This "path specific" Process begins to match the Universal / Creative expression which can flow through us. In effect by aligning ourselves to it, we become vessels (50) for the Creative and "anchor" such a frequency in our Being, thereby changing our relationship to this branching or "forking" Universe by creating a new potentials within ourselves. When there are clusters of individuals of the same intent I wonder if such a force can actually "breakthrough" and create an entirely new "reality branch" in the sense of the idea of quantum tunnelling. When enough amplitude is created based around the establishment of correct frequency resonance vibration then a shift can take place.

Isn't the I Ching just a potential Universal lock where we must find our own specific combinations of relevant numbers, one by one according to life lessons and experiences until each hexagram "fits" into our own psycho-spiritual system unlocking the potential and a literal shift in reality. In that sense, I think we create our own reality but certainly not through anticipation or desire for a particular outcome which acts as a damper on the process by funnelling energy to the ego.

As I've said before, my personal view is that the I Ching acts as a conduit to ourSelves at a higher turn of this Spiral which denotes a kind of superluminal commuication. If there is no time, just the observer / observed resonance / non-resonance or being non-being then the more we interact with the I Ching with sincerity and effort the more likely it is that the amplitude and resonance (pond ripples) creates a connection across space-time and dimensions. Who knows us better than the I Ching which is in fact, the Higher Self at a dimension of Completion responding back into the past to make sure that such a Completion does in fact happen? This refers back to arabella's point on a form of time travel. What if there are various mechanisms / tools like the I Ching and other forms manifested at this level of physical reality that offer the possibility that we are all observing ourselves from the Future at the highest turn of the Spiral?

The I Ching is a Spiritual Time Machine.

Topal

Topal, exactly the point to me too: superluminary communication. Nobody in the sciences has yet described what it is, how it works, but we seem to be on the cusp of the unified theory. And yet the IChing has promoted the idea all along.

Maybe this has been discussed here before and I just can't find the reference, but do the IChing hexagrams as an abstract basis for binary [computer] code somehow relate to timelessness; in this case, faster than light and therefore invisible communication via an ethernet connection? That would seem to carry us into the superluminary realm where inspired thinking with vast [maybe infinite?] interconnection is practically and symbolically taking place. I don't know exactly what I'm suggesting here, but it seems to fit together.

Hello Topal and Arabella,

Many thanks for your comments. The mechanism by which the I Ching functions is not an easy one to fathom. The best attempt so far appears to be Jung's theory of Synchronicity - an acausal connecting principle between psyche - mind, and physis - material phenomena. Jung proposed an intrinsically meaningful symbolic structure within physical phenomena that corresponds to the structure of mind. At the deepest levels of the unconscious exists what he termed the 'psychoid' archetypal level, in which mind and matter co-exist as one unified field or essence. This is, arguably, the sub-atomic level at which quantum physicists observe anomalies, such as seen in the dual-slit experiment and the EPR paradox, produced by the collapsing of potential states into causal events when subjected to conscious observation.

From the subliminal level of this unified field there emerge the two corresponding orders, Physis (Yin) and Psyche (Yang) in a kind of balanced equilibrium and it is the correlation between them that produces the phenomenon that is synchronicity. It is, IMHO, important to understand that synchronicity does not occur directly between our thoughts and the I Ching. Rather, it occurs between our thoughts and the physical symbolism that we create when we make a reading - ie: the pattern of coins, yarrow sticks, cards etc. The I Ching translates the symbolic meaning of this pattern into a structured system of interpretation.

The key to understanding Jung's theory is, I feel, in grasping the concept that matter and consciousness are two sides of the one reality. They are in an immediate, reciprocal relationship with each other - and that is what we witness every time we see the coins fall 'miraculously' into a meaningful response to our conscious thoughts.

Hope this helps. Peter

From the bit I know about experimentation with photons and scientists' frustrations that they themselves predict or "cause" reactions at a subatomic level -- reactions that exceed the speed of light -- we are now supposing that we create our own reality and that we can "see" the process of creation if we notice the outcomes versus our intentions. The frustration with this, beyond an inability to understand exactly how this process occurs is that we have no language to describe the phenomenon in process, how it works. Even if we knew what the connection or creative spark was, we literally have no words to describe it.

When you consider the esoteric language of the IChing, aren't we in much the same position? Thus the diversity of interpretations for most readings, and the levels of nuance. In many instances, we are somewhere between images and symbols, words and sensations. It would seem then that the idea of pinning a moment down is elusive since, even in an effort to do that, we have changed it with new intentions or wishful thinking. In other words, we have to be happy with the flow of life and quite careful how we affect it with our own desires. And we have to be resolved that our own attitudes definitely affect that flow, in all directions as they converge with the intentions and feelings of others. This is the Art we are trying to master and the imagery that Luis was proposing earlier on in the discussions is helpful, to me at least, as a way to paint a picture of the playing field and the rules of engagement with a mind map, which I'd imagine is probably the best we can do at this stage.

