i ching

Connection, Contemplation, and Useful Bullshit

by

Connection, Contemplation, and Useful Bullshit

Remember when your spiritual interests led you to discover correspondence charts? The wild experience of associating flowers and planets and minerals and days of the week to gods or elemental powers?. The appreciation – if not admiration – for the effort that went into them? The sense that “yes, some of this seems weird, but . . .”?

Correspondences are a core part of a lot of occult, religious, and spiritual practices. From the Sephiroth to the Hexagrams of the I Ching to the Planets, it’s everywhere. Even when you don’t think it’s there, it may well be there just disguised a little bit. Humans like their correspondences, and I’m here to advocate that Correspondence Charts are pretty damn useful in our spiritual endeavors.

They can also be fun and not a little bit goofy, but I think there’s value there, so I will joyfully advocate for them.

Firrst, what do I call a “Correspondence Chart?” Pretty much anything that attempts to align some kind of “Power” to manifestations and parallels in our world. For instance my interest is in the I Ching, so the Trigram of Heaven relates to metal and to sun and circles. Planetary correspondences like the Ibis, the Hare, and Hazel being “Mercurian.” You’ve probably seen plenty of them, but I figure some examples can’t hurt.

Me I like to contemplate correspondence regularly. My preferred methods are to do so when walking, relating things I see to the I Ching. Sometimes it’s in quieter contemplation of symbols, meanings, and the changes of the world. It’s an erratic but regular part of my practices.

In time, I found the following values in Correspondence Charts.

First, when you contemplate these things, you may find actual powerful correspondence. You know the one where you suddenly realize there’s something there to, say, realizing just how appropriate it is to associate a certain god with a certain food. There’s that feeling, almost that synchronicity, of understanding something that seems to thrum beneath the skin of the world.

I can’t describe it perfectly but you probably know what I mean.

Secondly, as you contemplate correspondence, you also find associations that may not be “true” but are useful and interesting. Yes you didn’t have some deep sense of connection by, say, realizing what snack foods correspond to what Planets, but it was still interesting. It might not be deep or universal but you learned something and felt some inspiration and you see things differently.

Essentially you got creative and though you didn’t find a universal truth, you found a personal one. You also may have learned some things about yourself.

Third as you contemplate correspondences you’ll have ideas and intuitions that you realize are completely made up and probably total bullshit even if they seemed relevant for a while These bullshit ideas are also extremely useful as well. I consider them part of the value of Correspondence charts.

When you have some deep insight that turns out to be you having one over on yourself, you understand yourself a lot more – you know how you can make stuff up. In turn you also understand how people themselves can make stuff up. It may even give you a better bullshit detector over time. Plus even if it’s bullshit, maybe it’s interesting.

So yes, Correspondence Charts and contemplation of them has value. From deep insights to creative thought to utter bullshit you learn from, they’re valuable in many ways. You might be able to cast an I Ching better or realize you can think some incredibly wrong stuff in the right conditions. Either way you’re actively engaged with connecting to the Universe and yourself.

As a closing example, let me share an experience that was part of what shaped this essay. On one of my walks, I saw a flag, and thought how in my work with the I Ching it was Fire (visual) and Wind (blown by the wind, naturally). Suddenly I recalled how I considered books to be Fire and Wind (which is also Wood in the I Ching). A flag was a Book written on the wind!

Of course after that rush of thought I also realized some flags just hang, so some are written on gravity. In fact what had inspired my whole rush of insight was a flag that was just hanging there. So I guess that was the hexagrams of Fire and Mountain, or maybe Fire and Earth. I felt both very clever and also a bit of a doofus at the same time.

This cleverness and dofus-ness inspired me to write this essay. So something came out of my insights and my bullshit.

–Xenofact

The Petty People

by

In reading various Taoist documents, especially some of the various comments on the I Ching (“The Tao of Organization,” and the “Taoist I Ching,” both translated by Thomas Cleary), I often see comments on “petty men” or “lesser men” and so on. I had a revulsion to these terms, but the more I saw them used, the more I started wondering what the authors meant, and that lent to some interesting conclusions. The conclusions are also instructive in analyzing such documents, so you get to read a column about it.

So in regarding “petty people” (let’s not be gendered here), the more I saw it used, the more I realized it wasn’t a simply dismissive term. Sometimes it was a simple acknowledgement that people had small moral and personal capacity – but they had a chance to grow. However most times it was very dismissive, a warning of people whose smallness was far worse, an outright danger.

