Tag Archives: duality

Bringing Balance – IC – Sept. 21, 2020

Today’s reading is a perfect example of timing – synchronicity, if you will. Because BALANCE describes the equinox energy of Friday, the 22nd of September.

Spring and fall equinoxes occur when the sun crosses the equator, making day and night equal in length.

In the northern hemisphere, September’s equinox marks the first day of fall, a momentary crossroads of balance before beginning the gradual decline into winter.

Many meanings are assigned to the change of seasons. On a practical level, autumn is the time of harvest – and storage, preparing for the winter ahead.

Spiritually, the fall equinox is seen as a time for gratitude and internal reflection. The cycle of seasons is associated with the cycle of human life, birth to death, as well as the eternal struggle between light and darkness.

Natural Law recognizes the world as a place of duality. Day opposes night. Summer’s heat and abundance stands in contrast to winter’s cold and hardship. Infinite pairs of similar opposites repeat everywhere, on all levels. Love – hate, peace – war, wealth – poverty, success – failure.

In this context, BALANCE emphasizes the vital importance of knowing when and how to moderate extremes.

Mind you, moderation is NOT non-committal, middle-of-the-road, boring blandness!

It’s disaster prevention.

Sages were keenly aware that, as a law of nature, every extreme changes into its opposite. Extreme passion lapses into disgust and aversion. Extremes of power, whether physical or social, change to impotence. Violent anarchy triggers opposite and equal repression.

They knew for a certainty that in duality, nothing is endless or timeless. So, those close to nature respect the survival implications of the equinox. They live moderately in times of plenty to prevent future times of hardship. Similarly, effective leaders exercise their power wisely to prevent future revolt.

Today’s Book of Change Reading

Whenever working with the Book of Change, to assure protection and attract benevolent guidance, we begin with an invocation. Next, we quiet the mind and focus intention. In fact, to get the most out of today’s dynamic reading, you might want settle the noisy mind a bit before continuing.

BALANCE is the original answer to the question, “What do we need to be aware of now?” But it’s qualified by two changing lines. In combination, these result in a second outcome, DEVELOPMENT.

Here’s the initial hexagram:

Given the intense toxicity of current events, the final warning, “avoid extremes,” is right on point!

For the consequences of polarizing extremes are upon us, full force. We’re reaping the rewards of imbalance — in the economy and in politics. The repercussions of unbalanced attitudes and lifestyles reverberate everywhere around us – starting with our personal relationships and social lives.

But at this pivotal moment, the equinox offers an opportunity to recognize the benefits of bringing balance back into our lives. . . . restoring harmony to our beliefs, actions, and relationships.

Next, the changing lines offer further insight. Heeding them opens possible avenues of change. In the notebook, they’re marked this way:

(If you have questions about changing lines, here’s a helpful link. In particular, see Section 11 – Method and Section 13 – Sample Reading.)

The advice of Line 5 says, “Do not confuse humility with weakness. Act decisively when necessary.”

On a personal level, I take it as a reminder to stand my ground with folks who take advantage of my gentleness. (“Don’t mistake this gentle Leo for a wimp!”)

On a national scale, it resonates with U.S. politics. For example, owning up to past racism isn’t grounds for allowing rioters to destroy inner cities. Two wrongs don’t make things right. Pitting hate against abuse of power doesn’t balance the scales of justice.

Line 5 changes to RESISTANCE. This dynamic repeats through to the end of 2020. I’ll let you decide how it applies to your own experience.

Then, the top line warns, “Take steps to remove flaws in your character. Exercise self-responsibility.”

This advice reflects a basic law of nature. Positive change happens only from the inside out, and one person at a time. Put another way, I can’t expect others to act responsibly towards me unless I first take responsibility for my own attitudes and behavior. That’s why Gandhi told us, “Be the change you want to see.”

This line changes to STILLNESS, another recurrent theme through the end the year:

Again, in perfect synch with the season, STILLNESS plays a central part in equinox celebrations. Practicing meditation is universally recognized as an important step to take towards removing personal flaws.

Also, though STILLNESS is the flip-side of RESISTANCE, both are offshoots of the same rule. Change happens from the inside out, and from smallest to largest.

For this reason, I commented on a video where Pam Gregory describes hellacious astrological influences over the next few months:

. . . after receiving “change” readings from now to year’s end (especially in light of this video’s info), I urge anyone involved in organizing worldwide vigils praying for peace to schedule as many group meditations as possible before the US election.

