Rick McGowan wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
> we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
> a drawing program. We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
> pieces on board squares, either.
>
Hi Rick,
I was half in this camp with you to begin with, with my comments about
the IDC, but if John Jenkins says I'm in favor of this, then I guess I
should take a stab at defending it ...
Encoding the 64 hexagrams has surely come up in the past, and on the off
chance that I can put a different spin on it ... here are points 1-3 in
favor, rebuttals of points A-C against, and a quote from John Lennon and
the Plastic Ono Band:
--1: The 64 hexagrams are semantically distinct written signs associated
with specific words. Each of the 64 hexagrams has a unique name, of one
or two syllables (see my earlier post). Each name is intimately
connected with the sequence and meaning of the 6 lines.
--2: They represent a very important feature of the most important of
the Chinese Classics. This text, _Zhou Yi_ ('the Zhou Dynasty [classic
of] change'), was considered by early Chinese, and is considered by many
modern people, to be the most abstruse and subtle book in the world. In
these respects, these signs represent a primary semantic level of a book
which is at least tantamount to a religious text, if not actually one in
many people's minds (depending on the definition of religion).
--3: They are attested in use all over the world, anciently and modernly
(China, Tibet, Japan, US ...). They appear in many many printed books,
both in Asia and elsewhere. For a sample of English titles in print, go to
http://www.amazon.com and search for "I Ching" (~357 hits) or "Book of
Changes" (~89).
Now, examining some points against:
--A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
and unbroken lines. This alone is not a reason to encode them, but it is precedent.
--B: They derive their distinct meanings from the composition of the 2
composing trigrams.
Rebuttal: It is agreed that their meanings are distinct from the
meanings of the 8 trigrams. However, many would contend that the
meanings are compositionally derived from the broken and unbroken lines.
See A above.
--C: They are primarily used in China, and a proposal to encode them
ought to come from China.
Rebuttal: See point 3 above.
-----------
"... I don't believe in I Ching ..."
"God", by John Lennon and the Plastic Ono Band
http://members.aol.com/pop1rock1/JohnLennon/Lyrics/lyric5.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 13:48:07 EDT