Nelson

The King Wen sequence seems to resist explanation; the best I’ve found is from Danny Van den Berghe, and is/was available here. (I get an error message when I try it, but hopefully that’s just a temporary problem.) There is also a lot of in-depth information with its roots in traditional Chinese understandings at Denis Mair’s Yijing site.

Nelson

read what I wrote carefully - there is nothing there that says you cannot get the ‘best fit’ from traditional methods. What is indicated is that you cannot get it *consistantly* when compared to alternative methods (e.g. questions)…. nore can you get the full sequence of the 64 hexagrams sorted in best to worst fit applicable to the moment - you need the best fit to do that consistantly. (and using traditional methods you can get bestfit-15 and still think you got the best fit etc)

Using traditional methods you have a focus on one hexagram derived from:

(a) a bias to yin (yarrow sticks method)
(b) a normal. aka guassian, distribution (coins)
(c) a bias to yang (reversed yarrow sticks interpretations)

A reactive bias is (a), a proactive bias is (b), the middle is (c). Which one to use depends on the context (nature of the collective etc). How we label the processes, as products of ‘randomness’ or ‘miraculous’ is local in that the random and the miraculous share the same space.

Generic questions dont have these sorts of problems - with generic questions the problem is trust in one’s assessment of the general questions but if one focuses on FEELING, and so the unconscious influence, that trust problem can be delt with and we increase the odds of getting the best fit consistantly.

Your perspective is, IMHO, ‘religious’, you believe in some ‘external’ force that one communicates with when using the IC and so any act of ‘divination’ always elicits the best fit. As such your focus comes across as being on the ‘traditional’ texts etc as is the focus of fundamentalists interpreting the Bible or Koran or Torah etc. This gets into the realm of EARTH and UNCONDITIONAL filtration - the ‘rules’ are given from the outside, from the ‘book as wrote’ and there is no questioning, no change, ever (all very hex 12 IMHO). That EARTH perspective is one of many that are covered in the Universal IC perspective.

My perspective is that such a perspective is not necessary to get the IC to ‘work’ given what we now know re neurosciences, psychology, etc etc., we can in fact map-out the universal IC where the only ‘external’ force as such is our species-nature that in turn stems from evolution and the adaptation to context - the development of instincts/habits and so archetypal forms that reflect ‘in here’ the stable forms ‘out there’, resulting from mindless growth dynamics. (and so ‘as above, so below’ ;-))

You choose to reject 3000+ years of Science just as a creationist does and so makes your perspective ‘fundamentalist’ and thats fine, but the work coming out of the IC+ perspective is, IMHO, superior to what comes out of the traditionalist perspective and as such could benefit your presenting yourself as an interpretor of the IC for others.

As for you comment re “save me following up like this every time” - why do you think you need to? if you believe with your heart that the traditionalist way is the one ‘true’ way then what is your problem? Surely if this is so then my perspective will, over time, disappear. Tsk Tsk Hilary, you are not having doubts are you? - shock, horror, you are not starting to realise that what I offer ‘works’ and to accept that ‘fact’ means a rewrite of one’s belief systems (and so many MUST reject it to maintain their current identity - an action that is AGAINST the main focus of the IC - change (it is also a main focus of evolution, of actualisations of our potentials)).

If you want to make a business out of being an interpreter, a guide for others in dealing with the IC, then you need to open yourself to 3000+ years of research, research that goes to demonstrating the value of the IC as a metaphor for describing ‘all there is’ - IOW the IC as a “Language of the Vague”. - if you know it or not, you are witnessing in the IDM/IC+ work major contributions to our understanding of the derivation of meaning in general, and the IC in particular (the UNIVERSAL form).

So - Will you do that? open yourself to the ‘new’? Based on the above post and the past, I doubt it which is unfortunate for one thing you are good at is ‘fluffing’ - taking a sentence and making it into a chapter, adding flesh to the skeletal forms…..How is your interpretation of the IC going by the way?

“IOW when you use traditional divination methods you have access to particular aspects you may not have considered - but in fact ALL of the IC aspects apply and so you WILL find meaning no matter what aspect comes up.

The chance of getting the ‘best fit’ hexagram is 1 in 64 using a ‘fair coin’.”

Any chance that every time you say this on my site, you could add the proviso ‘Hilary persists in thinking that you get the ‘best fit’ through traditional divination’? It’d save me following up like this every time

IOW when you use traditional divination methods you have access to particular aspects you may not have considered - but in fact ALL of the IC aspects apply and so you WILL find meaning no matter what aspect comes up.

The chance of getting the ‘best fit’ hexagram is 1 in 64 using a ‘fair coin’. Using yarrow sticks there is a bias to yin overall (reflecting the more reactive states of the past) - and you can turn that around to bias to yang if you like to reflect the modern social dynamics (more proactive).

We are in a position these days to use general questions to draw out the hexagram best describing the context, and that ensure a more consistent getting of the ‘best fit’ hexagram. - we rely on our intuition, our unconscious to give us a ‘vague’ sense of meaning and then allow our consciousness to mediate with the details.

If one can get the ‘best fit’ hexagram, and so the one with the most contribution to describing the situation, the one with the highest probability in prediction etc then one can go even deeper in that we can extract the full spectrum of that hexagram through XOR-ing and so undestand where, under ideal conditions, that hexagram/situation is ‘going’.

(for the XOR-ing concept, see the comments in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

- just scroll down the initial page to the XOR table and associated links)

There is a LOT of work to be done here Nelson and so we bring the IC into the 21st century and so maintain its usefulness in describing reality ‘in general’ but also organically.

Chris.

Often it helps me see the bigger picture
involved in a problem.

I have a dream ledger and I sometimes
ask what a certain dream meant.
The answer doesn’t always explain the
dream but it tells the process that is going on.
It might be like saying - this stream or river
exists - you are by it and affected by it - you need
to behave and act this way to not be swept away
or endangered. It doesn’t say why it will work - I
just trust.

Lately I have been asking, what time is it?

Sometimes I have trouble understanding the
pairing. I just put this to my not knowing enough
and that I need to think about it more.

Nelson