Talk:I Ching/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about I Ching. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Yoni and Lingam are "elementals" now?

What are "yoni" and "lingam" doing in an article about a cornerstone of Chinese culture? Last time I checked, these were Sanskrit words describing a slightly different (and more sexualized) view of divine polarities. For one thing, they're words for generative organs (or at the very least, associated with specific Hindu deities), rather than non-anthropomorphic concepts. Or is the Yijing more sexy and more Hindu than I thought? -- grant 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Leibniz fallacy

The whole intent of the "Leibniz fallacy" portion is wrong. First of all, the binary arrangement was developed by the famous Chinese philosopher Shao Yung (c. the 11th century), and he showed it in two formats, a circle and a rectangular block. He was heavily involved in mathematical/numerical analysis, and in particular in I Ching divination using mathematical means. So, his arrangement was NOT just plucked out thin air!

Second, while I have not read the Leibniz source material, even as the text here states, "He takes the layout of the combinatorial excercise found in the hexagrams to represent binary sequences...". Well, in fact, they ARE binary sequences, but this text implies that they are not.

The text goes on to say, "In this respect Leibniz was wrong: the hexagrams do not represent numbers, they are merely the result of the task of combining two discrete elements, and the resulting combinations does not represent any numbers at all, least of all the binary numeral system." Once again, this is WRONG! Mathematics is not something apart from the world; it is intrisic to the world. Combinatorial methods ARE part and parcel of mathematics. The combinatorial process used DOES create a binary sequence, and Shao Yung deserves mention for creating it.

Was Shao the first to create a binary sequence? Probably not, but he clearly did show he understood its origin. Did he understand that those binary values could be used in addition and other mathematical processes? There is no evidence of that, so clearly his understanding was limited.

So, did Shao Yung intend the arrangements to represent actual binary numbers? I seriously doubt it. However, they ARE a valid means of creating (and representing) binary numbers, and thus Leibniz was correct in pointing out that they are a representation of the binary numbers 0 thorugh 63!

Thus, I will amend the entry. -- Taomaster

Reference

For those interested, my primary reference is I Ching, The Classic Chinese Oracle Of Change by Rudolf Ritsema and Stephen Karcher of the Eranos I Ching Project, an astonishingly complete translation with loads of cross-reference material. Published by Element Books, 1-85230-669-6 is the ISBN code. -- Bignose

Another reference could be the famous Wilhelm's translation. See some exerpts of his introduction (more details in French version). gbog 16:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some web links

Don't wait for someone else to do it. Be bold in updating pages. -- Bignose

I didn't plan to add these links to the article itself because I feel that these are not directly related to I Ching. However these articles would be useful resource for you if you plan to write more on the topic of divination.

Own page?

Why is it necessary for each hexagram to have its own page? Are (or can) each of these pages be made into actual encyclopedia articles? Or will they forever only be stub definitions and therefore not encyclopedia articles? --mav

Yes, the text of the "book" that is the I Ching comprises the text associated with each hexagram, and the commentaries thereon that have been written. The text is considerably dense, and each hexagram does indeed warrant its own article. -- Bignose

Talk deleted

OK - Why was the other talk in this page deleted? --mav 21:56 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

I believe the issues they discussed have been resolved many months ago. -- Bignose

Then the correct thing to do is to archive the old talk, not delete it. --mav

Is there some reason the normal article histories aren't sufficient archive for old resolved talk text? --LDC

Because that talk is non-obvious and becomes lost. I vote for making talk archives easier to make by allowing for subpage functionality for talk pages (would also be nice for user pages too). --mav

If there's talk you think is relevant to keep around, you can certainly put it on Talk:I Ching/Archive, or wherever. I have no objection, and you don't need any software features. Just put links to the archives here and links back there. I just don't think that's the most common case. I think generally when there's an argument about what should be on a page, people talk about it and resolve the issue, after which the discussion is just yesterday's news and should generally be deleted. But if someone wants to keep it around, nothing is stopping them. --LDC

That sounds like you're asking for a feature Wikipedia doesn't yet have. I'm not sure what you want the resolution to be in this instance; is there some other form of archival you have in mind? (It may be best to demonstrate by archiving the deleted discussions in a manner you see fit.) -- User:Bignose

Copyrighted translations

Having left room for exposition on each hexagram, of course, I'm sad to say that I only have translations of the I Ching, and not the original text itself. Those translations are naturally copyrighted, and the primary source (the Element book cited at the top of this talk page) is very recent and will not pass into public domain for nearly a century; this is annoying because it is by far the clearest English translation I've seen of the (very obscure) Chinese text. An alternative, of course, is to write a lot of original text based on the translations available. -- Bignose

A few minutes of Google-searching turned up a copy of a 19th-century translation which appears to be public domain. Not necessarily the best, but it's something. (Of course, remember Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not -- there's little point in copying the text wholesale when you can just link. On the other hand, if you're going to include commentary, citing large chunks of the text may be justified.) --Brion

One thing I intend to do (unless someone beats me to it) is to compose images of each of the 64 hexagrams to accompany the text, which Unicode doesn't provide (though I'm still amazed that the eight trigrams are provided in Unicode). Now all I have to do is figure out how Wikipedia's image system works :-) -- Bignose

Phew! Done now. 64 hexagrams created, thanks to ImageMagick and some tricky shell scripting. I've uploaded 70x70 pixel images for each hexagram, and added them to the hexagram pages. I have also created 24x24 pixel thumbnails, if anyone thinks they might be useful (say, on the main article page)? -- Bignose

Thanks, Bignose. It really helps those who don't wish to twist their neckbones or can't risk it due to an unforgiving skeleton. I think posting the 24x24's on the main article page would be great too. --Menchi 04:48 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I liked the graphics. What I don't understand is why I can read the Chinese characters on those pages with my browser, but not the trigrams.

