If any one is interested in their own working I Ching oracle, you can download it from www.change7.com.
Printable View
If any one is interested in their own working I Ching oracle, you can download it from www.change7.com.
Thanks nigel but I had my palm read recently and was told that i dont beieve in any of that mumbo jumbo :blink:
I understsand what you are saying. The oracle(the methode) seems mumbo-jumbo, but the wisdom is definitely not. It is based on the idea of synchronicity between question, time(of asking) and answer.
yeah but what the frig is that all about!!?Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123@1 July 2003 - 16:51
idea of synchronicity between question, time(of asking) and answer.
Goodam' me personally i don't Believe any of the stuff
dont they do stuff like say "i see something sad, with an animal. am i right and the animal has 4 legs right?" "yes my dog died recently." "thats what i can see he says hes happy now and give the nice lady some money."
yeah but what the frig is that all about!!?[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats+1 July 2003 - 17:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (crazy_billy_bats @ 1 July 2003 - 17:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@1 July 2003 - 16:51
idea of synchronicity between question, time(of asking) and answer.
This is an idea proposed by C.G..Jung
Quote: This assumption involves a certain curious principle that I have termed synchronicity, a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of casuality. Since the latter is merely a statistical truth and not absolute, it is a sort of working hypothesis of how events evolve one out of anouther, whereas synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with subjective(psychic) states of the observer or observers.
I hope it is a little clearer now? :blink:
no not really. im reading stupid white men by micheal moore.
is that what i said, but with long words?Quote:
Quote: This assumption involves a certain curious principle that I have termed synchronicity, a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of casuality. Since the latter is merely a statistical truth and not absolute, it is a sort of working hypothesis of how events evolve one out of anouther, whereas synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with subjective(psychic) states of the observer or observers.
Not really, The Dave, because you dont have to pay the little old lady, its free! :)
I have installed the program and it works. I asked a question that nobody could answer; what are the next winning Lotto numbers! I am going to try them this weekend!Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123@1 July 2003 - 14:54
If any one is interested in their own working I Ching oracle, you can download it from www.change7.com.
Well if it works that will be the end of the lotto!
Will it make me slim again?
Baz :rolleyes:
It might be just a little to late for that. Will you settle for mentally slim? :DQuote:
Originally posted by CELEBS_ARE_US@1 July 2003 - 20:05
Will it make me slim again?
Baz :rolleyes:
I have installed the program and it works. I asked a question that nobody could answer; what are the next winning Lotto numbers! I am going to try them this weekend! [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123+1 July 2003 - 19:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 1 July 2003 - 19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@1 July 2003 - 14:54
If any one is interested in their own working I Ching oracle, you can download it from www.change7.com.
i bet you 14 million pounds you dont win.
i did this for a laugh with a mate because i never buy them things - said i would bet him a pound he didnt win....he proceeded not to win, so i bought the next scratch card with the quid......won 90 squids........... :rolleyes: :D :D tee hee
Even if I win 5 quid?
hmmmmmm well but wont it have just been by pure chance that it picked only SOME of the number's ?! we'd all be millionaires if it could tell the truth !! and billy connely would be out of a job........oh wait he's a comedian...... :blink:Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123@1 July 2003 - 20:13
Even if I win 5 quid?
I was already wondering what I would do with all that(your) money!! :D
I have installed the program and it works. I asked a question that nobody could answer; what are the next winning Lotto numbers! I am going to try them this weekend! [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123+1 July 2003 - 19:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 1 July 2003 - 19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@1 July 2003 - 14:54
If any one is interested in their own working I Ching oracle, you can download it from www.change7.com.
I have got that program to. I asked it if you would win, It said it was only joking!
So was I :rolleyes:
However the I Ching otherwise known as The Book of Changes, is no joke. The users find that out rapidly. Its answers are uncanily accurate. For some a new understanding of life and with regards to the lottery numbers............. ;)
I prefer this take actually >
Quote:
Matter does not contain within itself a sufficient reason to exist.
This can be put in many ways such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? We now have compelling scientific evidence that most of the elementary particles now in existence were also around 10 billion years ago. On the other hand there is no shred of evidence that any of these seemingly stable particles were in existence 20 billion years ago. Some time in the finite past, approximately 15 billion years ago, there was, according to data, a cataclysmic explosion in which the seemingly stable elementary particles we see around us were produced. Of course, even if we lived in an oscillating universe which now seems scientifically disfavored or in a steady state universe which is contrary to an overwhelming amount of astrophysical data, the fact would be no less clear that the universe does not explain its own existence.
