Fivearts.org
Library => Liu Yao => Topic started by: Gmuli on May 14, 2019, 10:46:24 AM
-
I was searching for english sources that give 1 and 3 line and 4 and 6 line for 3 way combos, from the conversation we had with @The-Monk here.
And from what I can find it seems the only place that I can see is in the Super I Ching material.
https://www.superiching.com/combo.htm (https://www.superiching.com/combo.htm)
I was very happy with his rules for gambling that Alex uses there, before(non sport events)...
So I'm starting to think with so few good English sources, maybe we should turn to that material a little more.
There are problems there, in my view. If we practice only Yi Jing, may not be able to find them right away, but if we use more of the Five Arts some stuff is very obvious as a problem.
So I was thinking, instead of trying to learn the system while ignoring the material there, maybe its good idea to try to clear out what parts of what is used there we think works in a different way and what parts we have seen working in examples.
I will start with Void. Later as I'm going over his material again I'm planning to add more. Hopefully other members will join in as well.
Void is here:
https://www.superiching.com/emptydates.htm (https://www.superiching.com/emptydates.htm)
My big problem here is the exception for Jia days.
I get in some examples he got that to seem like is the case, but I've been using the void days/years in many systems of the Five Arts and I can confidently say in my view, they work without exceptions for Jia.
Even so, I do also have to note that for completeness both calculators will add exception for Jia, as that is the way he has given the rules in the site.
Other then that I agree with his use of Void/Empty.
I have trouble with Linkers. I dismissed them right away when I saw them first, but I'm wondering lately if there is something to it.
I checked previous examples there, couldn't see them working anywhere. But I'm open to the idea I missed something.
What do members think about Linkers here?
https://www.superiching.com/links.htm (https://www.superiching.com/links.htm)
So overall I was hoping we can go over our view to the material there. It may not be perfect, but for WWG in the west, that would be something we can't ignore at this point and may need to dig in. : )
-
So I'm starting to think with so few good English sources, maybe we should turn to that material a little more.
I would not recommend using that as a source for a multitude of reasons.
My big problem here is the exception for Jia days.
I get in some examples he got that to seem like is the case, but I've been using the void days/years in many systems of the Five Arts and I can confidently say in my view, they work without exceptions for Jia.
Even so, I do also have to note that for completeness both calculators will add exception for Jia, as that is the way he has given the rules in the site.
One of the main issues I've discovered over the decades, is that Alex lacks understanding of the WWG system, and is also heavily biased in their way of analysing and thinking. So when they were unable to get the "reversed lookup results" to match up with their reading, they tried to reverse "something" backwards into the reading to make sense of it all. And from that, inventing new "rules" that come out of nowhere and are only substantiated by their one or two readings that could have been interpreted another way that would still make sense without needing such inclusions. Subsequently, it has resulted in the mess that is known as Super I Ching; where actual correct material is overladen with his own material and the original material lost (not included), hence causing confusion when things don't work or match up afterwards for those trying to learn from there.
What do members think about Linkers here?
Just more confusion. There is a school of thought where if a line moves and is seen elsewhere, that they "may" be linked, and so can be seen as a "pathway", where after doing one action, the next step is seen where the step finished in the changed/transformed line in the original Hexagram. Without understanding that, Alex wrote their own treatise on the subject that is only substantiated in a few select examples that no one else can replicate short of random chance (near 50/50), meaning you can exclude that as a rule, otherwise it would crop up more often.
-
Thanks, can you cover some other problems from there and how we can adjust it to work better?
I do agree, its really messy at times and sometimes it doesn't make much sense, but for many of the rules there doesn't seem to be better source in English, currently(one example being the 3 way combo). Combined with the fact we already have a lot of members that seems interested in it, some info how to work with it better can be very useful for people.
I wish we could just ignore it and use something better, but at this point I'm starting to think with all its problems this may be the best there we will have for a while(even more so considering the site was made 2001 and looking at all books that have come out since then about WWG in English).
So while ignoring it may not work out, improving it may!
At least I hope so. : )
-
Thanks, can you cover some other problems from there and how we can adjust it to work better?
The last time I bothered to go through that was near two decades ago, so I'm afraid I don't remember specifics of what was wrong or needed correcting back to original source material, only that there was not a small amount that needed attention to due to inaccuracies or outright fallacies being written about.