Many of these discussions were also couched in terms of yin and yang, the receptive and the initiating – hardly a surprise as my two major sources were I Ching translations. In such takes on the I Ching of a social nature, yin and yang usually refer to followers and leaders. However depending on the time and place of a person, leadership or following could be good or bad.

In many cases warnings about “petty people” would come, often referring to them as yin, as followers. Yin and yang had their places, petty people however seemed to be followers, and often those were in the wrong place. Sometimes you might have a “petty person” in an appropriate follower spot, but often not – they seemed to get into the wrong place for them.

At some point as I contemplated this, it struck me why we had warnings about petty people. The dangerous petty people, the ones we got warnings about instead of “they need to grow” were followers who thought they were leaders.

Then a lot of what I was reading became clear. Or I’m arrogantly assuming I figured it out, but at least by writing it down you can put me in my place. Let me not be a petty person.

The “petty people” that we got warnings about were people who thought they were leaders, thinking they had good ideas, had authority, had something to say.. But at heart they were followers, having neither the strength to implement real leadership, but also probably easily led by other people and forces. Not just people of small capacity, but small people acting large.

That realization quickly catapulted me to looking at history both recent and in the past. How much horror was inflicted by people who were small but in positions of leadership? Who were led by emotions, manipulated by others, perhaps even knowing how small they were and angry about it. Insecure and arrogant and of limited ability and understanding.

I also thought about annoying internet personalities and influencers. Watching people put on performances, acting like they had something to say, but down deep they were mouthing platitudes or repeating what others said. They were acting like leaders while just following trends and imitating knowledge and characters. Many suffered audience captures, so-called leaders slavishly following their viewers or readers.

Leaders who are really followers. People who were, essentially, lied to themselves and to others. Those were the petty people various Taoist authors had warned me about. OK, that I assumed they were warning me about.

And perhaps my take is spot on and I’m brilliant. Or perhaps I’m off, but had a useful insight. Either way that’s an insight that helps me understand the world, all inspired by some Taoist writings and two big takes on the I Ching.

Which is why, to loop it all back, thinking over books like these are useful. You make the effort to think and analyze and learn a lot – and it may not matter if you went a bit off the rails or not. You learned something.

I suppose if I can keep learning, I’m at less risk of being one of those petty people.

–Xenofact

A Dialog Across Time

by

A large part of mystical practices is about correspondences among things. Omens and runes, Sephiroth and Hexagrams, all are about a the deep orders and patterns of the universe. Then again what is mysticism of all stripes but the idea of an involved, deep, living universe?

Of course anyone who’s dealt with correspondences in such practices knows there are two things you can count on:

  • A history of charts, graphs, grids, lists, and so on trying to understand these correspondences.
  • People not agreeing on these things currently or throughout history. Sometimes quite pointedly.

It’s strange, isn’t it? Anyone who’s read a tarot or cast Hexagrams has had those moments where things just line up. You know you’ve stumbled onto something deep, something real where all those correspondences and commentaries line up . . .

. . . but also there’s so much out there talking about those correspondences. From online arguments to ancient commentary it’s a bit overwhelming.

How are we to deal with all these writings on correspondences over time? As a person interested in the I Ching, I’m used to hearing people discuss commentaries by various authors centuries or even aeons apart. I even have translations of two specific commentaries on the I Ching, one for meditative practices, one for organizational practices. It takes a certain level of commitment to decide you want to detail good organization advice for sixty-four different hexagrams.

But needless to say these historical commentators aren’t always on the same page. Or the same book. It can be confusing or even distressing, as you wonder if someone has gone off the rails or is just to deep for you or is using a regional or timebound reference.

Over time I’ve come to think of all these commentaries and charts, conflicting as they may be, conflicting as their creators may be, as an effort over time. We’re all trying to figure out how the universe works, how the parts line up, to find the structure behind reality. They may not agree, but maybe by study we can find more about just how it all lines up. We can be part of the dialogue, but that’s going to take us stepping up, reading, contemplating, and thinking.

Nothing is right. Nothing is perfect. You could write the most complete and accurate book on mystical correspondences ever, but how much of it might be bound by time, place, and cultural references? But a dialogue? A dialogue is something that can go on over time.

We can even be part of it.

– Xenofact