Comments on: Hexagrams as pictures

By: Sakis Totlis

Sakis Totlis — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:53:46 +0000

For me, words without pictures are horses without bridles, marching without itinerary.
I am only willing to talk matters over with those willing to use their own eyes. Otherwise I would prefer to shut off, too.
The very last words of the Tao Te Ching (I’ve rendered into Greek) say:
“Heaven always promotes, never discords.
The sensible man completes works beneficial to all, versus nobody”.
You may all be well!…
Sakis

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:49:08 +0000

Hm… we could start this debate again, or on the other hand we might not. I’m inclined not to, on the whole. Just couldn’t resist the temptation to prod you a little about you and Sakis finding completely different pictures. Shutting up now.

By: Thomas Hood

Thomas Hood — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:22:56 +0000

Oh Hilary! Now you’ve set me off. There were no words
in the original Zhouyi. In his prison cell King Wen
interpreted and sequenced the hexagrams in his head
– much as I do

If only I-Ching persons could escape their chains
in the Cave of Words and turn toward the beautiful
light of the pure hexagrams….

Sakis and I do not, I think, differ in approach or
interpretation. I find his eye of the tiger in 27
and burrowing rodent in 35 most admirable. King
Wen and the compilers of the appended text were
different persons with different purposes, and
naturally we would expect their visual
interpretations of the hexagrams to differ.

Tom

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:40:34 +0000

Of course, as soon as the Chinese wrote down the words of the Zhouyi, it was pretty much made of pictures. Sometimes you can find currents of meaning that don’t show up in translations by looking at common elements between Chinese characters.

I wonder what either of you makes of the way you tend to see different pictures from one another in the gua?

By: Sakis Totlis

Sakis Totlis — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:52:51 +0000

Hi, to both

Thank you Hillary for a fair post.
I wasn’t aware of Tom’s work. If he came to the same visual interpretation, I am glad. As a matter of fact, I still don’t know his work and I am curious to read it. I will. Connections ARE good and thank you for that, too.
I came to my interpreting approach of the I Ching not reading or studying other works, but because the last decades I have done quite a heavy work on esthetics and “pictures” (and not only “images”). I have a dream interpreting method based on comparing point to point the audio-visual pictures of dream with audio-visual pictures of the preceding awakefulness (yesterday usually).
It works fine and it has an undeniable clarity for the mind. Two and a half thousand years ago Aristotle said that “the mind cannot think without a picture”. It can’t.
Be well and thanks again

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:03:40 +0000

Hi Tom,

I don’t think he was aware of yours, either. Connections are good!

By: Thomas Hood

Thomas Hood — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:04:47 +0000

Thank you for posting this. I was unawre of Totlis’s work.

Tom