So short of me or someone else, going through, editing and rewriting everything there, I don't think you can be fully safe with anything that is written there honestly. And to do that is a massive undertaking, to which we would also have no reason to do since it would be faster for those who know WWG to write their own books and materials instead of trying to edit and keep content related to the chapter they have written that may crop up elsewhere in their content and need further editing. In short, time spent vs produced results is very inefficient. So unfortunately, I doubt anyone will want to go through their works and alter it to fix it.
Your best bet, would be to make enquiries along the way on material you have reached; reaching out to those are are familiar with WWG, whom will be able to overview and guide where necessary within that topic area you have reached.
I do agree, its really messy at times and sometimes it doesn't make much sense, but for many of the rules there doesn't seem to be better source in English, currently(one example being the 3 way combo). Combined with the fact we already have a lot of members that seems interested in it, some info how to work with it better can be very useful for people.
This is down to each persons own preference.
But if you were living in the outbacks of Australia and interested in learning in reading and writing Ancient Egyptian, I wouldn't want to learn from the Australian Aboriginal Tribesman who uses something similiar within their tribe and took a year studying it in their local library. Even if it was the only source available to me. But it may be felt that the risk is worth it for others.
-
Fair enough.
Well, lets clear up the rules we already mentioned if you don't mind. : )
So we have the 3 way combination and the linkers.
The linkers I think i have seen that before, also was mentioned in a few places.
Its the idea that the movement can go through more then 1 line, right?
So if we have:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPBP90dP/linkers.png)
In here we can say it starts in line 6 and continues in line 1, so whatever happens to line6 we can also see continue to line 1?However, I don't think it works everytime, did you mean that?
The 3 way combo, I think that is very important, as it can change the meaning of the lines, so its good to be looked for.
So we have line 1&3 and lines 4&6, but when will it activate?Does it need the last line, or it can be with only these 2, and do they have to be moving/active etc. or it always is there if they are present?Also can the third part be any other line, active or not?
In Alexes rules it seems it happens only if both lines are moving at the same time, however, he doesn't seem to comment much on the third part of the combination and can the 2 moving lines pull a not moving line into it. :)
-
In here we can say it starts in line 6 and continues in line 1, so whatever happens to line6 we can also see continue to line 1?However, I don't think it works everytime, did you mean that?
No. "Linked" line theory has its own particular rules. Your example will not satisfy the conditions suggested to have them "linked".
The theory proposes, that a line that transforms into a line that is next to the original line it transforms from, may be linked, but only in parituclar questions.
The reasoning for this, is because under certain questions' circumstances, the lines will represent each other as they are so close to the source (the originating point) to which the lines move from; usually in this case yourself, or the focus. And from there, the continuing movement will show what the final resulting outcome will be after successive changes have transpired.
So the following will work:
_ _ yo
_ _ h x
_ _ c x
_ _ ch
_ _ y
___ t
The question being about what this other person can help your legal matter as a witness. Since the object is c (chou) Earth, and it transforms into h (hai) Water, and the line directly above it is also a h (hai) Water that is moving, the theory suggests that this other person will initially cause a lot more trouble for you instead. This is because h (hai) Water, supports and combines with the y (yin) Wood on line two that is representing your legal issue.
However, because this line is not finished (according to this theory), a further change, shown by the fifth lines h (hai) Water moving and transforming into yo (you) Metal, suggests that after a further event, this particular witness, will provide a way for you to break free of the legal matter that is causing you so much grief.
This is just a fairly basic example of the "linked" idea in WWG, but the key thing people need to know, is that it is not applicable for all sorts of questions to the I Ching. Certain questions can never show a "linked" setup, because it is impossible for the Hexagram to show a "linked" outcome, whilst at the same time showing something completely opposite when the original question calls for it during an interpreation of a reading.
An example of this:
I suspect that I may be being framed for something bad that has happened at work by this person.
Object moving in this case, combining with the Self, would indicate that the person this question was based on, is not the one framing them. As this line is in support of the Self line, whilst the line it transforms into supports and combines with the second line; y (yin) Wood that represents work.
The fifth line moving and turning into yo (you) Metal, would indicate that someone who appears to be helping you, is actually the one backstabbing you instead.
As you can see, the question asked will impact on usage, and is not a see it happen, see it everywhere type of rule.
So we have line 1&3 and lines 4&6, but when will it activate?Does it need the last line, or it can be with only these 2, and do they have to be moving/active etc. or it always is there if they are present?Also can the third part be any other line, active or not?
