OldDog

I am going back to read the Dazhuan. It has been awhile since I have visited that text. Your comment on dong and bian has struck a chord with me. As far as something affecting the trigram that leads to change, thats a questions worth exploring. Other than the notion that moving lines change, I am not sure I have heard any deeper discussion on that. Its usually stated as a matter of fact. But the question of what's affecting seems to go to another level. My natural inclination would be to think that there is something going on within the line. The only thing I can think of is that it might have to do with the nature of yang and yin coupled with the notion of reversion. Something along the lines of yang tending to expend itself and giving way to yin. For yin's part, in its tendency to recieve and nurture it draws in yang. But then you would have to answer the question of movement. Such thinking may be a trap caused by human (western, anyway) predilection for cause and effect. It is often said that constant movement is the nature of dao. If that be the case then we need not look for a cause of movement as it is self-so. I am sort of freewheeling here. These are the questions I have in mind as I continue to explore the Dazhuan and other sources.

Look at it as a win-win.

I feel strongly both ways. ; )

I see. This is very helpful in understanding the significance of moving lines. Can you point to older commentaries where the relationship of dong and bian are discussed? I would like to explore this idea further.

Interesting idea. But in the example of Thunder you indicate aggression seemingly regardless of what it changes into. Wouldn't it make more sense to say instability in anticipation of impending change? And, if so, in the case of thunder, would agression always be the reaction? Wouldn't the influence of the transformed trigram begin to express itself? Or, is there a tendency to resist the change and in Thunder's case it expresses as aggression? Please excuse me. It is your method. You have no doubt given this more consideration than I have in my off hand remarks. Just curious. Sometimes, a new idea triggers a cascade of questions.

In Burton Watson's translation, he notes that Huizi is often employed as a representative of logic, intellect. If one takes the "happiness" or "joy" of fishes as a metaphor for being at one with the Dao, then perhaps it is not too far a leap to view this dialogue as drawing a distinction between what can be known intellectually and what can be known intuitively; ie, the Dao cannot be approached through intellect.

Very good video. Thank you. I only recently discovered the examples of the Yijing consultations in the Zuo Zhuan. I immediately thought of your approach to interpretation through trigrams. After viewing you video, several things come to mind. One of the key ideas I gained through the Zuo Zhuan examples is to look at changing lines as working through the trigrams; ie, one trigram transforming into another. I think this is very important. I believe you touched on this in the video when you discussed the forward/backward relationship of trigrams needing to be considered together. I would like to hear you elaborate on this, perhaps in some future video. Also, I would like to hear your views on the significance of internal or nuclear trigrams. What is their proper role in interpretation ... or should they be considered at all? I think there may be a tendency to view your focus on trigrams as an alternative to considering the resultant hexagram as a whole in an interpretation. I don't believe this is what you intended. It seems to me that looking at the composition of an initial hexagram through the lens of the trigrams - upper/lower but also nuclear - should then be brought together (confirmed?) In the resulting hexagram as a whole. If this is the case, perhaps this could be demonstrated in future videos where you walk through the analysis of a particular consultation. Great series. I look forward to future videos.

So, do you feel that those later pieces " ... sabotaged [your] understanding of Chuang tzu." or have they enhanced your understanding? Not trying to be facetious here at all. You, seemed to be rather concerned that passages not reliably attributable to Chuang tzu might distort understanding. So, now, having read beyond the inner chapters into a less reliable passages, are you seeing any break in continuity of philosophy? I am asking becuase I have just entered the later passages myself.

This thread seems to have withered on the vine. Well, this sorting of relevant texts already been done. There is already recognition of inner chapters, outer chapters and miscellaneous writings, which represent decreasing reliability of attribution to the historical figure. Have you looked at those and compared them?

Sure, you could do this but all you would be doing would be coldly (objectively?) mapping out the occurences of hexagrams that are already fully described by the mathematics of the casting method. Such an experiment would not map out any meanings of any particular hexagram. That would require context, which the experiment seeks to exclude as a variable. Indeed, the process seems to recognize that context as a variable would be so vast as to be impractical to manage. Tantamount to mapping out the possibilities of all existence. What you seem to be seeking is predictability in something that is inherently unpredictable. It is not unlike the Uncertainty Principle ... you may be able to show the probability of an occurance in a particular location but not where it is going. A totally unsatisfying situation.

Emily's take on TTC63? Deal with the difficult while yet it is easy; Deal with the big while yet it is small. ... Therefore the Sage by never dealing with great (problems) Accomplishes greatness. ; )

Seems to be rather strong statements. What is the basis?

I think there must be confusion between the mechanics of the hexagram creation and interpretation. Almost by definition, the hexagrams are patterns that are limited mathematically. On the other hand the significance that one places on a particular hexagram is highly subjective ... that is, an interpretation ... and highly variable and likely non-replicable. That said, I have long believed that the I Ching is a unique structure in the mathematical sense. If one has a high degree of expertise and understanding of system dynamics in a given subject ... and if the same ones have undertanding of the mechanics of the I Ching ... then it should be possible to map the system dynamics of the subject onto the I Ching structure and thus produce a tool. Divination is one such mapping. Others might be medicine and martial arts. I am curious to see how this thread evolves.

HA! I am no math geek ... but I have run into a few. In pursuit of a BS degree (Bachelor of Science, not the other kind) I minored in math figuring that if I took twice as much math as needed I would retain about half ... just enough to support a chemistry major. Though, I will admit that Probability of Random Variables was a great course and go me thru some quantum mechanics math. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge) ; )

Agreed. I guess my point is more at having overly detailed knowledge of the probabilities involved can detract from the process of the consultation of the oracle. As you are dividing the stalks what are you thinking about ... your inquiry or how the stalks are being separated? Does that affect the connection to the oracle or any synchronicity involved in the process? I gotta think so.

Hmmm. Was not trying to equate Legalism to Confucianism ... nor say that Confucianism was directly derived from Legalism. Just the opposite, that whereas Legalism prescribed conduct of government, Confuscianism prescribed social conduct. In a sense, however, Daoism, Legalism and Confucianism must have had some influence on each other to the extent that they represent ways of thought that coexisted historically. Admittedly, I am not a historian but generally my sense has always been that of the three ways of thought Daoism has the older evolving tradition, followed by Legalism, then by Confucianism. Perhaps someone more historically oriented than I can help clarify.

Aren't we getting a little wrapped around the axle with all this about probabilities? Perhaps the longest tradition for casting is the yarrow stalks. I think we have to accept that those who devised the method were aware of the probabilities ... perhaps even deliberately established the balance (or imbalance, if you prefer) according to some rationale now lost to us. That there are other methods in use suggests that guidance for the oracle is being received with success. One thing I would say is that whatever the method used, it seems that it is the manipulation that is important in establishing connection with the oracle and making the result relevant to the inquirer. As an inquirer, I would be skeptical of any casting that I had not personally performed ... I would want to be fully vested in the result. So, in the case of the yarrow method, any variance in the division of the stalks ispart of the process that informs the result. Same could be said for coins, marbles or any other medium for casting.

I cut Confucius a little bit of slack ... but just a little. There was, as I understand it, a long Legalist tradition leading up to Confucius that directly advocated strict regulation backed by rewards and punishment. I have always kinda felt that Confucius was to societal interaction (decorum, manners, filial piety) as the Legalists were to government. Yeah, I can't side with anarchists but Libertarianism is almost appealing.

This passage is kind of a continuation of 17:5 in that it shows Chuangtse's contempt of government. The general criticism that daoism (through Laotse) holds for government is that it is a suppression/corruption of the natural inclination of the people, who left to thier own natural instincts would self govern without need for contrived rules and regulations. Is Chuangtse's contempt based on that ... or because he views himself as superior (the yellow phoenix) to the government official (the owl managing its rat)? Seems like that would be a petty position to take ... but why else open contempt through such an analogy?

Someone had suggested that the oracle may not answer the question posed ... but the answer would be to a different form of the question or a related questiin ... as if the oracle was sensitive to and responding to the situation rather than the question posed. Does that make sense? Is it a fair way of looking at unexpected results?

Would you call this synchronicity? You seem not to place much importance on changing lines ... or am I misunderstanding ... leaping to a conclusion that isn't there. What part of the I Ching text should one focus on when consulting on a particular hexagram result?

Looked at, it is dark. Listened to, it is noiseless. But in that darkness there appears a light; and in the silence, a harmony is heard. - Chuangtse

Ah, but would you bet on a particular outcome? ; )

The commonality seems to be that of a few seeking to manipulate events and narratives toward some end ... using communism, capitalism, democracy, plutocracy, whatever ... which typically distills down to aggrandizement of the oligarchs. The problem individuals have is to figure out how to thrive in whatever form it takes.

I have always been a bit skeptical of synchronicity. I think we tend to attach more significance to it than may be warranted. If it has meaning, it may only be in whether we choose action based on it or not. This view is probably what prevents me from consulting the I Ching more frequently.