Due to the nature of wholes/aspects processing, combined with the nature of dichotomous analysis, we can create our own I Ching by just structuring any six questions, each in a dichotomous way (A or B); the resulting hexagrams will in some way 'resonate' with an apparently acceptable answer (giving 'meaning'). Furthermore, the IC+ extension links, found at the end of each hexagram page, give far more detailed information on paths in and out of situations as well as the overall context from which the situation emerged.
In the system used here, we infact only ask three questions, with the second set of three being in a different context (opposing) but of the same hierarchic structure; in both systems you get the same results - this is how a hexagram of the I Ching can be interpreted either as six lines, or else as a three-line trigram in the context of another trigram. (or even as three pairs of paired lines - see the essay on Yang before Yin as a demonstration of the various orderings elliciting common 'meanings'.)What is important to consider is that, due to the hierarchic format of the system - where we move from a gross state to a refined state, the order in which we ask the questions is vital (called syntax) - each question must be within the context of the previous question(s).
For an example of this, see the section on Dilt's Hierarchy of Beliefs where by treating the six levels as the six lines of the I Ching, one can derive persona descriptions that seem very acurate.
What is being demonstrated here is the structure of wholes within the mind, and the nature of the template that ellicits 'meaning' - regardless of content. It is this feature that has led many to perceive the universe in the I Ching - it is not the I Ching that does this, it is the template underneath that resonates; the same thing happens with Mathematics.
For those interested in more advanced areas I suggest you read the essay on The Structure of Wholeness. What we find is that in the process of analysis the use of dichotomy is superior to all other methods, but in the process of synthesis - where we wish to combine two hexagrams (or trigrams) that symbolise personas such that they are in a win+win situation - we find that certain parts just dont go together whilst others fit like hand and glove. These patterns do not emerge until we translate the dyadic symbols (yin/yang) into triadic symbols. The reasoning here is that 'reality' is not EITHER/OR but more BOTH/AND; dyadic methods transform 'nebulous' BOTH/AND states into 'precise' EITHER/OR states but to get back to 'reality' - which allows for the existance of parts in the same contexts - we must *integrate* the parts rather than just sum them. To use a wave analogy - reality allows for superpositions where two ( or more) waves can occupy the same 'space'. This creates a 'virtual' wave based on constructive and destructive interferences and for this virtual wave to have 'meaningful' form requires the componant waves to not cancel each other out.
Backspace (or click 'Go/Back' to return to previous page