If lines 1 and 3 are moving, and they transform into the line they need for the 3 way combination to happen, then there is nothing more needed to make it happen. It simply is. Same applies to lines 4 and 6.
So for example:
___ y x
_ _ t
_ _ sh x
___ s
_ _ w
_ _ ch
Lines 4 and 6 will transform into w (wu) Fire on line 4, and sh (Xu) Earth on line 6. These lines are all part of the "change" shown through the moving lines in the Hexagram, and hence have their own invevitability about them and their arrival. Since they all contain the 3 way combination parts already, lines 4 and 6, doesn't need a w (wu) Fire line to also appear elsewhere to make this 3 way combination happen.
As for the rest of the basic rules for 3 way combinations, I'm sure someone else can chime in regarding them. ;)
-
I see. And looking at this:
Object moving in this case, combining with the Self, would indicate that the person this question was based on, is not the one framing them. As this line is in support of the Self line, whilst the line it transforms into supports and combines with the second line; y (yin) Wood that represents work.
The fifth line moving and turning into yo (you) Metal, would indicate that someone who appears to be helping you, is actually the one backstabbing you instead.
As you can see, the question asked will impact on usage, and is not a see it happen, see it everywhere type of rule.
Even though line 5 is producing the Self line, as it is attacking the Officer and we can view the Officer as Yong Shen(the persons position at work) that suggest line 5 is the real problem.
But shouldn't we look for Resource line for reputation / someone being framed?
Also if it is producing the Self line, shouldn't that mean line 5 is more helping for that person(while maybe still making problems at work, but not harmful to the self line)?
-
Τhe relationship presented here is more qualitative in the explanation...
Surely the witness is on the side of Person in judge... (have the same element WATER yet different EB)
but did not support his claimant.... (relation of witnes Hai water 4th line with Yin wood san he... water witnes produces wood Officer/Court !! )
this is why @The-Monk presents him as :
that is causing so much grief.
Since the same person is capable of causing damage to the Court.
Metal harms the wood ....5th moving line
..perhaps lose the litigation ..
water Zi 1st (S)elf line produces wood Officer/Court !!...
but i think this is used as an example !!!
BTW ,,Linkers is something to do with or work the same as : 臨 Lin - or identification or . to overlook; to look over; to come down; to descend; to arrive; to face; to border; to be adjacent to; to be faced with; to be confronted by; to copy; to trace · just before; 19th hexagram of the I Ching; ....
..
-
Its not a court case, though.
"I suspect that I may be being framed for something bad that has happened at work by this person."
So Officer is work, his line isn't having problems with our line, coz they messed up at work, however if we want to see who messed up at work it makes sense to look for the person that has problems with the Officer. So yea, its all good.
But then we have this:
The fifth line moving and turning into yo (you) Metal, would indicate that someone who appears to be helping you, is actually the one backstabbing you instead.
And can they be backstabbing you if they are producing your line, while having problem with the Officer?Coz backstabbing suggest relation with your line...
I don't know, just wondering, but it doesn't matter much anyway...
-
I use the case of legal matters in the first example : (witness ..as the same person in 2 Hai water lines)
The question being about what this other person can help your legal matter as a witness.
...
you refer the second example ...
Happy that i saw The-monk using writing type of Earth Branches same with Alex Chiu's ..
example
_ _ yo
_ _ h x
_ _ c x
_ _ ch
_ _ y
___ t
is what i use mostly ..!!!
-
Yea, I got that. : )
About the characters, I have a lot of problems reading Alexes style. Working on an app that will convert all his pages to pinyin for offline use, so I can read the rules/examples there more easily.
While I do appreciate that his rules may have problems, it doesn't seem likely we will have good source of some of the rules in the system in our lifetimes, so Alex will have to do.
-
Yea .. Alex Chiu has made many typo errors ..and I agree the most with The Monk on what is presented about SuperYijing works ...!!
All site needs re evaluation... a d correction .. who can do this work ?..
Anyway we hold what is convenient with us ...
I took the writing mode of Earth Brances and Stars (or 6 relatives ) ..
Yea is somhow difficult to learn but after a week .. one will understand how practical is easy to learn and mostly to put in use ..and remember !!!
Par example :
Yo-Cn ... Is You Metal - Chen Earth (6 alliances )... or ..
E-S .... Si fire - Shen Metal ...... so on ...
...