Rest confident. Even when there’s no physical way to change the world, by stilling the mind and achieving inner peace, we always have the power — individually and collectively — to make a difference.

Finally, when the advice of both changing lines is heeded, the end result is DEVELOPMENT. It looks like this:

In sum: nothing’s going to change over night. There’s no “magic pill.”

Take things one day at a time — consistently, calmly and gently (another recurring theme). Bringing balance back, first inside and then out, is the necessary way out of 2020’s madness.

Again, to repeat from We’re At Critical Mass: During times of polarizing extremes, we need the stabilizing influence of the Book of Change more than ever.

Working with this enduring, time-tested compendium of natural law brings calm reason and measured hope to apparently impossible situations. It shines clarity on current events, restoring perspective during times of painful confusion and doubt.

If you want your very own copy of the Common Sense Book of Change to work with, to answer your own unique questions at your own convenience, or want extras to give others in need of insight, solace and support, it’s available here. : )

Okay, then. That’s all for now. Talk with you again soon. Take care, all.

What’s Your Answer to Hamlet’s Existential Question?

The last post, How Do You Define GOOD, opened with a basic law of nature: in duality, every coin has two sides. “Whatever has a front, has back. The larger the front, the larger the back.” It  explains why surface appearances are often deceiving.

I bring the Two Sides Law up here again in answer to comments from a recent LinkedIn post, To Be or Not To Be PC? There, political correctness was defended:

PC is often viewed incorrectly, fundamentally it is a collective societal attempt to correct social inequity – the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I responded:

Understood . . . As an Ed Admin grad student, I wrote a paper for a law seminar on Affirmative Action. I observed that, however worthy the goals, the legislation missed the point. Not only was it unenforceable. It would trigger backlash. Which in time proved to be a correct assessment. I recommended Positive Action as a viable alternative for achieving the legislation’s worthy goals then — and still do. The surface definition of PC is, of course, impeccable. But applications and abuses have drifted so far afield from the verbal window dressing and original intent as to be unrecognizable. “Good intentions . . . “

These days, when promises seem too good to be true, I instinctively know they’re a ruse — a cover for something opposite and equally awful. A Shakespearian observation captures the gist. “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

“Change we can believe in?” “Social equity?” Methinks such slogans are market-tested veneer, engineered by behind-the-scenes puppet-masters to tap into and exploit our deepest desires and highest aspirations. They mask political agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with seductive but empty wrappers. When politicians protest too much, you can depend on their front being a cynical cover for unacceptable, unspeakable motives.

To Be or Not To Be PC

Remember Daniel-san and Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid? After Daniel wins the tournament, John Kreese, abusive Sensei of Cobra Kai, corners Miyagi in the parking lot and swings at him twice.

Miyagi simply ducks. Kreese misses, smashing first one fist and then the other through a parked car window, shattering the glass and lacerating both hands.

In Karate Kid III, Kreese calls on a Vietnam war buddy to act as the agent of his revenge. Treacherous but slick, Terry Silver, wealthy owner of a toxic waste disposal corporation, confuses Daniel to the point of self-destruction. Daniel mistakes his best friend for his enemy, and vice versa.

“Have no mercy,” was Kreese’s creed.

Silver gives Daniel three rules for winning an unfair fight. First, “If a man can’t stand, he can’t fight. So break his knees.”

Second, “If a man can’t breathe, he can’t fight. So break his nose.”

Third, “If a man can’t see, he can’t fight. So gouge out his eyes.”

That brings us back to the theme of an earlier post, “Change the Rules of the Knowledge Game.” The progressive/atheist Rules of the Politically Correct Game prevent believers (along with those they try to control) from being able to see and take a positive stand against evil.

PC advocates confuse the public, presenting true friends of the people as enemies, and vice versa. Even the existence evil is cast into doubt. It’s quibbled away in double-talk speculations, relegated to the fringes of speculative theory – outside the “accepted” rules of what can be known.

By PC standards, the concept of evil is demeaned, presumed to be a moralistic, judgmental, prejudiced fiction. This is a Yes and No. But denying the existence of evil by an exclusively materialistic standard prevents believers from being able to see grave danger, name it and protect from it – much less fight intelligently and successfully against it.

Is there method to this madness? Take a moment to think about it. Who stands to benefit from this blindness? Who stands to lose?