[ http://zh.wikipedia.org displays latin characters, not Chinese ones in my browser, which is something else I don't understand. ]

-- User:12.235.178.233 Feb 21, 2003

CJK Unicode font installation required. --Menchi 03:36 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Chinese Punctuation Marks for Book Title

『』 is actually quotation marks for quoting somebody's saying, “”. Book title marks (what in English rendered as italicization or underlining) are 《》. Incidentally, chapter marks (what in English would be quotation marks) are 〈〉. -- Menchi 04:42 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Yes but these are used in Chinese text, to help distinguish between text itself and book's names. I'm not convinced that those marks are useful in our context and I propose to remove them.gbog 16:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um... What are these English names for the hexagrams like 'Force' and 'Field'? They seem to be fairly random to me, and probably not widely accepted? Where do these words come from? I mean, are they translated from something?

I don't think that scholars agree exactly on the meanings (and even the names) of the hexagrams...

Edededed 08:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pinyin/Wade-Giles

Someone has made a redirect from Yijing (Pinyin) to I-Ching (Wade-Giles). At this stage of Chinese studies, redirects should clearly be going in the opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmuller (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 August 2003 (UTC)‎

210000 for I-Ching v. 11000 on Yijing on google. I-Ching still wins. Also, sign your name with ~~~~. --Jiang 07:24, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Navigation Tables?

I've been adding tables that look like:

Previous: &#124&#124:&#124&#124&#124 Treading (履 lǚ)

I Ching

Next: :::&#124&#124&#124 Obstruction (否 pǐ)

to the first few hexagrams, to improve navigation. What do people think about this? Should the English names be included since the meanings of the hexagrams are disputed? Kevin Saff 16:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sequences?

Would it be worth going in to the various different sequences that exist? The reason I ask is that I think the Fu Xi sequence is worthy of mention in the Binary numeral system entry as the earliest known use of a binary sequence. See also my comment on Talk:binary numeral system. Please excuse my timidity, I've never been involved in editing before. Redwards2 16:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it worth it. But I would like this article to be split in parts and want to know what other wikipedians think. I would separate and develop those topics :

Trigrams or Trigram (now redirects to I Ching) with an explained list of Trigrams and both sequences.
Hexagrams or Hexagram (now is a kind of disamb) with this long list of hexagrams and a square table showing how they are drawing a 'matrix'.
Divination with I Ching with those methods fully described.

I'm unsure on what those pages titles should be so please give your opinions. I'd like also to expand topics like 'influences of I Ching on Chinese thought', 'mathematical properties',... gbog 05:34, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

I found a mistake

It was refined over time and I Ching was completed around the time of Han Wu Di

I Ching was already completed before Confucius. But, Confucius gave more explanation or extended it into Philosophy. Maybe, the more explanation of I Ching appeared during Han Wu Di is another reason.

It is said, the first emperor of Zhou dynasty developed trigrams (八卦 bā gùa) into 64 Hexagrams. This is the completion of I Ching. The followings were all the explanation, because of the deep of I Ching.

I Ching hexagrams

What is everyone's opinion about me merging the 64 separate I Ching hexagram articles into one comprehensive List of I Ching hexagrams? Is there significant opposition? If no one objects, I'm going to go ahead with it, because having 64 separate articles just makes very little sense to me (especially since they're so small; see I Ching hexagram 01 for an example) [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 19:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with 64 small articles. On the other hand, placing all 64 into one article is going to make one big mother of an article. The guidelines for article size suggest keeping articles to between 20-30 KB. While this is generally no longer absolutely necessary due to browser restrictions, the guidelines do state:

...do note that readers may tire of reading a page in excess of 20-30 KB of readable prose (tables, lists and markup excluded). Thus the 32KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then sections probably should eventually be summarised and the detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

I know that this case is a bit different than the average article, but again, I can't see a reason for combining them. Perhaps I missed something, though. What is your reasoning? Sunray 02:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, because little articles like that have a tendency to get VFD'd for being stubs. (As far as I've seen, anyhow) Second, they are very small articles - no more than an image and three or four sentences - with very little potential to be expanded. Aside from more varied translations, I don't see a lot of information to add. As to your note on readers hating long articles, if they hate reading more than 32kb on one single page, imagine how much they must hate reading 32kb spaced out on 64 separate pages. I seriously doubt that the article will be 32kb long though, aside from the images making it seem larger. Besides, it's a much handier reference in list form - say you're looking at hexagram 1 and you want to compare it to hexagram 37 for some reason. If it's one list, you can just skip down the page to #37. But in separate articles, you have to go all the way to a different article, and then back and forth to compare. That's my general reasoning on it. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You make a pretty persuasive argument, I must say. You've got my vote if it can be kept below 32 KB. Sunray 07:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Woo! I'm pretty sure I can pull that off. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else cares first... [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 18:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The current format of 'small' pages per hexagram can be extended to cover the use of all of the other hexagrams describing the properties of each hexagram; a recent 'discovery' working with the binary sequence, recursion, and so self-referencing and the XOR operator. I will add an example of this using hexagram 27 to the hexagram pages.

Putting all of the hexagrams into one page allows for that page to blow out in size. There is a LOT of material applicable to each hexagram so I would suggest leaving the 64 seperate pages.