-
But if you were living in the outbacks of Australia and interested in learning in reading and writing Ancient Egyptian, I wouldn't want to learn from the Australian Aboriginal Tribesman who uses something similiar within their tribe and took a year studying it in their local library. Even if it was the only source available to me. But it may be felt that the risk is worth it for others.
I get what you mean... However, to be fair if you are living in Australia, need to learn Ancient Egyptian and there is no other source that you can use that is as good as the AAT(australian aboriginal tribesman) then of course most people will turn there, as there will be no other choice and they may not want to give up the whole idea, if they feel its for them.
With time if more sources show up things can be advanced, or cleared out etc. But if the decision is "bad source" or "no source" , most people here would aim for "bad source" in my view, as the people that will aim for "no source" even though they are probably the majority on Earth, they wouldn't be in forum for Bazi/WWG, as they wouldn't be trying to learn them...
So if the question is should it be perfect to try it... I don't think we have perfect source for any of these systems in English books currently, so we use what we have...
-
I get what you mean... However, to be fair if you are living in Australia, need to learn Ancient Egyptian and there is no other source that you can use that is as good as the AAT(australian aboriginal tribesman) then of course most people will turn there, as there will be no other choice and they may not want to give up the whole idea, if they feel its for them.
There is more to it than simply learning a bad form for your foundation.
With time if more sources show up things can be advanced, or cleared out etc. But if the decision is "bad source" or "no source" , most people here would aim for "bad source" in my view, as the people that will aim for "no source" even though they are probably the majority on Earth, they wouldn't be in forum for Bazi/WWG, as they wouldn't be trying to learn them...
So if the question is should it be perfect to try it... I don't think we have perfect source for any of these systems in English books currently, so we use what we have...
That is correct, each person will have a prefered source, some more perfect to themselves than others. It is the natural way of things.
However, the end result is almost always the same. Those learning from a bad source, ends up capping their progression early and stifle their ability to advance after each of the natural progression points are reached. Advanced Five Arts has various natural barriers in place that for those without the proper foundation and knowledge, forever scramble during the climb and are unable to get over it.
That is the reason why I strongly advise caution in using Super I Ching as your source. Unless if your goal is only to reproduce Super I Ching "rules" in software form.
-
[Hidden post: You need login to forum to see it.]
-
I get what you mean... However, to be fair if you are living in Australia, need to learn Ancient Egyptian and there is no other source that you can use that is as good as the AAT(australian aboriginal tribesman) then of course most people will turn there, as there will be no other choice and they may not want to give up the whole idea, if they feel its for them.
There is more to it than simply learning a bad form for your foundation.
With time if more sources show up things can be advanced, or cleared out etc. But if the decision is "bad source" or "no source" , most people here would aim for "bad source" in my view, as the people that will aim for "no source" even though they are probably the majority on Earth, they wouldn't be in forum for Bazi/WWG, as they wouldn't be trying to learn them...
So if the question is should it be perfect to try it... I don't think we have perfect source for any of these systems in English books currently, so we use what we have...
That is correct, each person will have a prefered source, some more perfect to themselves than others. It is the natural way of things.
However, the end result is almost always the same. Those learning from a bad source, ends up capping their progression early and stifle their ability to advance after each of the natural progression points are reached. Advanced Five Arts has various natural barriers in place that for those without the proper foundation and knowledge, forever scramble during the climb and are unable to get over it.
That is the reason why I strongly advise caution in using Super I Ching as your source. Unless if your goal is only to reproduce Super I Ching "rules" in software form.
I don't have any plans like that. However, my point was the problem is lack of alternative. We say Super I Ching is not a good source for foundation, easy to agree there as its easy to see parts of it doesn't make much sense... But then we see said that Gold Yarrows is not the best source either, then the Wild Crane may not be perfect... All this is fine by itself, but then if the question "ok, what is good" comes up, the answer just can't be silence...
As otherwise the only thing that this will accomplish is push away the few western peoples trying to learn this system. If all material available in English is described as bad and if attempt for finding good source is halted, then the message is clear - don't try to learn this, you can't do it with the info available... And that includes even Chinese sources at times...
And I don't mean specifically you by this, just the approach I see from time to time that seems to be one of the big problems with learning it in the west in my view. But it is the reason why if we look at free material with hundreds of examples and say to not use it, some replacement author/book/course or whatever as recommendation to be nice...
-
[Hidden post: You need login to forum to see it.]