Similarly the forces observed in nature do not have a sufficient reason for their existence or their form. A free field theory of non-interacting particles is just as mathematically self consistent as the Standard Model of modern physics and perhaps more so. Even if one eminently unique string theory could be discovered incorporating all physical observations , there would be no explanation why this theory were realized in nature.
In fact, the Thomistic argument has been greatly strengthened by quantum theory. It is now known (Bell's theorem) that the elementary particles do not have within themselves hidden variables that locally determine their subsequent behavior except on a statistical basis.
As an example, It seems quite likely from grand unification theory that the proton is unstable with a lifetime many orders of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe. (If current grand unification theory is wrong and the proton is absolutely stable, the same point can be made from other radioactive elements). There is nothing in the proton (or in the radioactive element) that determines whether it will exist one second from now if it exists now.* Thus, if the proton is unstable no matter how long its natural lifetime is, there is no guarantee from physical law that any one of us will still be living one second from now. The cause of our continued existence from one second to the next lies outside the laws of physics. We can, of course, take comfort in the statistical knowledge that the probability of any macroscopic object disappearing in the next instant is extremely small. The statistical nature of physics theory seems designed so that we can make sense of physical processes without appearing to restrict the freedom of the Author.
The basic choice that each individual must make is whether to believe that everything has a sufficient cause or to believe that things happen with no sufficient cause. To not believe in an infinite external designer and an uncaused-cause is to believe in meaninglessness and in the absence of ultimate explanations. Since the human brain is hard-wired to require causes, this stance leads rapidly to mental problems unless accompanied by a psychological state suspending fundamental questioning. Many well known scientists have succeeded in functioning in such a state through their entire lives.
Thank you Balamm, this I will save and consider.
Is this then an argument in favour of a Creator or is there a possibility that our measurments are being influenced by the equipment doing the measuring?
It's simply saying we must consider all things and then be prepared to discard what we think we know :blink: (I think)
I have been thinking about your last reply, I find it quite profound.
First consider everything and then and only then discard what we think we know.
So it is then wise first to accustom oneself with something before one discards it.
That is a wise approach. You should check out the I Ching sometime and then if need be, discard it.
Thanks for sharing that thought.
Nigel, I did in fact take a look but I have a problem with any suggestion that something as small as us could have any influence on anything as big as everything that is Not us.
In other words, we are so small and insignificant yet we think of the universe and all it contains as something that we can understand. Worse yet, we actually think we might somehow control it or influence it.
We haven't even finished crawling out of the mud yet. How could we hope to understand something we haven't even scratched the surface of?
and then to be interdependent with it? No, we're dependent On it.
This was the capper >>
Quote:
synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with subjective(psychic) states of the observer or observers
Balamm we are indeed just crawling out of the mud. What I believe Jung meant in regards to his synchronicity, had to do with his observations about what we call coincidence. I am sure we have all experienced coincidence in some way or anouther. An example is when one thinks of somebody that one has not seen or heard of in a long time, and they appear on your door or phone you up.
During a consultation a female patient was describing a dream to Jung about a scarab.(a beetle) At that very moment a beetle flew in through the window of his consultation room.
Returning to the subject in hand, Jung says, "In other words, whoever invented the I Ching was convinced that the hexagram worked out in a certain moment coincided with the latter in quality no less than in time. To him the hexagram was the exponent of the moment in which it was cast--- even more so than the hours of the clock or the divisions of the calendar could be---Inasmuch as the hexagram was understood to be an indicator of the essenitial situation prevailing in the moment of its origin."
It will indeed be along time before we wil be able to influence the heavenly bodies if ever.
Perhaps then we should confine our efforts to making a better world for each other to coexist in?
Im sure many wil laugh at this but the I-Ching predicted my A-level results (after I had completed the exams). There are very few hexagrams that mention a specific number but the one I got did and it was exactly the number of points I got.
It could just be coincidence but...
The real power of the I-Ching is getting you to look at things from a different perspective so.. even if the sceptics are right and the 'mythology' aspect is all bull its still a useful tool for contemplating difficult issues and coming up with an original response that isnt based on habit or assumption.