Harmen Mesker has added some entries in English to his blog. One is a critique of Robert Benson’s ‘I Ching for a New Age’, which I didn’t buy when I picked it up in a local bookstore. Benson’s general ‘everyone sucks but me’ attitude is feeble, I think, and the basic approach to the text is depressing:
“The many inadequacies that exist in the traditional text are corrected here by relying on what the original structure of ideas says should be in the text.”
Guess who decides what the ‘original structure of ideas’ is and where the oracle needs ‘correcting’? Maybe there might be a place for such an approach, but in this case it’s led to hexagram 16 getting the name ‘Standstill’ from somewhere, while 47 becomes ‘Advancing by Hard Work’ and 36 comes out as ‘Serving as an Assistant’, of all things.
OK, rant apart – nice blog from Harmen, very interesting article on Hexagram 20, and bless the man for bringing out some more content in English. Though his site is still my strongest incentive to learn Dutch…
From Robert G. Benson:
I didn’t mean to imply that “everyone sucks but me.†As far as I know, ALL I Ching materials have flaws. However, there ARE too many errors in the traditional text to simply use it, unless one is already very well versed in it. In my book I enumerate a few of the grossest errors, but more serious is that there are more minor ones scattered through the text. I DO say that I think my book is superior in some ways because I am specficially seeking to overcome clear problems with the text, and to put the whole thing into a coherent philosophical framework.
You object to the names of a few of the hexagrams. In some ways my book IS a major departure from traditional ones. Everything is defined in relation to everything else. The complementary hexagram to #1 is #2 – their meanings form a pair. But EVERY hexagram is likewise paired with another. Likewise, so is every line. All the meanings are interconnected, and not just random thoughts.
Also, because of my methodology (defining and using the transformation principle between two hexagrams), I am able to give text for all lines changing for the other 62 hexagrams (besides #1 & #2). I know of no other book which has done this. Is this reaching too far? I don’t think so, because it helps smooth out the conceptual transitions throughout the book.
You might want to take another look at my book with this perspective in mind. Indeed, even better would be to actually bring in some sample readings and compare what my book says with what your text says.
BTW, I’ve added my response to Harmen Mesker’s comments on my book on his website.
And, thanks for your interest!
I posted the following reply to Harmen’s criticisms on his website on 7/11/06, and I saw it up there, but now I see that on 7/12/06 it’s been removed. What? Can’t Harmen stand a little honest discussion?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I must disagree with much of what Harmen is saying here about what I’ve written. Some our differences come from his lack of knowledge about what I wrote, and some come from our own philosophical differences.
(1) Since he admits that he hasn’t read my book, and thus has NO direct knowledge of what my book says, it is a serious mistake to imply that I have “no concern for the true language of the book [I Ching], no interest in its history, and no knowledge of its ancient Chinese language.†In fact, I specifically discuss these issues in my book, and they bear heavily on how I constructed my text. Indeed, I wanted to include more space to these issues, but my publisher cut it down significantly. Further, my text is partly based on the best translations of the oldest text (and text fragments) available in English.
(2) I repeat my assertion that NO translation of the “traditional text†CAN be an effective and practical guide. There are simply too many errors and inherent problems in it. I also repeat my assertion that the I Ching is actually a full and comprehensive philosophical statement about the processes of change (albeit incompletely given), and not just a collection of oracular sayings. However, to be an effective guide, the book MUST clearly give this philosophical statement, which I believe the traditional text does not.
(3) As part of making the text more usable and effective, I show how the text of the moving lines derives from the secondary hexagrams. Thus, my text gives clearer meanings in the line texts. I also show how the meaning of “all lines†changing is derived for ALL of the hexagrams; the traditional text only gives this for the first two hexagrams.
(4) The above changes are major departures from all the traditional text translations. I agree that some experienced users may not be comfortable with them, but for many users they are very helpful. I have a new neighbor who has done many thousand readings using the traditional text over several decades. Although my approach was a bit strange to him at first, he now agrees that it is highly effective, and particularly beneficial to novice users.
(5) As to my disagreement over how the Astrology of the I Ching is calculated, Harmen is saying that by definition every result coming out of the method (and the text) is by definition “right.†However, as an empiricist (which is largely what I am), I want independent confirmation that the answers it gives correspond to reality. So, I’ve tested them repeatedly against real life experiences. The fact that I zeroed in on this computational “flaw†(and not any other values in the table) based on examining real life predictions is an indication that I found a problem. I also mentioned in my emails to Harmen that then I studied the structure of the table and formulated corrections to it theoretically based on its internal structure. I then tested the answers these new values gave in real life predictions. I found these answers to be significantly better than the original, “flawed†predictions. Thus, I found both mathematical and empirical justifications for my changes. To me, simply because some rule has been passed down through time doesn’t automatically make it correct! Of course, it is up to each individual user to use and test I Ching materials in their own lives. I give my “corrections†to this table in the book so that others may access to my research. It is certainly their choice whether or not they use it.