A while back, I added a template to the bottom of every I Ching page so that readers could directly access any article from any other article. I believe this direct access approach ehances the ability of readers to compare two hexagrams without having to deal with an excessive file size from a consolidated article. If future versions of the hexagram articles are expanded as well, size still should not matter. :-) — RDF ^talk 03:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

When all - or any - of this potential information appears in the articles, I will most definitely support their being split back into 64 separate articles. For now, I will continue to argue that one comprehensive list - or even two, from 1-32 and 33-64, is a much better format for the hexagrams. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No matter how many articles are used, the template can be adapted to go straight to an article or section heading. I don't have the information to expand the articles, but I'll update the template if structural changes are made. As far as structure goes, what is the value of a "list" over simply adding to the Hexagram (I Ching) article? Would you then delete that stub article and all the individual articles? ...And possibly add them back later? — RDF ^talk 04:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added some additional information to the first 10 hexagrams covering the '27-ness', the skeletal form concept as well as reading the trigrams bottom to top; this latter focus reflects the refinement of the qualities of trigrams in their upper as compared to lower positions. Tell me what you think (as in more info or 'get it off!' ;-)) -- 14:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the information is useful. One formatting suggestion is to add one more line between the bottom of the text and the top of the I Ching templete. — RDF ^talk 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added the 'skeletal' (27-ness) comments and the trigram comments to all of the hexagrams. Please review and comment etc. If all ok I will proceed to 63-ness, when a hexagram is in its 'ideal', complete form, its aire of 'completeness' is describable by analogy to another hexagram derived through XOR-ing with 63. (e.g. hex 01 is described by 64 - the focus being on never stopping, perpetual mediation, perpetual refining of skills etc and so never 'complete') -- 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I say full-Ching ahead! ;-) Based on your efforts, I also support keeping all 64 hexagram articles separate. — RDF ^talk 15:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done the first 10 hexagrams re 63-ness. Please review and ensure it 'makes sense'! ;-) If ok I will do the remaining 54 over the next couple of days. -- 10:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-Referencing I Ching

The discussion about XOR-ing and recursion on this page and on all the hexagram pages does not make sense to me. There's not enough explanation here to understand what you're learning by XOR-ing two hexagrams together to get a third, or why 27 appears to be special in this regard. Also, I think the word 'recursion' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word "spectrum" is also thrown around without explaining what it means in this context.

My suspicion about this stuff is that it was added by someone who has their own novel system of thought about this topic, but they haven't succeeded in explaining it and maybe it should be replaced to just a link to Chris Lofting's IChingPlus material (which is in the same odd style as the edits, so I wonder if it's that same writer: similar wide ranging use of the words "recursion", "spectrum", "quantum", "DNA").

I hesitate to take this stuff out myself because it may be that it is talking about something widely believed about I Ching and it just needs better explanation. Cbogart2 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(0) because something does not make sense to you does not mean it is 'wrong'. The material is based on careful analysis of how the brain creates and communicates meaning through specialisations, where each specialisation creates its own language. (as such, the IC is a language but sourced in images that elicit qualities rather than the precision we use of letters to words to qualities etc) - IOW how can the I Ching still elicit 'meaning' when many Westerner's write it off as something 'mystical' etc and useless?

(1) the hexagrams of the I Ching are derived from applying recursion to a dichotomy (rather than a trichotomy or N-chotomy that are also possible). This is identifiable in the binary sequence of the I Ching where, using 0 - yin and 1 - yang, we have 64 hexagrams ordered from 000000 to 111111.

(2) this process of recursion is reflected in the human brain as it derives meaning or more so qualities usable to communicate meaning (the recursion is of the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy used in the brain).

(3) what we find in analysis of the brain's generation of meaning is that it appears to use the ONE set of qualities many times through the creation of specialisations (such as the I Ching). This elicits isomorphism of specialisations.

(4) what this does is allow for the ease in making analogies across specialisations and so use one specialisation as a source of analogy, or as a metaphor for, some other specialisation. (and so the I Ching can describe, is seeable 'in', any other specialisation since they are all metaphors for what the brain deals with - patterns of differentiating/integrating, XOR/AND etc)

(5) The dynamics involved are in PART/WHOLE processing where the PART is extracted from the WHOLE using dynamics associated with the properties of XOR - A/NOT-A, this, not that, etc. - we can experience this directly in sensory paradox processing .

(6) Taking this general XOR/AND dynamic and applying it to the hexagrams of the I Ching we find that EACH hexagram is describable by analogy to ALL of the others in that each contains all. (this reflects general brain dynamics in processing foreground/background, aspects of a whole in that our brains have strongly adapted to vision and generalised that adaptation to information processing in general) - Note that this application of XOR/AND perspectives shows us an apparently undocumented property of recursion, not just the I Ching.

(7) The initial example given here of extracting 'parts' expressed through a whole is through deriving the '27-ness' of each hexagram where focusing on a particular hexagram and XOR-ing it with hexagram 27 will give you the qualities of 27 expressed by the hexagram under analysis. Many have 'played' with XOR-ing hexagrams etc but none have asked the right question a la 'what does it mean?'. Now we know where the 'answer' comes from understanding how the brain works in deriving meaning.

(8) The intent in the "Self-Referencing I Ching" is to include the list of all 63 analogies of each hexagram and so show how to use the I Ching to describe itself but as a set of UNIVERSALS (hexagrams, trigrams, dodecagrams, depends on what scale you want).

(9) Prior to modern work in neurosciences the descriptions of the I Ching etc were made by reference to local conditions; with the neuroscience work we can show the 'regular' network from which such 'small world networks' as the many I Ching interpretations/transation have arisen.