-
[Hidden post: You need login to forum to see it.]
-
I don't have any plans like that. However, my point was the problem is lack of alternative. We say Super I Ching is not a good source for foundation, easy to agree there as its easy to see parts of it doesn't make much sense... But then we see said that Gold Yarrows is not the best source either, then the Wild Crane may not be perfect... All this is fine by itself, but then if the question "ok, what is good" comes up, the answer just can't be silence...
Who is saying nothing but silence?
Golden Yarrows and Wild Crane may be biased and tainted by their own authors and editors in some versions, but the key foundation details will always be largely the same if you read them in Chinese.
Super I Ching does not have this parity with the Chinese sources. It is an edited version (by Alex Chiu) of an edited version (by some other Author) that was translated from one language to another (Chinese to English). Many conclusions are drawn up mistakenly and many interpretation components is unable to be found replicated in the slightest fashion anywhere else. Unlike where if you are lucky enough to have time to browse through Chinese material at a non-taught level, you will eventually find the same foundation components mentioned here and there.
If you or anyone believes the sources in Chinese are unreliable, the reasons for the unreliability is probably more important than the fact that they are unreliable in of itself.
As otherwise the only thing that this will accomplish is push away the few western peoples trying to learn this system. If all material available in English is described as bad and if attempt for finding good source is halted, then the message is clear - don't try to learn this, you can't do it with the info available... And that includes even Chinese sources at times...
Which Chinese sources?
As explained above, Super I Ching, as an English source, even if compare with Raymond Lo's material very quickly diverges. So non-taught users will have a hard time trying to find what is accurate or not, or what was flat out wrong in the first place. This disparity largely does not exist in Chinese sources due to the abundance of sources available (whatever the quality of the sources may be).
And I don't mean specifically you by this, just the approach I see from time to time that seems to be one of the big problems with learning it in the west in my view. But it is the reason why if we look at free material with hundreds of examples and say to not use it, some replacement author/book/course or whatever as recommendation to be nice...
Having seen many students fall, I no longer provide such alternative sources, as what is suitable for one person is not suitable for another. Indeed, as my earlier reply, I have seen learners fall because they felt that they were empowered with capability because I provided such sources of information. And when the time came to try to advance their skill and knowledge further, they were unable to do so because they lacked what was right for them.
I am however familiar with many sources (and able to guage snippets of sources that I am not familiar with as to their worth) and can recommend or not recommend various sources assuming you have one that reads well for yourself.
It sounds very unhelpful, but once you reach a certain stage of understanding WWG, you'll recognise that what I am doing is the best way forward for each learner.
-
Well... Yea, I get it, its fair I guess... However meanwhile I'm still avoiding Super I Ching and at this point has no idea what to read for WWG as the English sources are not as many as one would want. Not your problem, of course, however I'm sure there are many members in similar situation...
-
In here we can say it starts in line 6 and continues in line 1, so whatever happens to line6 we can also see continue to line 1?However, I don't think it works everytime, did you mean that?
No. "Linked" line theory has its own particular rules. Your example will not satisfy the conditions suggested to have them "linked".
The theory proposes, that a line that transforms into a line that is next to the original line it transforms from, may be linked, but only in parituclar questions.
The reasoning for this, is because under certain questions' circumstances, the lines will represent each other as they are so close to the source (the originating point) to which the lines move from; usually in this case yourself, or the focus. And from there, the continuing movement will show what the final resulting outcome will be after successive changes have transpired.
So the following will work:
_ _ yo
_ _ h x
_ _ c x
_ _ ch
_ _ y
___ t
The question being about what this other person can help your legal matter as a witness. Since the object is c (chou) Earth, and it transforms into h (hai) Water, and the line directly above it is also a h (hai) Water that is moving, the theory suggests that this other person will initially cause a lot more trouble for you instead. This is because h (hai) Water, supports and combines with the y (yin) Wood on line two that is representing your legal issue.
However, because this line is not finished (according to this theory), a further change, shown by the fifth lines h (hai) Water moving and transforming into yo (you) Metal, suggests that after a further event, this particular witness, will provide a way for you to break free of the legal matter that is causing you so much grief.
This is just a fairly basic example of the "linked" idea in WWG, but the key thing people need to know, is that it is not applicable for all sorts of questions to the I Ching. Certain questions can never show a "linked" setup, because it is impossible for the Hexagram to show a "linked" outcome, whilst at the same time showing something completely opposite when the original question calls for it during an interpreation of a reading.