This picture of the PC problem may help:

Can't See.sized

Here’s how the Motive/Purpose/Intent (MPI) standard – the Why/How/What – applies to Daniel’s situation. He sees the surface What of Mr. Miyagi’s refusing to train him for another karate event. He compares it to Silver’s sly What – an all-too-eager willingness to act has his trainer.

What Daniel doesn’t know because he can’t see them are the underlying intangibles. Mr. Miyagi doesn’t support the fight because there’s no worthy Purpose. His Motive is to protect Daniel’s best interests. In contrast, Silver has set Daniel up to fight, even pressured him into entering the contest. But his ulterior Motive (the Why) is to exact revenge. His Purpose (the How) is to defeat and humiliate Daniel as painfully as Kreese was beaten, breaking Miyagi’s heart in the process.

Details. But important ones. For lack of inner awareness, Daniel was steered into a world of hurt. As are we all in similar circumstances.

Here’s another example of confusions resulting from operating on limited and limiting PC rules taken taken directly from an ongoing LinkedIn discussion in the New Philosophy Network. The thread is called HOW DO YOU DEFINE EVIL?

I entered the discussion, thinking my viewpoint would be interesting, perhaps even helpful, by offering this comment:

I’ve written to this subject, so let me sum up a few basics from my perspective. First, morality is technically an ephemeral social construct at the surface of the Life Wheel, whereas virtues (compassion, including kindness, gentleness, courage, etc.) are inherent potentials residing at the middle level of the Wheel. Evil in Positive Paradigm context is defined as destructive acts or intentions which violate the integrity of the whole, the aim of destroying the life pattern itself. If there’s further interest, pictures and explanations are available online. Pls. see http://wp.me/p46Y5Z-9B (“How Bad People Become Leaders”).

There were two responses. One dismissed the definition as a bit obtuse. The other seemed like a back-handed compliment – condescending, perhaps flirtatious. Thanks Patricia, nice and simple for a simple mind like me to understand. I would love to read some of your books 🙂

Not sure what to make of this, I reviewed many of the 523 comments posted over the past 24 days. They were sickening, both literally and figuratively.

The opening statement, made by medical doctor and research scientist, is this:

Christians condem anyone who does not follow their beliefs to live forever in Hell ( the bosom of all evil) , Fundamentalist followers of Islam believe everyone who does not follow their beliefs are evil and condem them to death via evil attrocities, Other religions have gods to protect them against evil, and gods to explain evil. Society explains evil through Freudian concepts of psycopathy and sociopathy. It would seem that evil is perpetuated by intolerance of other peoples beliefs?
And is this not the basis of human conflict throughout all history? What are your philosophical views on this concept?

(Turns out, it’s the platform for promoting a forthcoming book.)

But a wide range of contributors — atheists, agnostics and theists – chime in. The first comment reads, Evil is just anything contrary to the norms of the one judging and no more. The concept rests on inauthentic or authoritarian thinking.

A “top contributor” takes it upon himself to moderate the discussion, repeating the same mantra, straight out of the PC progressive handbook – evil is what effectively undoes or blocks any progress to greater purposeful complexity and abundance.

Suffice it to say, the level of discourse quickly degenerates into a testosterone-saturated, contentious and extraordinary disrespectful exchange. “Childish” comes to mind. The troll word is thrown back and forth. On the defensive, one commenter states:

I would prefer your responses were less transparently hostile (and as abusive of metaphor as you have accused me of being, I suspect to win the point). : ) I am not a member of any sort of ‘guys’ and my pants are on.

One remark criticizes the self-nominated moderator: Your sarcasm is showing; you should at least try a little to be more balanced, your post is so one-sided and shows such negative bias you should be embarrassed at the lack of balance. It’s so unbalanced it reminds me of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. . . .

To some extent, I empathize with the deep, underlying frustration. They’re struggling inside the box of dysfunctional paradigms. Trapped as if in a Japanese wicker-woven finger-prison, the harder they struggle to get out, the stucker they get. They sense that somewhere, somehow, something is terribly wrong – but without a comprehensive paradigm, they have no way to identify the heart of the problem much less find positive solutions.

I’ll speak further to important issues from this heated discussion in the next post, “The Great Reconciliation.” But here, the subject remains defining evil.

In “How Bad People Become Leaders,”I offered another picture, defining “evil” as anti-life: intentionally shattering and fragmenting the creative pattern. In Positive Paradigm context, the intentions and actions of any person (or group) that destroys its own and/or threatens to annihilate enemy groups, devoid of respect for the inherent sanctity of life, are defined as evil.