(10) Since you seemed to think there was only one example (27-ness) I will put up the summary listings (and so 64 entries per hexagram) for hexagram 01 - each of these entries will then need to be fleshed-out (as I have been doing but it takes time) but it will give you a better idea of what has been discovered. (and so make the point, we are dealing with a fundamental property of the I Ching due to the method of its derivation when we 'see' it in it 'natural' binary sequence. IOW this is all about the I Ching but material not covered before AFAIK)

(11) What has been done here is to consider the last 3000+ years of research of neurosciences, cognitive science, and psychology. When we go back and 'review' the traditional I Ching we find a lot that appears to have been missed or touched on vaguely due to lack of information. We now have the information and so can bring the IC from the 10th century BC into the 21st century AD.

-- 14:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How should these points be expressed and referenced in this, the Hexagram (I Ching) and individual hexagram articles? Some encyclopedic citation should be included. — RDF ^talk 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

add a section to that particular page showing the self-referencing of yin/yang as we build a hexagram bottom to top. A diagram such as

should do where we replace "A" with 'yang' and "~A" with yin. The core label is that of yang and differentiating, yin and integrating. Traditionally, each line is more 'refined' than the previous, we over from the general to the particular, raw to refined. This reflects the use of 'wave' dynamics in the creation of a sense of, a feeling of, meaning in the I Ching.

This XOR/AND dynamic of our neurology etc it discussed in the IDM material with the above particulars touched on in the page on getting meaning from frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes. (With refs)

The images built-up from the self-referencing of yin/yang represent generic qualities of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness. These are qualified through such synonyms to differentiate/integrate as 'expand' or 'contract' etc

The qualities associated with trigrams reflect what they represent generically:

heaven - wholeness through differentiation (expansive)

lake - static relatedness through differentiation (issues of sharing space with another/others)

fire - partness (boundary, a cut) through differentiation

thunder - dynamic relatedness through differentiation (issues of sharing time with another/others)

wind - dynamic relatedness through integration

water - partness through integration

mountain - static relatedness through integration

earth - wholeness through integration (contractive)

Cognitive analysis of the many texts on trigrams etc brings out the generic qualities that we all share as neuron-dependent life forms and we can label these with qualities more 'felt' -

wholeness - blending

partness - bounding

static relationships - bonding

dynamic relationships - binding

The self-referencing allows you to interpret hexagrams:

(a) as 6 lines

(b) as 3 digrams

(c) as 2 trigrams

(d) as a hexagram (whole image irreducible)

Hyperbolic development allows you to 'jump' from 8 trigrams to 64 hexagrams where we use the 8 trigrams as sources of analogy to describe finer details in each (and so 'stay in the yin/yang box'). Thus we jump from 8 to 64 rather than just add a dichotomy per level (reflects moving from 2^N to N^2 - in the long run, very energy conserving). When we add 'changing lines' we are in fact moving to the level of 64^2 = 4096 'meanings'; symbolically it is easier to work with 64 changing line symbols (and so each line position has 4 possible states) than list out 2^12 forms (4096 dodecagrams, 12-line symbols).

Each hexagram as such 'contains' 64 dodecagrams, as each trigram 'contains' 8 hexagrams - these simpler symbols are compressions of the meaning at the level of 4096 dodecagrams. This is of course way too complex to deal with at the level of the 'everyday' so 64 hexagrams are enough (or even just 8 trigrams but that can get a bit 'cumbersome' at times)

Neuroscience refs to the oscillations, WHAT/WHERE, etc etc are easy to come by (see the IDM references) and so a corpus can be set up of supporting material.

Of particular 'interest' is the isomorphism to human emotions in that they can be categorised in the same way through recursion of fight/flight dichotomy. This gives us eight 'vague' descriptions of proto emotions (the descriptions taken from the work of Plutchik) that we find 'map' to the trigrams:

heaven - anger

lake - sex (sexual love)

fire - acceptance

thunder - surprise

wind - anticipation

water - rejection

mountain - grief

earth - fear

Move to the hexagrams and these are 'refined' in expression, heaven gets into issues of self-devotion, self-respect, competitiveness etc etc (we try to take over the context) as earth gets into issues of devotion-to-others, cooperativeness etc (fear is translated into blending into the context, using the context to protect).

Through the blending, bonding, bounding, binding qualities there is isomorphism to the qualities associated with the types of numbers we use in Mathematics:

blending - whole numbers

bounding - rationals (parts)

bonding - irrationals (sum parts, harmonic series, share space with others (pi, e etc))

binding - imaginary (share time, cyclic, morphic change etc)

The isomorphism possible is due to all of the 'specialisations' having the ONE root - the qualities derived from the neurology as it processes differentiating/integrating. It is this one root that allows us to use Mathematics or the I Ching to describe some other specialist perspective ;-)

--CJL 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)--11:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I say "Add away!" :-) — RDF ^talk 16:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to engage you in discussion of all these details, although I may read your web pages later because it does kind of interest me. I just want to say this -- it's my opinion, and I'd like some other editors to weigh in on this -- that you're violating the Wikipedia rule of "no original research" (See Wikipedia:No original research) by including your own theories here. Cbogart2 01:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

good point but the material specifically for the IC is derived from a property of recursion and that is not original - just not noticed before ;-) - IOW the material comes out of an existing, identified methodology (as I have referenced in the wikipedia definition of recursion).

If I was Einstein and came up with something like:

E = MC^2

are you saying that this would be forbidden on wikipedia due to it being 'original' work? - Einstein could give a LOT of references to the physics of his times supporting his equation, as I can to supporting the derivation of meaning and specialisations from work in neurosciences. That said, I am not promoting IDM here, and the only reference to ICPlus is in an external link that is thus the same form of reference as all of the other links supplied in the main IC page.

