The I Ching is viewed as an 'animated being' who speaks itself through the book. In this manner the action of consulting the book for answers is a process of interaction involving both the I Ching and the reader, and the result of this interaction is an interpretation of a fact, and subsequenntly anything that follows from the interpretation. Same ideas appear now everywhere. The movie we watched yesterday at our language teacher's place, Lola Rennt (Run Lola Run), discusses similar 'randomness' of happenings. Probability theories, in the Bayesian sense, are as mystical as the words of I Ching. The a priori probability in this sense is an interaction. Sir Harold Jeffereys was basically referring to the same kind of 'randomness' in the dialogue he created at the beginning of his 'Scientific Inference', by asking what happens if a mathematician arrives at a conclusion but loses his derivation sheets.
I agree with Western thinking that any number of answers to my question were possible, and I certainly cannot assert that another answer would not have been equally significant.
There is however a subtle difference that should be noted here. When a second answer is searched for, the question asked in the first time is already answered and the 'uncertainty' is probably already changed in the second time of inquiry. We very likely get a different answer in the second time because our question is already changed, for example, from what I Ching really means to whether the answer it gives me is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment