Sponsor |  Morosoph | Jun 16, 2004 3:51am | Those of us who use the I Ching cannot easily justify doing so without recourse to synchronicity.
How yarrow stalks, coins, or dice fall is random, surely not, yet our understanding of modern physics should make us suspicious of the concept of intrinsic randomness.
For the students of Quantum Mechanics here, you will know that at the rawest level, the universe does not act according to simple rules of probability, but rather continuously resolves a complex wavefunction, the absolute value of which squares to give probability. Since the wavefunction behaves roughly linearly as one calculates it from its elements, this means that the probability is not linear. It is precisely this non-linearity that makes photons 'want' to cohere in a contained box, and so gives you the laser.
So back to the I Ching. I can give no better justification for its use than Jung in his introduction to the Richard Wilhelm translation: it seems to work. However, even if there is no magic there, as a text, it has an inner beauty and coherence that makes it worth discussing here. |
|
|  |  117978 | Jun 21, 2004 11:05pm | | I was wondering if you explain to me what the I Ching is please. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Morosoph | Jun 22, 2004 4:29am | The I Ching [Classic of Changes] is a Chinese book of divination; it is truely an ancient book, one of the first.
Although western translations cannot render it well, It is in fact a book of poetry as well as divination. It is a book that gives advice, and (supposedly) a taste of the meaning of "the time" in the context of your question when one consults it. A brief introduction can be found at eclecticenergies.com/iching/introduction.php [eclecticenergies.com/iching/introduction.php]
The Richard Wilhelm translation has a lot of Richard's own commentary, and is taken to be pretty much the standard. I like to use the Lynn translation.
 The process of consultation is one of drawing up a "hexagram" using a "random" process to generate firm or broken lines (respectively ______=Yang/Firm/Unbroken and __ __=Yin/Yielding/Broken), possibly changing into the other (draw a circle in the centre of ______ or an 'x' in the hole of __ __ to mark these). Here is a useful tool for entering your hexagram, for the purpose of looking it up, once you've generated it.
Changing lines have special significance. The commentary attached to the lines apply most of all to the changing lines, and normally one would consult the initial hexagram, the lines that are changing in that hexagram, and the arriving hexagram (where things are headed if one is to let nature take its course). I find looking at the hexagram specified by the changing lines (an "intermediate hexagram"), if one is to write a firm line for a changing line, and a broken line for an unchanging one, to frequently be enlightening.
The meaning of the lines is, in my opinion, related to Robert Pirsig's conception of levels of "quality" (interesting sidetrack), whereby each line is built on the foundation laid by the previous one. For those unfamiliar with Pirsig's levels, they are 1. Matter, 2. Biology, 3. Society, 4. Intellect, 5. Mind, 6. Higher Pattern; Okay, I interpretted the 5th and added the 6th to make it fit, but this is a natural fit IMO.
I thought that I'd move my dice method from here, since it'll be more easily found here than in a link to an obscure discussion page:
For every line, roll two dice.
If the total is even, the line is 'Yin', or yielding.
If the total is odd, the line is 'Yang', or firm.
The line changes on a total of 2, 7, or 12. Simple.
As ever, build up the hexagram (six lines) from the bottom line to the top.
The coin, dice, and yarrow stalk methods yield slightly different probabilities for changing lines, as follows:
Changing line Coin Dice Yarrow
Old yang ______ 1/8 3/18 3/16
Old yin __ __ 1/8 1/18 1/16 |
|
| | |
|
Sponsor | | Morosoph | Sep 25, 2004 4:06am | This essay is certainly interesting, but I don't think that the I Ching is really only for schizophrenics. If you look at many concepts in Quantum theory, they're equally 'loopy', in much the same way, to the casual observer, yet your typical physicist is not schizophrenic AFAIK. I expect that Philip K Dick simply believes that the I Ching doesn't, and cannot work, so that it becomes a tool for imposing artifical order, and is therefore only useful for those who need some order, any order imposed upon them in order to be able to live.
Quite possibly, Philip K Dick has been influenced by Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, where the I Ching is seen as a relic of an older way of thinking which is essentially schizophrenic. Also, Philip's mention of hallucinogens and the fact that his essay is dated 1965 tells you a lot about where he's coming from.
If, however, the I Ching does give real insight, why restrict it to schizophrenics? This appears a little odd to me. If synchronicity is embedded within physics, and not merely in mind, and assuming that the I Ching taps this somehow, then this appears to be a little like not using a magnifying glass because most magnifying glass users have impaired vision.
As for the synchronous verses sequential side of this article, I think that most people could do with an opening up, here, for we distort the world by imposing sequence upon it to the extent that we do. Simultaneity, not sequence, is the rule in the world, and strictness of cause and effect died with Newton... |
|
| 
|  alanackley | Oct 1, 2005 11:56pm | | If God is One (this is an axiom, ie if you assume it's true then other things follow;) then all of creation is a single unity. If you slice a hologram into pieces, all of the pieces have the whole picture (though with less resolution). An I Ching reading (or Tarot or any other oracle) is just another slice from the universal hologram, and cannot be disconnected. It MUST have meaning, because it is part of the single whole, just as your mind is. Every dream and every passing thought or whim is contained within this single whole. Denying it is also synchronous, your inner denial becomes part of the mirroring process that the universe reflects back to you. So at the root of it all, what you assume to be true, becomes true for you, and if you assume there is meaning in everything, then events PROVE this to be true. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | LuxPropane | Dec 4, 2005 8:42am | | A man was sitting outside, in the rain. He did not decide how the stars moved. He did not decide the direction the Earth turned. He did not decide the course of the Sky, or direction of the wind, or the point where the raindrops fell, thousands upon thousands. He decided where to sit. He decided to flip a coin. He decided a moment upon which to let go of this coin. He did not decide where the rain or the wind or the Sky or the Earth or the stars touched the coin. He did not decide fate. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Ogmin | Dec 4, 2005 9:20am | "Yes, rotation is an invariant; if you get up from your chair and turn 360 degrees and sit down, you are not entitled to say the universe turned around you, because if the universe turned around you in the second or so it took you to turn, even the nearest stars, some six light years away, would have to travel 2pi x 6, or 36 light years per second, about 200 million times the speed of light. Because matter cannot travel faster than light, the remote stars establish rotation as an invariant. The paradox comes about because you are free to turn yourself as you please. So the invariance of rotation does not prevent your rotation! This can only mean that free choice is of a higher order than the invariants of relativity. In fact it is choice that can establish invariants. Thus the gold standard is an invariant by which the value of money is measured. But the President can decide to go off the gold standard, as Roosevelt did in 1933.
This is not so outrageous as might first be thought. To me it was another clue to the interpretation of the quantum of action, because it rotates, as freedom or choice. I mention rotation not as an error of science, but as a basic principle whose absolute nature, established by relativity, is neglected by science."
Arthur Middleton Young |
|
| 
|  x3n | Dec 6, 2005 9:52am | I would have to say science is COUNTING on rotation and cicles, doesnt it?
isn't that why "coincidence" occurs? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ogmin | Dec 6, 2005 12:48pm | | I believe Young's quote refers to the status of rotation as a variable rather than an invariant according to Einstein's theory of general relativity. |
| I Ching
| |