(6) The table clearly is a shortcut representation of the rules, and to say I don’t understand that is needlessly derogatory, but that isn’t the issue! The issue is if what the rules produces is correct. Harmen agrees that two hexagrams can never be produced, but he is wrong in his understanding that even though two trigrams are omitted from the table other hexagrams containing those can be produced by the system. Simply put, if those two trigrams aren’t available AT ALL, there are many other hexagrams which need them which simply CAN’T be produced! Since Heavenly and Earthly flip, top to bottom, at different times, 28 different hexagrams must be “eliminated†at times. (See next item for what this means.)
(7) Let’s say I define a prediction system which represents all the human emotions in an “oracle space†of 64 values. However, by the rules which exist for this oracle, on Tuesdays all emotions with the letter A can’t appear, and on Wednesdays all emotions with the letter S can’t appear. This absurd example is exactly the same kind of situation with respect to this table. Whatever the “theoretical†justification for the creation of these “rules,†it is flawed. The “oracle space†BY DEFINITION must be capable of representing ALL the human emotions all the time, and the individual predictions will determine which ones apply when. The fact that the rules don’t allow this is a red flag that there is something wrong with the theory. I know I can never convince Harmen of this argument.
(8) I could go on, but I think it fair to say that Harmen and I have some significant disagreements. I do not approve of his tone in his critique, though. It is belittling, when in fact I Ching studies are very complex and have few clear-cut answers. Our skills lie in different areas, and this has also colored our respective approaches. My work definitely has value, but certainly everyone doesn’t have to like it! I did put MUCH time and effort into it, however, it should be respected for what it does bring to this field. Harmen, however, needs to actually study it to better evaluate it.
It is, of course, Harmen’s decision what he publishes on his own website; he doesn’t need to justify said decision to anyone.
You say firstly that ‘the I Ching’ is and must do various things, next that ‘the traditional text’ fails to be these things to your satisfaction. It sounds to me as though your argument is essentially circular. You have devised a book which is what you think the I Ching should have been; you complain that the problem with the Chinese original is that it doesn’t match up to your book.
Many people have either discarded the original I Ching completely, or else made it secondary to their own understanding of the meaning inherent in the hexagrams’ structure and interrelationships. Harmen is knowledgeable about the historical examples of this approach; modern examples of it include Nigel Richmond and Chris Lofting. From what you say, it sounds as though yours is another contribution to this tradition. I don’t doubt that you have created an oracle of great value; for all I know, you may have created one that ‘works’ better than the I Ching itself. But I can’t see a logical reason for you to say that your work ‘is’ the I Ching.
Let me tell you all; I’ve used many interpretations of The I Ching, for about 12 years now and Mr. Benson’s take is loaded with good information and continuity for constructing a properly meaningful narrative.
He and Mondo Sector’s work really give good contours to [It’s} reply!
Loco says! If you can derive horizontal meaning from the changed old yin or old yang line text from the famous fan Yao of Bradford Hstcher’ s claim and your line enters the first second third fourth fifth six position of the changed or resulting hexagram you can tell at which stages you occupy the final ( or intermediate) hexsgram…and if you use Mondo Sectors method of temporal progression you may see how much time in each hexgram the serial changing lines use.
If you see the first generation hexagrams from which your changes are derived you must agree that the positions, at leaving and entering
the body of the transitional and ending hexagram situations, give enormous detail.
This of course is in a structured temporal inquiry…the vertical relations and correspondents etc are also enormously important but the harmony or dissonance will automatically adjust as we go through time.
Remember though that all change is NOW so please look at clock time and eternal as horizontal and vertical dimensions of your wuery.
After all changing form is another way to kanguagevtemporality in dualistic appearing world….nondualistic considerations are
another animal altogether….
Ps Loco adds…you may use vertical progression Ala Kartchers steps of change ALSO along with Sectors transitional time line…with the caveat that the vertical are opportunities which you may or may not fulfil…if this is the case you can pick up an opportunity at a later change assuming the changes ARE NOT NECESSARILY CUMULATIVE.(perhaps destiny, good or bad unfulfilled). .. IF the changes and hexagrams are viewed from a universal standing then one may pick and choose or avoid these line situations…try skipping the first second third etc changing line hexagram or pick one up along the unfolding of global events ( they call it I share in Vedanta and emptiness impersonal I’m Madhyamika)…in Dao both can coexist or not…let the result determine how you use these tcombines axes.
If you know the theory of interval in music theory and how they combine to firm a piece of music or song or entire orchestration then you have a leg up on these two methods. ..Andreas Schoter diagrams all of these schemes in one but you don’t need algebraic rings or wreath products to do it in mu opinion.
What are the results in the world of appearances and management where the rubber meets the road?..,
I feel like I just gave birth .,,whewwww!
Loco (nice name), do you have a website? It’d be interesting to read some more detail, especially about the idea of using traditional changing lines alongside transitional hexagrams.
Happy to discuss via email.
Loco
Ps I could only respond to a given scenario as generated from a particular question or series of questions, since there are many possible or probable aspects to any situation or set of elements the YiJing may suggest. You would be given many options depending upon your flexibility in what is or is not acceptable to you at a given moment….
(email on its way…)