In metaphysical circles, by the way, in addition to extremes of black and white magic, there are shades of gray and yellow, depending on the extent of harm done and degree of intentionality.

In Karate Kid III, the central villain runs a toxic waste disposal business – an apt metaphor for abusive defenders of toxic PC ideas and attitudes! Why do I take such exception to PC “ideologies?” Because misleading, dysfunctional paradigms are life-threatening, a danger even to human survival itself.

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the procrastinating prince debates the suicide option: To be or not to be, that was his question. He waivers and philosophies right up the the 11th hour. As a consequence, in the final act, the stage is littered with bodies – not only his, but also others whom he might have saved.

If rules of the knowledge game prohibit the general population from seeing genuine evil clearly for what it is and if they inhibit us from standing firm against it, they effectively prevent us from protecting ourselves and those we love from it’s toxic, destructive effects. In the name of tolerance, PC progressives pretend to be the best friends of minorities and women. In practice, they function as worst enemies. As a first step, would-be survivors must restore a full-spectrum reality map that allows them to recognize who’s who, and what’s what.

To be or not to be, asked Hamlet. That is the question. Today, to be or not to be PC is the burning issue. Whether to commit national, even global suicide through ignorance, or to WAKE UP to existing dangers of Titanic proportion and take a positive stand – while there’s still precious time left.

Good News & Bad News for Millennials

In duality, every gift has positive uses as well as opposite and equal abuses. The two-edged consequences of working with the Book of Change are no exception.

So when an ambitious millennial marketer of digitized experience – simulated sex, happiness and good mood “music” – tweeted me that his software products are based on the binary-digital code of the I Ching, I cringed. What?? Not possible. The primary purpose of this discipline is to quiet the emotional mind-body as a necessary first step in listening to conscience and making better decisions.

After a review the business website (I won’t embarrass him by naming it), I tweeted back indignantly. “This is an abomination. No connection. Don’t compare.” He quickly backtracked, replying he only intended personal respect for the book.

Why such an intense response? Let me refer back to the Old Testament, which repeatedly mentions the laws of nature codified in the I Ching in their correct, larger context. Many are familiar with King Solomon’s verses about natural change:

For ever thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.

Here, nature is placed between reason (purpose) on the one hand, and heaven on the other.

But how many recall the prophet Daniel’s vision of nature in necessary relationship to the unchanging Creator. From the King James Version:

2:20 . .  Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

2:21. He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and seteth up kings:

and giveth wisdom unto the wise . . .

The Book of Change can be instrumental in the mindfulness practice of slowing down, regulating and reconnecting an individual’s noisy mind with the intuitive, True Self. Correctly used, it is compatible with timeless Truth. But in the larger scheme of life, it serves as a gatekeeper. Nothing more.

Here’s an illustration worth 1000 words that pictures the valid and necessary place of the natural law codified in the I Ching.   It shows both what it is – a two-directional gatekeeper – as well as what it is NOT.

0 Only Way Out

Worshipping nature instead of God is upside-down. Stimulating senses with the effect of obliterating reason and blocking out the voice of conscience is an abomination. It is neither mind-expanding nor “spiritual.”

Daniel the prophet dream-seer interpreted important end-time visions for King Nebuchadnezzar (more on “the feet of clay” another time). He also interpreted the fatefully ominous message of handwriting on the wall for Nebuchadnezzar’s son, King Belshazzar, who indulged in natural sensations to the exclusion of nature’s God. (See wp.me/p46Y5Z-cm.)

It would be well worth the Millennial entrepreneur’s time to revisit the larger context of 2 John 1:11. “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

This is why it’s so important that I take a stand. Indulging the senses out of context is seductive but desperately foolish. It is a choice for the dark side. I cannot silently allow the claim of connection with this precious gift to anyone who abuses it.

Similarly, in larger, holistic context, math-based, computerized sciences are gifts bearing opposite and equal potentials for good or evil, depending on how and why they’re used, and by whom. They can facilitate friendships and connection, educate and spread useful information – OR – lull the sheep into deadly sleep . . . simultaneously facilitating the ends of genocidal murderers who wage wars of mass destruction.

Life, time and attention are all precious gifts. The gift of free will grants each of us the personal choice of whether to squander them or use them wisely.

So, there’s good news and bad news. The choice is up to you. Failing to choose is also a choice.

globe