OldDog

I think this is a good topic for discussion. Not because it is important to assign gender but because underlying is the question of what is the nature of that which we label as male/female, active/passive, light/dark, etc. All of these labels seem to be just expedients that allow us to carry on conversation. They all carry a certain degree of bias, which if accepted and left unchallenged misleads us in understanding. For example, if I am a man, how I perceive and accept the notion of maleness/femaleness is different that how I would see it if I am a female. (It's even hard to formulate such a sentence.) I am beginning to understand that behind these paired descriptors is much more than their mutual antithesis. I started down this road by taking a more careful and detailed reading of the first two hexagrams and then following the discussion in the Dazhuan. My understanding is not yet well formed, so I am following this thread with some interest.

Wadda ya wanna bet Jimmy Clanton is sporting a DA? ; ) Try this ...

I read the article and also found resonance. The part that resonates is that there are some areas of inquiry or endeavor where the methods of science break down and do not produce useful results. At that point the tools that we turn to are dialogue, rhetorics, speculation, imagination as we probe for the means to make sense of the changing conditions around us. Aristotle's observations are describing two sides of the same coin ... things that are only as they are and things that can be otherwise ... predictable and unpredictable ... stable and unstable. Science is just another tool in the toolbox. When you are not getting satisfying results with it, try a different tool. Try a wrench instead of a hammer.

Perhaps not... it's just that a suitable method for applying scientific principles has not been fully elucidated ... at least one that a layman csn employ easily. Quantum mechanics may be prove to be an exception. I am sure there is a camp that believes that. Along with non-spiritual I would add non-profitable. (Uh-oh, my cynicism level is rising!) All to often, 'good science' is used to get the public to buy into (quite literally) a product or service or idea that in reality would not be supported by 'complete science'. This is probably the true meaning of 'fake/fuzzy science'. Alas, with so many sciences, how is one to choose? But seriously note, does not the Yi represent a science of its own ... state of the art for a couple of millennia BCE? A shame it is not taught with the same degree of enthusiasm as western science.

Ah, well, that's the tricky part. Admittedly, there is a fine line between receiving an independent image from the yi and looking for a particular result ... the "will to believe" you mention. Neither I, nor probably anyone else for that matter, are capable of total objectivity. All anyone can really hope to do is be aware of the human tendency to look for a particular meaning in a result and take that into consideration as you decide on the applicabilty of the result. No. For one thing, I think that would definitely mean looking for a predetermined result. One would be searching through all 64 hexagrams looking for what .... a confirmation of what was expected all along? I can't imagine essentially reading the entire book each time a new quiry comes up. I think this is where synchronicity comes in. In examining a result ... being fully aware of 'The Tendency' ... one looks for surprising and otherwise inexplicable coincidences or parallels to the situation in the inquiry ... the germ of credibility. Then, considering how the yi (changes) are described, determine a course of action ... or non-action, as the case may be. In this way I would rely on the yi (process) present a view into the situation and possibly expand the sense of what the situation is all about. At that point, having acted or not, observe how the situation unfolds to determine whether the Yi was accurate or not. The multiple-interpretabily for the hexagram is an essential feature of the Yi. Without it there would be no flexibility in the Yi and it could not function as an oracle. This is how I have understood the Yi thus far.

I'm not sure I am asking for anything to be proven ... perhaps more demonstrated than proven. I don't hold the scientific method and proofs produced by it as the gold standard of credibility. The scientific method works pretty well for the world of matter and form but I think there are some areas where science, as it has developed so far, is not adequate for describing or validating phenomena. History is certainly full of examples where the state of science could not produce an explanation ... or even produced a false explanation. That's not saying it will never get there. As far as the I Ching goes, I still have a ways to go before I will be able to trust in it as an oracle; as a book of wisdom, yes, but not as an oracle. Right now, I am in the information gathering phase ... trying to develop an understanding of the mechanics of arriving at a hexagram and how to go about reading it. Inevitably, I will have to start putting what I think I have learned into practice. As I do so, I will be looking for evidence of two things: does the hexagram produced by an inquiry accurately represent the situation asked about and are the changes born out as the situation unfolds. I won't be worried too much about the role of randomness or statistical probabilities, as these are tools that belong to science, which I have already pretty much decided is not yet ready to apply in divination.