Which would seem to be proof that the purpose of the IChing is more to develop attitude, intention and awareness than it is to simply give a ready answer to questions. At least, that is more useful in the long term. The way you adapt yourself will predict future events, for better or for worse, as you get a grasp of the process. Because, if we are ultimately "creators" of our destiny, with certain "givens" along the way, we can produce nearly any effect we wish, in a broader sense anyway.

Then it would seem the trick is in knowing the best attitude and intention, the widest possible view and widest range of perception -- translating events into wisdom through the IChing and back to ourselves. Because the greatest dilemma is that, in some form, we will likely get what we want.

peter2610 said:

Hello Topal and Arabella,

Many thanks for your comments. The mechanism by which the I Ching functions is not an easy one to fathom. The best attempt so far appears to be Jung's theory of Synchronicity - an acausal connecting principle between psyche - mind, and physis - material phenomena. Jung proposed an intrinsically meaningful symbolic structure within physical phenomena that corresponds to the structure of mind. At the deepest levels of the unconscious exists what he termed the 'psychoid' archetypal level, in which mind and matter co-exist as one unified field or essence. This is, arguably, the sub-atomic level at which quantum physicists observe anomalies, such as seen in the dual-slit experiment and the EPR paradox, produced by the collapsing of potential states into causal events when subjected to conscious observation.

From the subliminal level of this unified field there emerge the two corresponding orders, Physis (Yin) and Psyche (Yang) in a kind of balanced equilibrium and it is the correlation between them that produces the phenomenon that is synchronicity. It is, IMHO, important to understand that synchronicity does not occur directly between our thoughts and the I Ching. Rather, it occurs between our thoughts and the physical symbolism that we create when we make a reading - ie: the pattern of coins, yarrow sticks, cards etc. The I Ching translates the symbolic meaning of this pattern into a structured system of interpretation.

The key to understanding Jung's theory is, I feel, in grasping the concept that matter and consciousness are two sides of the one reality. They are in an immediate, reciprocal relationship with each other - and that is what we witness every time we see the coins fall 'miraculously' into a meaningful response to our conscious thoughts.

Hope this helps. Peter

Click to expand...

It seems Sheldrake's take on Morphic resonance might have a bearing on all this somewhere along the line too:
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?p=113572#post113572


Topal

Genetic Memory

What I gather you are saying Topal, at least in part, is that what is learned becomes inprinted within the species and that we are ever evolving upward or toward greater self knowledge? Another theory I've heard in relation to benefiting from the experience of ancestors and even inheriting past wisdom is contained in the idea of Genetic Memory. That is, the premise that just as one can inherit blue eyes or brown hair, primal experience embedded in a material form, a human being for instance, can also be inherited, such as in the case of the shaman. The premise was that there are reasons that clairvoyance often runs in families and, likewise, reasons to believe that knowledge of a shaman, medicine man, druidic priest or priestess, and the instincts of ancient leaders can have been passed down through heritage, lineage. There are even theories that this can be "willed" by ancestors to occur. I heard this from someone who has sixth sight and this is how he explained himself and his abilities; and also the source of certain information I felt that I "knew" for no particular reason because I hadn't learned it, it just appeared and turned out to be useful.

Significant h26 implications in your last comments, Arabella.

How so, Meng?

LiSe
"Heaven in the center of the mountains: great accumulation. The noble one knows many former words and deeds and proceedings, in order to accumulate his virtue"

Wilhelm
"Thus the superior man acquaints himself with many sayings of antiquity
And many deeds of the past,
In order to strengthen his character thereby.

The way to study the past isn't to confine oneself to mere knowledge of history but, through application of this knowledge, to give actuality to the past."

Though this is obviously applicable to learned knowledge, it also applies to intrinsic cellular knowledge, such as what has been passed down through generations, from ones own genetics. The knowledge is there. All we have to do is find ways to tap into it, and that can include shamanistic practices.

It's like reading something for the first time, and something deep inside affirms it, as though you knew it all along.

Taming great forces of all kinds, benefits from this collection of past inner (as well as outer) knowledge, which we can actualize in our present.

Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance

Hello Topal,

Many thanks for the link to the article on Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance. Yes, I agree there are similarities with Jung's ideas on a meaningful 'a priori' order within physical phenomena - a form of natural intelligence, if you like. If Jung's theory of synchronicity is correct, it implies a corresponding equivalence between the structures of mind and physical phenomena so it is not surprising to find Sheldrake proposing 'morphogenetic fields' that impose meaningful structure within cell growth. It is also interesting that he links these to a form of genetic memory - a form of unconscious intelligence perhaps? The area is a fascinating one, with a lot of room for further exploration. If you're interested in finding out more about synchronicity, here's a link to a paper I wrote on the subject, published by The British Psychological Society - http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/BPS-Article.pdf