it was only a way to shake up my thinking about questions: I'd get some "answer" that forced me to try to look at whatever I was wondering about in some way different from whatever way I had been looking at it, which I supposed could be helpful if I didn't take the "answer" too seriously as a definite "answer." Then I put the I Ching down and never went back to it as divination, though from time to time, I've picked up my copy to wonder about how various ideas in it are connected
How do I interpret my stichomancy reading?
we were obliged to double our pace, and were so happy as to pass it without meeting with any misfortune, except that we heard a bird sing on our left hand -- a certain presage among these people of some great calamity at hand. As there is no reasoning them out of superstition, I knew no way of encouraging them to go forward but what I had already made use of on the same occasion, assuring them that I heard one at the same time on the right. They were happily so credulous as to take my word, and we went on till we came to a well, where we stayed awhile to refresh ourselves. Setting out again in the evening, we passed so near a village where these robbers had retreated that the dogs barked after us
How amazing! I see that this seems to be telling me what I'm already inclined to believe. Hmm. Come to think of it, much of what happens to me simply confirms my prior beliefs to me. I suppose that could be because my beliefs are so brilliantly and cleverly in accord with reality, that there just isn't much more for me to learn. Or maybe it's sarcastic: it could be telling me that I'm a pig-headed nitwit who is unable to accept any beliefs except those I already hold. I often dislike sarcasm, so if it's saying that, I don't particularly want to hear it. Hmm. If this little snippet of Lobo's Voyage to Abyssinia is helpful, maybe I should read the whole book. On the other hand, I don't think that's a particularly well-written passage, and I generally don't read stuff I don't consider well-written -- unless there's something definite to gain from the reading: I'll sometimes read badly math papers because I enjoy the math. But Lobo seems to have a superior nasty streak: he thinks some people are simply superstitious and credulous, and he's happy to manipulate them. Hmm. Maybe I have a superior nasty streak. But I don't manipulate people, and I don't call people names like superstitious or credulous -- though I'm certainly not above ribbing them, gently I think, though they may not always think my ribbing is gentle. No, I don't think I'll read Lobo's book: I've got books stacked around even room in my house, partially read; every paragraph I read in a really good book produces cascades of possibilities and doubts in my own mind: but from this one paragraph, I suspect that in reading Lobo's book I should simply wonder constantly why he wrote such dreadful dreck. Hmm. Stichomancy. Why shouldn't I just read a good book and see what I learn from it, instead of reading a "random" snippet? Of course, it's not really "random," since it's computed by a deterministic algorithm. I once had long arguments with a few people about what "random" actually means: I think Kolmogorov was right to indicate that the notionis best explained by computational complexity theory, and that "random" is just a catch-all phrase for stuff that's somehow too complicated for us to compute -- but that's just my opinion, and many people really dislike that idea. Ah, well. Another fifteen minutes wasted posting on DU
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