Eight to the bar ... I can dig it. That'll get you on your feet.

Yes, this is my dilemma. On the one hand, I am sufficiently grounded in a western scientific view of things to want definative evidence of something outside of normal experience. On the other hand my personal observation has given me enough soft evidence to suspect strongly that more is at work than can be explained in the traditional scientific way. I personally have no direct concsiouness of any such workings, although I have had, for as far back as I can remember, a resonably strong intuitive sense of things that I rely on, if that counts. But it is not always something I can deliberately connect with. I just have to remain open to the experience when it choses to make itself present. So, I tend toward a general philosophical taoist view and see the I Ching as a source of wisdom. (And yes, I do believe that the I Ching is part of a greater taoist tradition, in spite of the arguments I have heard to the contrary.) Whether or not I can reliably access the I Ching in an oracle sense remains to be seen. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the tasting. Guess I just need to taste more pudding.

Well ... maybe. Many have expressed faith in the coins or even go so far as to suggest the manner of producing the hexagram is not so important. But the even balance in outcome of the coins bothers me a bit ... maybe more than a bit. As amply demonstrated in other threads, the yarrow stalk method is not evenly balanced. Surely, the ancients could flip a coin and obtain evenly balanced results ... but they didn't. Instead, the yarrow stalks method was developed. And I can't help but think there was a purpose to the inherent uneven balance. They must have felt that the yarrow method produced a better modeling of real world change. Maybe, it is not chance. I think people are predisposed to believe that what is perceived as random is assurance that any result is beyond human manipulation ... that it must come from some unassailable source that expresses itself synchronisticly through the process. This notion appeals to me and is probably why I think that I is important for the inquirer to be intimately involved in the process ... to assure that connection is established between the question and the result.

Agreed, but "shuffling" almost carries a different connotation. Just as to my ear "throwing" suggested an assurance of randomness through the action of letting the coins bounce around, "shuffling" seems to suggest the need to randomize the stalks themselves as if the individual stalks could be distinguished. Language is funny. Was there ever a yarrow stalk ... or similar method ... use where the stalks were distinguishable, one from another, with significance attached to individual stalks?

So, it's Sunday morning. Not one to get up and run off to church. But I often set in to a ritual of Sunday morning jazz while everyone else sleeps in.

I have never heard of such a thing. The process of using yarrow stalks has always been a manipulation (division and counting out) of sticks in all the references to the process I have encountered. The method of manipulation may vary slightly but it is still a deliberate process. Still, I have always wondered how the word "throwing" entered the lexicon. Is it a modern invention? Is there any basis in translation from original older sources for such a word? Perhaps there term derives from use of coins or other devices. Perhaps the idea behind "throwing" is to suggest randomness in the process. As we have seen in the recent discussions on the yarrow stalks method that there is randomness ... then there is randomness. In fact, in the wake of recent discussions, the thought has crossed my mind that maybe the complexity of the yarrrow stalks method was a means to ensure that the stalks could not be manipulated with intent to force an outcome ... nah! Then, the other day, I ran across this in Wilhelm's I Ching. As divine beings do not give direct expression to their knowledge, a means had to be found by which they could make themselves intelligible. Suprahuman intelligence has from the beginning made use of three mediums of expression—men, animals, and plants, in each of which life pulsates in a different rhythm. Chance came to be utilized as a fourth medium; the very absence of an immediate meaning in chance permitted a deeper meaning to come to expression in it. The oracle was the outcome of this use of chance. The Book of Changes is founded on the plant oracle as manipulated by men with mediumistic powers. Does this suggest that the yarrow stalks (plants) method has primacy over other methods, coins for example? And what about mediumistic powers? Or, is this just added by Wilhelm. He doesn't seem to provide and explanation of how he arrived at that understanding ... or at least I have not encountered it yet. Throwing, plants, mediumistic powers ... good food for discussion.