If I work on Mathematics and come up with 1 + 1 = 2, is the assertion of that equation 'original work'? I dont think so - if the methodology is known then any derivations from that methodology reflect aspects of that methodology - PRIOR to their discovery the aspects still existed, they were just not identified, labelled, by us.

In the particular XOR dynamics I am identifying, these are dynamics 'built in' to the recursion process but have not been identified as such until now... so you are saying that a fundamental property of the methodology in deriving hexagrams is to be ignored/rejected due to no one else explicitly coming up with it in the past? What we are dealing with is 'Science' as such and so can be checked for validity - we are not dealing with some 'imagined' notion of mine where that CAN be an issue re including it in Wikipedia etc due to its possible ideosyncratic nature - but what we are covering in the XOR material is a property of a general methodology, one used by all 'brains' as such and so outside of my personal perspectives (brain oscillations across WHAT/WHERE etc is well researched - see the IDM references ;-))

--CJL 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The policy of "no original research" still applies. My "add away" comment assumed this would not be an issue. As I noted above, just site primary or secondary sources that are noteworthy and verifyable. It's a simple and reasonable requirement for an encyclopedia, as opposed to a journal on innovative practice and/or "original research." — RDF ^talk 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If we exclude all references to blending, bonding, bounding, binding excludes all reference to the main IDM material - as does exclusion of mentioning the isomorphism present in all of this. All that is being done is recognising that:

(a) The I Ching is derived from self-referencing. (b) Each derivation is itself self-referencing. (c) Therefore the I Ching can describe itself as can each hexagram, and it can do that through the use of analogy to all of the other hexagrams in the I Ching. (d) There is a methodology that is part of all of this that allows for the extraction of all of the analogies usable to describe each hexagram - and that is the XOR process.

We are getting into the basics of languages where the usually finite nature of each language's set of representations means all we can describe is in the majority by analogy/metaphor - the one quality gets used many times where local context re-labels it. At the level of the symbolisms in the 'ancient' I Ching we are dealing with a 'language of the vague' -universals in need of local context to 'ground' them, to add 'colour'. We are not at the level of precision, of letters, and especially numbers etc but at a more generic level shared across the species. (and so qualities identifiable as the seed of 'number types')

IOW the 'universal' I Ching is like 'pure' Mathematics - context-free, universal forms that are meaningful WITHIN themselves (self-referencing) but meaningless in the 'real' world until linked to some particular context (and so 'applied' Mathematics or such specialist forms of the I Ching (e.g. the 'traditional' sequence etc)

The idea for the Wikipedia IC is to add a section of self-referencing and the consequences of that in the form of the IC being able to describe itself using what the brain uses in ITS extraction of parts from a whole - XOR-ing.

However, on reflection it is obvious that the work is 'original' in that there are no external references other than to my websites - no one has covered this before in that the majority of I Chingers have worked from 'within' the box with no reference to how such a metaphor as the traditional I Ching could develop. My perspective comes from outside of the box, not what is expressed by what is behind it... oh well, remove whatever you wish... we cant let new paradigms change the current dogma can we! ;-)

see ya,

Chris.

--CJL 03:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Cbogart2 04:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)x

Tai Xuan Jing ("Alternate" I Ching)

I'm surprised that Wikipedia seems to say nothing about the Tài Xuán Jīng (太玄經), sometimes known as "Alternate" I Ching or Elemental Changes, which is a sort of sequel to Yì Jīng itself. Basically, Tài Xuán Jīng uses a ternary system instead of binary: instead of having just unbroken or broken horizontal lines, there are doubly broken ones; from what I understand, whereas Yì Jīng uses unbroken (⚊) for heaven (yang) and broken (⚋) for earth (yin), Tài Xuán Jīng uses unbroken (⚊) for heaven, once broken (⚋) for human and doubly broken (𝌀) for earth. This gives rise to 9 digrams and 81 tetragrams. Of course, the Tài Xuán Jīng is not nearly as famous as Yì Jīng, but Unicode seems to have thought it important enough to include all 81 Tài Xuán Jīng tetragrams in plan 1 (Tetragram Symbols, Tai Xuan Jing). --Gro-Tsen 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've removed all external links from this article except for:

And added:

I Ching on dmoz.

This is an attempt to bring the section in-line with the Wikipedia:External links guide. Please discuss any addition to the links section here, after reading those guidelines. Thanks, Petros471 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Question for moderator and readers: I tried twice to post a link to my free online Yijing translations on my non-commercial website, but this posting was twice deemed to be spam. Is anyone familiar enough with my work to give an opinion? I was asked to ask here if anyone would support or object to another submission, perhaps in the translation section instead of external links. Is it really spam if it's a gift? Bradford Hatcher 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for only just spotting this still needed a reply Bradford Hatcher. Posting here and asking for another editor to review your link rather than posting it yourself if definately the right thing to do, to make sure you are not spamming. I assume the link is:

Translation by Bradford Hatcher, Chinese-English: Yijing, Free Download.

Could an editor who is familiar with this subject please review this link and see if it contains something that cannot be accessed via one of the current links:

I CHING Bookmarks - Directory of I Ching sites
The I Ching on the Net includes full text translations of the I Ching, commentaries and other links.
{{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Divination/I_Ching|I Ching}}

Thanks. Petros471 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,Petros471,I do not think your way is good.The three site listed by you are very numerous and jumbled.I think that wikipedia needs the best and the most classic external links like this,perhaps I can find this site in your three site,but this is very difficult because there are too many links in your three site,finally I have to give up on finding.However,this site was in the external links some time ago and I could find it easily at that time.I hope you roll back former external links. Thanks.--Android.en 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I-Ching vs the genetic code

An interesting aspect of I-ching in relation to the genetic code is discussed.

