“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" --Einstein
Change, in the common sense, surely involves space-time. Barring quantum superposition and related phenomena, for a single object to exist in, say, two discrete states O and O', some interval must elapse wherein occurs the alternation from one state to the other; otherwise, one or more of our premises were violated. This is so fundamental to experience that it resists further explanation. The word 'event,' an happening, explicitly involves space-time. Quantum physicists insist that the nature of physical Experience is essentially event-based, thus discontinuous. This discontinuity manifests in the field of space-time, but we -- enveloped, as it were, within it -- largely fail to perceive this.
To assert, therefore, that the Book of Changes is related to space-time and its measurement is a reasonable proposition already treated at some length here and here. Returning to our theory, the numbers 260 and 360 are found to be inherent characteristics of the essential elements of the Book of Changes and its form. This discovery involved two differing interpretative modes or "views."
|3-D depiction of Wen and xiantian pairs|
In the graphic at right, Wen pairs are represented by the shell, while xiantian pairs form the core. Together they comprise the Changes depicted here in 3-dimensional form. The semantic content relevant to our discussion of Wen's pairings emerges from a simple transformation.
The second view involves a peculiar spatial arrangement of complementary opposites. The semantic extracted by way of this view seems to require more than one dimension to permit its clear and concise expression. Once the 32 pairs of complementary opposites are transformed -- this time by proper arrangement on a square matrix -- the latent information manifests.
As a side note, we observe that these two modalities interrelate by means of xiantian (complementary opposition). In a related sense, tzolk'in and tun combine to form the Maya Long Count.
We reiterate earlier assertions: the numbers 260 and 360 are derived simply from the 64 elements and form of the Book of Changes, not from tradition, although tradition* certainly informs and confirms our findings. Moreover, we do not "massage" the numbers out of the Changes using elaborate calculations. Finally, no specialized vocabulary is required to detail our findings.
*Tradition, in this context, refers to Ta Chuan, an appendix of the Book of Changes.