If water is clear when it is at rest, how much more so is the human spirit? - Chuangtse

Finally! Someone who appreciates guqin!

How 'bout a little mountain/bluegrass... https://www.laut.de/The-Nitty-Gritty-Dirt-Band/Songs/Sunny-Side-Of-The-Mountain-961147

Well, I'm workin on that. I always got an opinion. Doesn't meanit always needs to be expressed. Life too short to get wrapped up in endless argument. (That sounds a bit snarky. No offense intended)

Just so.

A good part of Chuangtse has to do with exploring the nature of life and death. Elsewhere he writes: Life and Death are a part of Destiny. Their sequence, like day and night, is of God, beyond the interference of man. These all lie in the inevitable nature of things. We tend to focus on dealing with death, with little consideration for what it means to live. Hui attempts to point out some of that meaning by reminding Chuang that his life and his wife's were intricately intertwined She lived together with you ... raised your children, grew old, and died. I think that Chuang realizes this but wrestles with is own human response. Again, elsewhere he recognizes: Joy and anger, sorrow and happiness, worries and regrets, hesitation and fears, come upon us by turns, with ever-changing moods, like music from the hollows, or like mushrooms from damp. Day and night they alternate within us, but we cannot tell whence they spring. ... But for these emotions I should not be. Yet but for me, there would be no one to feel them. Unable to deal with his emotions, he takes refuge: If I should break down and cry aloud, I would behave like one who does not understand destiny. Perhaps it would be better if he accepted his own human nature as part of Destiny.

I would not call it spamming. I would call it free and open discussion. It's not uncommon for posts to diverge from the initial topic. Still, it's your thread. If you want so constrained, I will bow out. Adios!

True enough. I realized this long ago, for many reasons I will not go into. It seems to be a byproduct of the scientific method; that is, in process of trying to be thorough and complete (rigorous?) in the course of any investigation, arbitrarty boundaries and conditions are set. These then tend to be forgotten in the wake of analysis leading to some conclusive statement. The conclusions often tend to want to become generalizations with universal applicability. Anyone challenging the process - or even pointing out the original constraints - draws general criticism at a minimum. No disrespect intended to anyone.

Aside @voidisyinyang: I took the time to read the entire paper from which you cited. I found it very interesting. The authors have the ability speak to very complex ideas in a way that allows those without much background in science at this level (me) to derive a level of understanding. Particularlly, the discussion on Randomness and Focusing, and accompanying illustration, was quite insightful. I have bookmarked the paper as I will definitely want to reread once some of these ideas have jelled. In general, would highly recommend the full paper to anyone who is interested in why the scientific method is often inadequate to explain some phenomena. Thanks for the posting.

You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely. - Ogden Nash

In starting out to re-read the Great Commentary I was browsing around to generally reset my sense of historical context and to see what other more recent commentaries might exist on the Dazhuan. I stumbled on this article by Roger T. Ames. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40636-015-0013-2 I am not familiar with any of Ames' work. I found this article to be quite difficult to read. Ames' manner of communication and use of language was pretty tough for me. He uses a lot of words that are just not in my working vocabulary. The article seems very academic. Still, there were a few insights I was able to gleen from the article. He also cites heavily from Tang Junyi, who I am not familiar with either. Thought I would throw this out there to see what the Bum's thought.

This is a tough passage to derive a satisfactory understanding from. May as well ask what is the meaning of life. Certainly, preservation of life is given preeminent consideration ... The ultimate joy is to keep the person alive ... ... if one can equate joy with meaning ... and meaning with simply being alive. But somehow even that seems unsatisfactory. If indeed there is such a thing as joy ... and ZZ is not so sure there is ... perhaps it can be found not in accumulation or attainment but simply in the act of participation in life and then ... Retire when your work is done, Such is Heaven's way.