People travelling (transporting their bodies) tend to transport their minds and become unaware of their immediate surroundings. That is why it is possible to travel several miles on a motorway with no memory of that part of the journey. A lack of novelty disconnects us. This is the normal humdrum state of many people.
But if you place the word 'Blue' in travelling people's minds, they will see blue everywhere they look. Or red. It will appear as if blue (or red) has some significance.
The world is unsurprisingly full of random coincidences. If you are in humdrum state, you won't be aware of most of them. But if you are, in the zen sense, fully aware, you will notice many of them.
And, if you are 'tuned in', or sensitised, you may impose significance on these random events. But there is no significance, except internally.
There is no statistical evidence that Friday 13th is more dangerous than any other, or that walking under ladders, or seeing black cats have any significance other than heightening sensitivity to other events that occur in association.
My position is that all these are internally significant (ie in the mind), but externally (as a descritpion of reality) insignificant. Such things as the I-Ching or the Tarot are interesting to study for the internal effects. You can't be me, I'm taken
Not quite. If you're truly in the Zen state, more coincidences will happen.
And they will be outrageous coincidences that have no business happening, and simply don't happen at all when you're not in the Zen state.
Selective attention only goes so far as an explanation. (Based on my experience, anyway.)
But that doesn't explain the outrageous coincidences.
Here's a koan for ye.
"I'm old and forgetful," said Joshu. "Have I met you before?"
The monk answered, "No sir, you have not."
"Well then, sit down and have a cup of tea with me," said Joshu.
Another monk came up to ask Joshu a question.
"Yes sir, of course you have," said the second monk.
Later, when the others were gone, the managing monk of the monastery came over to Joshu, who was making another pot of tea.
"How is it," said the manager, "that you make the same offer of tea whatever the reply to your question?"
At this Joshu stood up.
"Manager!" he shouted. "Are you still here?"
"Of course I am!" the manager answered.
(Stolen and modified from here.)
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
(Or as we call it in the UK - Mornington Crescent.)
Rorschach ink blot.
(A butterfly? A strange alien being shooting goo?)
The Tarot Card for The Fool.
What it means I have no idea whatsoever, but I don't think it's doing the same kind of work as the ink blot.
Mind you, I no nosseeng about the tarot and have had a prejudiced aversion to the cards--and what I thought of as the concept--based on past experience with...well...with depressed people in long skirts...and telly programmes with old ladies who cackled, or princesses and treasures and woe to ye!
But I will fight my prejudices!
If you remember my diary on the Matrix Collision? You can't be me, I'm taken
From what I see, tarot involves multiple (contradictory?) suggestions and so is a gothic (oldie woldie) tool for opening thought processes a la your comments above; whereas the I-Ching involves a cohesive world view broken into 64 parts with each part subdivided into 6 (and also into twos and threes) which subdivisions change the meaning of the 64 parts and feed one into the other.
So, I think there is internal logic to the I-Ching, there is human interaction with the tarot, and the ink blot is the interaction of unconscious structures with a single outside event...
(Or sommat...I'm not sure I expressed the rorschach bit correctly...) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Were you to read Papus' book the Tarot of the Bohemians, you would find the idea that underneath the divisions of the major and minor arcana there are hermetic concepts such as male-female-progeny-recycle, the yod as the life force derived from the name of god, and a whole bunch of other seemingly intricately woven logic. Just as with the I-Ching. These structures are, of course ;-), projected onto a bit of culture i.e. the original authors, or an evolving set of authors, rorschached their own interpretation of sigils and signs laying about in their cultural matrix.
Nobody asked them to do it, but life itself kind of asked them "What do you see?"
A cricket match would hardly be self-explanatory to someone who had never heard or seen it before, and who had no cultural references for it. They might try to explain it in their own terms (14 men in white go into a big field, put six sticks in the ground, and then it rains) orm like the Cargo Cult of PNG, they see things beyond their understanding such as aeroplanes which land and disgorge gifts and assume that it is the pattern of the layout of the airfield that is attracting these 'birds' from the sky. Since they want the gifts too, they build their own 'landing strips' to attract the birds.
What you see is only what you are able to see with the references that you have. You can't be me, I'm taken