The current and central dogma in molecular genetics indicated that genetic information is encoded in the form of nucleic acids. Naturally-occuring nucleic acids are essentially strings of polymers, whose monomer unit is a nucleotide. A nucleotide chemically consists of a heterocyclic base, a sugar and a phosphate group where both the sugar and phosphate groups form the phosphate-sugar backbone of nucleic acids. There are five different heterocyclic bases found in naturally-occuring nucleic acids and broadly categorized into two chemical classes: purines and pyrimidines. Adenine and Guanine are classed under purines, while Thymine, Cytosine and Uracil are classed under pyrimidines. In a polymer of natural nucleic acids, these bases are arranged in different permutations in a sequential order. Philosophically speaking, Mother Nature has therefore cleverly evolved/devised a way to increase genetic information diversity by varying the number of nucleotides been strung together in different permutations. Because natural nucleic acids often encodes genetic information and are therefore very long polymers, molecular biologists abbreviate the bases as A, G, T, C and U respectively. This enabled biologists to write out large amounts of genetic information in a short-hand manner. (Points to note: 1) Nucleic acids include DNA and RNA, where deoxyribose is the sugar component of DNA while ribose is the sugar component in RNA. 2) A, G, C and T are found in DNA, while T is replaced by U in RNA. 3) In most biological systems known-to-date, DNA is double stranded, with one strand complimentary to the other and arranged in an anti-parallel fashion. 4) In DNA, A normally pairs with T, while G normally pairs with C on complimentary strands.)

Hitherto, the current dogma in molecular biology also indicated that the stored genetic information has to be translated to make proteins, which ultimately gives function and structure. There are 20 common and naturally-occuring amino acids. These amino acids are then strung together chemically in different permutations to form proteins. The process of translating genetic information to make proteins involve reading three bases as a codon, which in turn encodes for an amino acid. Thus, the genetic code. Needless to say, the genetic code is degenerative. That is, more than one codon can potentially encode for the same amino acid.

What is interesting and seemingly coincidental is that the genetic code comprises of 64 codons, the same number as 64 hexagrams in I-ching. From the other perspective, it is also equally interesting to note that while I-ching is based on a binary system (ie: 2 to the power n), why should it just stopped at 64 hexagrams (ie: 2 to the power of 6)? Technically and theoretically, the binary permutations can go higher or lower (eg: 2 to the power of 7 to give 128 or 2 to the power of 4 to give 16 hexagrams). There are also a number of parallels between I-ching and biological processes. For instance, the '2 to the power of n' rule can also be observed in the ideal scenario of the cell reproduction process. As such, at stage 0 of cell division, there is only one cell; at the first division, two cells exist; at the second division, a total of four cells can be obtained; and so on. The power 'n' is thus analogous to the stage of cell division. The principle of cyclical phenomenons and other more subtle messages, often potrayed in the taiji and I-ching, are also frequently observed in biological systems. One of such cyclical phenomenons observed in biological systems is the circadian rhythm. While the idea of yin-yang complimentarity in I-ching can be also viewed as parallel to the double-stranded-nature of DNA and its semi-conservative replication. In simpler terms, each strand of the original double-stranded DNA can be separated and used as a template to make the new complimentary strand.

While molecular biologists are able to explain the derivation of the 64 codons, the same may not be true for why I-ching has to be at exactly 64 hexagrams. Whilst most biological processes are currently being studied/researched scientifically, can we say the same for the study of I-ching? Rather than dismissing the study of I-ching as a pseudo-science or as a means of divination, perhaps it is time for us to examine this ancient text under more critical and yet scientific light.

Written by,

A student of Microbiology, Molecular biology and I-ching.

Adding a bit more on modern scholarship

I've gone through making minor revisions to emphasize the difference between the traditional story behind the Yi Jing's origins and the views of modern scholars, and I added some of the scholarship regarding the oracle bones and early bronzes. All the changes are based on this summary: Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1993). “I ching 易經 (Chou I 周易)”, pp.216-228 in Loewe, Michael (ed.). Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, (Early China Special Monograph Series No. 2), Society for the Study of Early China, and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, ISBN 1-55729-043-1. Dragonbones 08:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