An example of this:
I suspect that I may be being framed for something bad that has happened at work by this person.
Object moving in this case, combining with the Self, would indicate that the person this question was based on, is not the one framing them. As this line is in support of the Self line, whilst the line it transforms into supports and combines with the second line; y (yin) Wood that represents work.
The fifth line moving and turning into yo (you) Metal, would indicate that someone who appears to be helping you, is actually the one backstabbing you instead.
As you can see, the question asked will impact on usage, and is not a see it happen, see it everywhere type of rule.
So we have line 1&3 and lines 4&6, but when will it activate?Does it need the last line, or it can be with only these 2, and do they have to be moving/active etc. or it always is there if they are present?Also can the third part be any other line, active or not?
If lines 1 and 3 are moving, and they transform into the line they need for the 3 way combination to happen, then there is nothing more needed to make it happen. It simply is. Same applies to lines 4 and 6.
So for example:
___ y x
_ _ t
_ _ sh x
___ s
_ _ w
_ _ ch
Lines 4 and 6 will transform into w (wu) Fire on line 4, and sh (Xu) Earth on line 6. These lines are all part of the "change" shown through the moving lines in the Hexagram, and hence have their own invevitability about them and their arrival. Since they all contain the 3 way combination parts already, lines 4 and 6, doesn't need a w (wu) Fire line to also appear elsewhere to make this 3 way combination happen.
As for the rest of the basic rules for 3 way combinations, I'm sure someone else can chime in regarding them. ;)
Hi. : )
Im rereading old topics, some awesome stuff around there. But questions came up.
The question being about what this other person can help your legal matter as a witness. Since the object is c (chou) Earth, and it transforms into h (hai) Water, and the line directly above it is also a h (hai) Water that is moving, the theory suggests that this other person will initially cause a lot more trouble for you instead. This is because h (hai) Water, supports and combines with the y (yin) Wood on line two that is representing your legal issue.
That is because we view the Officer as attacking / problem. So his line supporting the Officer suggest he isn't helping.
But he is strengthening our own line, though?
Shouldn't that be viewed as help(helping the legal case, helping us as well).
The fifth line moving and turning into yo (you) Metal, would indicate that someone who appears to be helping you, is actually the one backstabbing you instead.
I'm not sure I get that. They are moving to Metal. So potentially empowering our line, or at least empowering their line that is same as our line?
Then the whole linked idea... I was thinking that it would be the same person on both lines continue the same movement, but with more steps, if its 2 separate people then the linked part comes because what we think about the person on Others is actually true for the person above them?
-
The theory proposes, that a line that transforms into a line that is next to the original line it transforms from, may be linked, but only in parituclar questions.
Hi, again!
Thank you, I fully agree with this, I have used it like this for a while now and it works even without any settings.
However, lately it brings very interesting question.
I do realize its old topic, yet I think its fair to be here, as much of what we view here goes beyond a time frame of a few months, sometimes.
The question is...
Do I understand correctly that this can be part of the setting?
So if I set that the rule "they can be linked even if they are far away" will work, it will work for me as long as I use it consistently, while it won't work for people that haven't included it specifically in their setting?
If that is the case then we have multiple sets of rules. We have:
1. rules that work for everyone
2.rules that can work, but need to be part of the setting(the system to allow it)
3. finally have rules that just doesn't work
I'm trying to figure out for a good calculator, what rules we should use. All logic seems to point to 1, yet if 2 have a very noticable improvement in accuracy, then maybe we use 2, only people using that setting will be able to get it working, but its better for them?
-
However, lately it brings very interesting question.
I do realize its old topic, yet I think its fair to be here, as much of what we view here goes beyond a time frame of a few months, sometimes.
The question is...
Do I understand correctly that this can be part of the setting?
I am uncertain as to what you mean by "setting" in this instance. So I am unable to comment on the other parts of your query because they are intrinsically linked to this word; I will require clarification on what context or meaning you are using the word "setting" here before I can continue.
-
What we do before we cast. Like deciding heads will be yang, tails will be yin, focus will be something or other etc.
In that sence Setting will be the process going on before we start making the Hexagram in whatever way we decide to use. : )
-
It revolves around this:
https://www.akguru.my/post/wwg-preschool-choosing-right-chinese-medicine-55
First time I saw it, my initial thought was that this is very different then the system I'm familiar with... As logically, we can use that without hexagrams, we can just say if we see some random event then its medicine 1, if we don't then its medicine 2...