202.156.6.54, I don't think "I've never heard of" is a good reason to remove things, when others provide specific scholarly references. By established Wiki standards, cited reference should take precedence over personal opinion or, in this case, your lack of information. I will quote the passages for you tomorrow and will then reverse your reverts. Second, if you have a scholar attributing a source to the Warring States period and I have a scholar claiming an Eastern Han dating, my wording along the lines of "scholars variously attribute XYZ to the Warring States to Eastern Han period" is the most appropriate. You shouldn't change it back to only mention "Eastern Han" just because you know of one scholar who claims that date. If there is disagreement between scholars, the Wiki summary should reflect that, exactly as I had done. If you have specific evidence to cite showing that Shaughnessy's logic was flawed, please discuss the details here, with specific references provided, rather than just erasing it. Let's work together on this, shall we? ;) Dragonbones 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since when did you provided a specific scholarly references for that part. Please do show your sources that how appropriate is it, since you're the one who try to make this contributions, not me. I had been heard alots of attribution dating between Warring States to Western Han for Shiyi, but not the Eastern Han. I'm sorry, but please do not remake history through your own Original research, furthermore if your references are not good enough (notes that its state modern scholars under your edits) I am afraid I will still have to reverse your reverts. 18:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the talk section above? "All the changes are based on this summary: Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1993). “I ching 易經 (Chou I 周易)”, pp.216-228 in Loewe, Michael (ed.). Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, (Early China Special Monograph Series No. 2), Society for the Study of Early China, and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, ISBN 1-55729-043-1. Dragonbones 08:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)." The citation is quite specific, it is a scholarly reference, and there's no original research involved. BTW, I do highly recommend this book, for its concise summaries by top scholars on each major text. Dragonbones 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as long as you did not gives the scholarly references for how would the attribution dating from the Eastern Han is the most appropriate, I will still have to reverse your reverts. This is what you state under your edits (notes that its state modern scholars under your edits), and this is how your specific evidence had to be shown, if not the logic would be flawed. Cited reference of your own contributions should take precedence over personal opinion or, in this case, your lack of information. I just don't see why can't we changed the edits to Warring States to Western Han by the way 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot! I'm of course happy to provide more specific references so that all the editors can better decide, through consensus, whether or not to keep pieces of information in the article. My source, Shaughnessy, is a well-known western scholar, with specialties including the Yi Jing (which was his Ph.D. dissertation topic) as well as early chronology. In the above-mentioned text, on p. 221, he writes: "Still, there can be no question that the commentaries [on the I ching] were not produced by Confucius. Although each one remains to be dated independently, in general it would seem that they attained their present form in the mid-third to the early second century B.C., with the probable exception of the Hsü kua which would seem to date from the Later Han period. ". Note that when speaking of multiple scholars (the ones giving your time frame for the commentaries in general, and the one I cite giving the same time frame plus a slightly later date for, in this case, one of the commentary sections), it seems to be correct English to say that scholars variously..., as this allows for the diversity of scholarly opinion. I have not attempted to claim that multiple scholars think the entire thing was Eastern Han. BTW, in the newest edit I have made the reference in more detail so as to clarify which portion may be Eastern Han; this gives more weight to your position. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Cheers!Dragonbones 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're talking about Shiyi, not Yijing, I don't see the dating from the Eastern Han is the most appropriate. I had seen alots of modern scholars, such as Ma Huanjun, Guo Yi， Feng Youlan, Li Jingchi, etc, who all dated in between Warring States to Western Han for Shiyi. Even the most modernist scholar like Li Jingchi dated it between Zhaodi and Xuandi. Those are all top figures in philology in the PRC for confucius classics btw. And could interpret classic textual analysis more than the western scholars. So almost all scholars supported my opinion, I have not attempted to claim that multiple scholars think the entire thing was Eastern Han, because there's just none. Note that when speaking of multiple scholars as this allows for the diversity of scholarly opinion, I think we should just changed it to Western Han. 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Chingalings

Although I can't pose as an authority on the I Ching, I have kept it by my bedside for years and find your article in every way worthy of Wikipedia.

A section of my website presents the “I Ching” for a new audience. For that reason, I am submitting this section for your consideration as a proposed link, www.benandverse.com/writings/index.htm.

My version of the “I Ching” is distinctive in that it “translates” the “I Ching” into jingles with a light touch. It attempts, thereby, to transmit a small quantity of the wisdom found in the "image" section of each of the 64 chapters.

The subject of divination is not discussed.

I hope this effort will cause no offense to those who rightly revere the insights of the priceless original. (I have attempted a similar “translation” of the wisdom of “Poor Richard’s Almanac” on the same website.)

The work on “I Ching” is from a section I have just added to my website, a literary miscellany, called “Phony Pearls of Fictitious Wisdom”.

My original website, “Ben and Verse,” is devoted to Ben Franklin. It received the A+ award from the www.englishwebteacher.com (together with a link from the Franklin Institute). 205.188.116.196 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The original website has persisted for years; I have instructed my executors that both the original website and this new addition shall remain unchanged until long after my death.

I’d consider it an honor to receive a link from the Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

John McCall Mccall63@aol.com

bad Shi Yi link

lakitu 09:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Material removed from article

I've removed the following addition by Karen Solvig from the section "Chart of trigrams":

In the combination of the odd (Yang) values of Heaven and the odd (Yin) values of Earth given as from 1 to 10, together with the odd and even values of the Ho Tu produce a different sequence of trigrams, and thus hexagrams, to those given above. If the values of 1 and 6 (the 2 numbers given as North in the Ho Tu) are placed into the 'Original Trigrams' of Ch'ien and K'un and are multiplied in accordance with their 3 unbroken and broken lines, then Heaven 1 has a value of 6, and Earth 6 has a value of 36 (1 + 2 + 3 = 6 and 6 + 12 + 18 = 36) that fit together to produce a value for all the other 6 trigrams that their combination of lines produce. Thereby all values in Ho Tu are multiples of x 6 (and 6 is number of the great dark). The sequence obtained through the instructions given in 'The Material' of Wilhelm's Edition in its middle book 2, thus appears as Ch'ien, Sun, Li, Tui, Ken, K'an, Chen, and K'un. In the directions of the Ho Tu this sequence alternates, as 2 to 7 sees K'un leading instead of Ch'ien, in this way each of the directions forms a symmetrically placed set of light and dark opposite values. The production of the hexagrams produces a set of values if the same method of placing the values of Heaven and Earth into them in accordance to their amount of lines, as Heaven 1 or Ch'ien has 6 unbroken lines of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 21, and Earth 6 or K'un is 6 + 12 + 18 + 24 + 30 + 36 = 126, so all the hexagrams have a value of x 7, which fit together in the same directions of the Ho Tu. This simple set of multipllications leads anyone to some very interesting numbers, and not only because all the values are x 6 and x 7 (a movement is accomplished in 6 and 7 stages).

Perhaps other editors could comment on whether this material is appropriate to this article. To my mind, it does not contribute to the reader's general understanding of the I Ching. It is actually an interpretation of the Ho Tu. It is extremely long and technical, inapproprately referenced and seems to be mostly original research. I have attempted to communicate with the writer, explaining Wikipedia norms about citations and sources, but she has not taken any action to improve her posts to this and the Lo Shu Square article. Overall, this writing does not meet Wikipedia standards, IMO and the writer, frustratingly, fails to respond to the suggestions of others. Comments? Sunray 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional material removed from article

The following text has been removed from the Structure section pending discussion:

But when the workings of the River Maps are revealed it is found that the Ho Tu (Yellow River) and Lo Shu (Lo River) work together, and so, the workings of the I Ching are far more ancient than the historical figure of King Wen, going back to Fu Hsi who is a mythical figure of an estimated 3500 BC., or to the mythical Yellow Emperors of 2000 BC (as these older mythical characters are said in various texts to have invented the Ho Tu, and in some texts the Lo Shu, or the alternations of the days and nights) (see Wilhelm, 1967: bk2 'The Materials'). The workings of the River Maps are revealed when they are combined with the values of Heaven and Earth that are stated in the I Ching as the 'Original Trigrams' (father and mother) — Heaven has all light or unbroken lines and corresponds to odd numbers 1,3,5,7,9, and Earth has all broken lines and corresponds to even numbers 2,4,6,8,10. The father and mother produce the values of the other six Trigrams which are called "The Children." When the values of Heaven and Earth are placed into "The River Maps" the right sequences of all eight trigrams appears. The values of the trigrams form an 8 x 8 square in each of the directions or elements, so the Ho Tu produces four squares that are symetrical and add together as opposite light and dark Hexagrams. The adding together of the values then produces a fifth inner square. which corresponds with the values of 5 and 10 in the "Ho Tu. The workings of "The River Maps" together with the values of Heaven and Earth gives all the mathematical workings of "The Changes" (see Lo Shu Square).

Once again, I would like other editors to comment on whether this is appropriate to an encyclopedia article on the I Ching. It is my view that it is overly long, tendentious, inappropriately referenced, and not something that a general reader needs to know about the I Ching. However, perhaps I'm missing something. What do others think? Sunray 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not into playing games either. I am a long-time editor of Wikipedia and am very familiar with editing policies and guidelines, as I am with the I Ching. Let's let other editors comment on what I have said above. If no one else comments, then we will have to sort it out between us. I would ask you to please show that you have understood what I am saying before you proceed further. One thing that I did not mention above has to do with article size. This article is fairly complete and stable. It is also at the upper limit of article size. Therefore, lengthy additions should not be occuring. There are ways of dealing with this, but first, I would like to hear comments from other editors. Please be patient. Sunray 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The removed articles are to be withdrawn period. Karen Solvig 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of withdrawing those paragraphs entirely, we could start a new sub-article based on that content — possible title Ho Tu Map. Sunray 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hexagram locational links

Cool article folks - great work.

Is there any way to make the hexagram table links jump down to the correct place on the hexagram page? So if you click on hexagram 10, you are not only taken to List of I Ching hexagrams 1-32, but also down to the spot on the page where

What was the book for, originally?

I didn't see this in the article; perhaps the ideas about its original use and intent are so well-known that no comment is needed. Or perhaps it would be all speculation, although given the recent archeologic finds described, of which I was not aware, perhaps it's no longer uncertain. In any event, although it's usually referred to as a book of divination, a tool for fortune-telling, I would think this to be a later development, much like the same usage of the western bible. The bible got its start as sort of a description of a group of people and their place in the world. While the I Ching doesn't seem to have much if any history in it, what seems to fit best in my extremely humble opinion is an encyclopedia - that is, an effort to decribe the physical world of the time. I'd be most interested to hear what others think of this idea, and what other ideas are out there. --Dan 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The book has always been a book for divination and study as its main content which has never changed is the hexagrams, the text that goes with the hexagrams has changed with the culture and time, but the true meaning of the hexgrams is objective and derived from the structure of the hexgrams in accord with the principles of Bagua. --Nad 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The text of the images (each hexagram as a taken as a whole) were done first which essentially told one what their situation was and where it was heading etc, but could not yield any advice on what course of action should be taken and where those decisions may lead. This was resolved by King Wen and his son who added the text for the meanings of changes in each of the individual lines in each hexagram. --Nad 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why "Confucian"?

Why is the first setence of this entry "This article is about the ancient Chinese Confucian text."? And this setence is not editable.

I Ching is clearly not considered as Confucius's work, even though he was one of those who came up with their own interpretations.

I would strongly recommend we remove this confusing reference at the very beginning of this entry.

Best regards!

Freed from Copyright Restrictions

I described above jingles based on the I Ching, which I called "Chingalings" (that I have now arranged by subject). Please feel free to quote them at any length for commercial or other purposes. I have similarly released for public use everything else on the website -- www.benandverse.com (via what is called the "Creative Commons" program). 209.244.187.124 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:I Ching/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article has good info, it just needs less stubby paragraphs. --Danaman5 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) The article contains some nice information however the section traditional view is too parenthetical and hard to read. I believe if the excessive citation and Chinese character references were removed this article would be rated higher then it is. I am not expert nor knowledgeable enough to even consider editing this one. I believe this may have occurred due to excessive quibbling on the topic but it would be nice to allow the reader to enjoy the article and choose for themselves follow up on the references. So move/separate these issues from the section and let the reader decide to pursue it by choice. Alan Kroeger 15:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)