Then I thought, how exactly the system would be different if that was actually working... Maybe there is a reason that same process that doesn't work great for random event, can work when it goes through hexagrams/branches as medium for some reason...
I've been doing testing... Its very challenging to test for, as what does "better" mean... Even more so for medicine, when its so challenging to be sure of the long term effect of something....
Yet we know in other systems(QMDJ) we do have some general "judgment" going on for the whole event(relation Hour Stem to Day Stem in most cases) where there could be overall answer going on, containing some distance from the situation that the rest doesn't...
So the question became, if we can choose position of a line for something as "better", whatever better means in this case, can't we choose more?I've been trying and it seems to work, so far.
-
I see what you are talking about now.
I can tell you the answer is yes. You can do that, but still confined within the system that you are using. Else new learners would not be able to still do interpretations from a divination (or hexagram in this case) and still get some details right when left on their own on a new topic area using the level of information and understanding they have at the time. This is why Five Arts is composed of two components; the mathematics (rules and generation of a reading/hexagram in WWG) and art (interpretation and understanding). The art portion allows the more experienced and those with the talent/gift to work more seemlessly at different points in their lives in interpreting an outcome.
I can also tell you the answer is no. Because as some new learners who are in over their head show, when there are basic rules to follow where they should be following, they instead decide to do "their own way" and choose something completely random as what they want to ask about because it suits their "feel". Then they ask about something that has a 50/50 chance to happening anyway (yes / no outcome) and then decide to go "This proves any way can (not) be done and used". It doesn't. Otherwise WWG would not be about details as well and where the wonders lay. This is where someone misunderstands the "art" portion and misleads themselves and others. With the above example, this would be someone who is trying to paint artistically using Red, Blue and Yellow paint, and then using only the Blue paint and declaring it as Green because they feel it can be used in Greens place, when they should have mixed Blue and Yellow together to get the Green first.
So... Yes, and No. Or is that No, and Yes?
-
Yes, I understand, there have to be rules on it, yet the possibility is very useful by itself.
Because if we can do that... Lets say we ask for health. Then we can say:
Upper Trigram will show the affected Organ, the branch on the Self line shows how its affected(fire could be heat or inflammation, earth can be dampness etc.) and basically set where we want everything to be and if we use it consistently it will be accurate?
In the facebook group I think there was example with something like that, but I can't find it now.
Then the question becomes where would the limitation come from...
I would guess, as in each Upper Trigrams we always have the same 3 branches, logically we can't have any trigram with any self line... So that setting may run into purely mechanical problems, as both can't show at the same time.
But then we have Self line as possibility in the lower trigram, so maybe it can work?
-
Yes, I understand, there have to be rules on it, yet the possibility is very useful by itself.
Because if we can do that... Lets say we ask for health. Then we can say:
Upper Trigram will show the affected Organ, the branch on the Self line shows how its affected(fire could be heat or inflammation, earth can be dampness etc.) and basically set where we want everything to be and if we use it consistently it will be accurate?
In the facebook group I think there was example with something like that, but I can't find it now.
Once again, I refer to the word "art" here. But I will also say that the Chinese words for Five Arts of the Life and Divination portions are "Art and Math". One does not leave behind the other; inevitably you will find the other not far behind if you want to truly progress.
Then the question becomes where would the limitation come from...
I would guess, as in each Upper Trigrams we always have the same 3 branches, logically we can't have any trigram with any self line... So that setting may run into purely mechanical problems, as both can't show at the same time.
But then we have Self line as possibility in the lower trigram, so maybe it can work?
You will reach the answer yourself... Then again. You may not...
Ask yourself this however, after 1 month of learning at the beginning, do you believe you would have had the same question as you do now?
Do you believe you would have the same answer now, as you would then?
-
They have to be different, otherwise the time was wasted... : )
Although ultimately, I guess the underlining question is still "how it works"...
This is one of the differences that will change a lot, however, as if we choose what shows where we need to know the mechanic of the system very well... So it seems like there is a difference before this point and after it, as before the limitations of the system doesn't play much, we ask and we read what we see trying to guess what it means. The limitations doesn't matter, as we aren't deciding anything. This is different, I wonder how much there will be to know about the actual mechanic/math part, before all can be used with all colors.
Thanks! : )