So, nothing like some time wasters to get the week going. I personally love the HBO Series Game of Thrones ( and the book) and have been thinking of doing a Game of Thrones BaZi series, explaining the characters in the context of BaZi. But in the meantime, found this website Join the Realm and had fun creating a bunch of sigils.
So here are the Sigils for all 10 of the ‘Elemental Houses’.
This is one my personal favourites:
For some reason, I was inspired to make two House of Ding:
This is Lance Armstrong’s chart (hour not correct). I thought I would continue some of the discussion about his chart here.
Postscript: the Luck Pillars have now been included into the post.
So the thing about this chart is what made him cheat/dope? I have been thinking about this, especially because when I first looked at the chart, it did not scream ‘CHEATER’ to me. Honestly I was a little surprised because I didn’t immediately see the Stars that I’d expected to see in the strength that I expected to see them. Not of course that the ‘cheater’ Stars (7K, RW and more to the point, IR) were not present – in the chart, these stars ARE present but not in overwhelming strength although granted, the HOUR is not determinable (although given the circumstances, it would be an educated guess that it’s either a Dragon or a Dog or an Ox). But the broad composition of the chart is not suggestive of a cheater. It is strongly suggestive of a highly competitive personality, but that does not equate with cheating.
Also been thinking about some answers I got from students over the weekend about their expectations on what they should be able to do after learning BaZi to a certain level. One student said he wanted to be able to do matching of staff to job requirements in his workplace and it occurred to me to ask if the person felt they were qualified in terms of real world knowledge (as opposed to BaZi knowledge) as to what a particular job demanded in terms of skillsets in order to successfully do the matching. If you have ZERO knowledge of how to define a particular set of skills for a specific type of job, how will you know if the BaZi chart matches the criteria?
Which brings me back to Lance Armstrong and the world of cycling, of which I know little about. Until of course, this whole debacle came out. And then there was ONE TELLING STATEMENT that I read in an article that sort of turned the lightbulb on for me on this whole thing. Normally, when a winner of a particular sporting event (ie: Olympics) is declared a cheat, the next in line will receive the medal. This was the case with Ben Johnson and Marion Jones. Their medals were stripped (or in Jones case, returned) and given to the next in line aka clean winner. But when it came to the Tour De France during the years that Armstrong was the winner, EVERY SINGLE CYCLIST who finished behind him was caught for doping.
It is now emerging that possibly, the world of cycling, in the period that Armstrong was riding, was a world where doping was de rigeur. It can be argued that in Armstrong’s chart, the DW star is almost as strong as the RW star. These two stars are contrary to each other but they also need each other in a sense. When DW is strong, the RW is needed to help the Day Master successfully control the strong DW. DW follows the rules, RW skirts them. So how do we reconcile this situation in the context of Lance Armstrong?
Well, one way to look at it was that he was a very competitive personality but one who also wanted to play by the rules. And in his mind, given that doping was rampant, Armstrong WAS playing by the rules by doping. The fact that he became exceptionally good at it from various accounts is demonstrative of his RW star and probably discovering the hidden potential of his IR star within the Pig of his year when it comes to out-thinking the testers and officials.
But did he intend to cheat to win or did he simply cheat because he believed that was the only way to win? Elements of his chart (particularly the HO and DW stars) suggest this may have been his mindset, that he did not think he could win without drugs and that it was not cheating if everyone else is doing it. The misconception of the DW Star is that the DW Star follows the rules. It does – whichever are the RULES OF THE DAY. Rules do not necessarily have to be ethical – notice that there is no DO star to speak off in Armstrong’s chart. A DW and DO star together would follow the rules but only follow the rules if they were ethical. A DW Star that is present WITHOUT a DO star will not react in the same manner. So if the rules of the day says that every guy who is competing against you is cheating, then you have to cheat too because that’s what the system is.
Maybe that’s why in Lance Armstrong’s own way, he doesn’t believe he cheated.
From what I read on the US Presidential election, aspirant Mitt Romney has a bad case of gaffe-ology or a tendency to say the wrong thing. This is a really good example:
And the litany of incorrect statements goes on, not to mention a criticism of Romney’s campaign as lacking discipline by Republican commentator Peggy Noonan in the WSJ.
So what is the cause of all of these problems? Here’s a quick look at Romney’s Luck Pillars:
Mitt Romney (time of birth accurate)
To quickly recap, the current luck pillar is Bing Shen 丙 申
So, the reason for the tendency to be prone to gaffes is quite easy to understand in this chart. First and foremost, the output star is quite weak in this chart based on the season. Accordingly, public speaking is not this person’s forte, more so Geng Metal – when Geng uses the Hurting Officer, it is essentially using the Gui Water Stem. Gui Water is the mist – which is enigmatic, and also, chaotic. At best, it’s a cloud, at worst, it’s spit (yes, spit!). So it is NOT a surprise that Romney has been very vague about his policy ideas and giving people the whole ‘ when I get voted in I will know how to fix it’ – ideas are not this person’s strong suit as Geng is not naturally inclined to use Water. They need to be in the thick of problems and simply…chop their way out. If they are not in the thick of the problem, asking them what to do is a bit pointless really.
Now, the Rob Wealth Star in this chart is in an ungrateful punishment with the Indirect Wealth Star, with the 7 Killings Star also in the mix. In other words, whenever Romney tries to speak off the cuff/spontaneously (the RW star) he ends up in an ungrateful punishment with himself. Whenever Romney talks about money or how he made his money or how he will use his entrepreneurial skills to help America (the IW star), he is in an ungrateful punishment relationship with the people he is trying to convince (his RWs).
If we read the Hour Pillar as Romney’s constituents (meaning, the public and the people of the United States, and more directly, people he is trying to win over), there is an ungrateful punishment. So no matter what he says, it seems he just can’t say the right thing. Adding to the fact that he isn’t a naturally eloquent and communicative person to begin with because of the poor quality of the Output Star.
The DO star is the key to Romney but apparently according to anecdotal reports, he’s not a very disciplined person when it comes to practicing his speeches or rehearsing his messages or exercising discipline over his campaign. So Peggy Noonan is right, what Romney needs right now is a little more discipline on his campaign, especially with message. Using the Gui and being vague is a bad idea – using the Ding and being clear, exact, and precise about what he wants to do, is the right approach.
The current Luck Pillar is also a bit of the culprit behind the Gaffe-ology of Mitt Rommey – there is a Ungrateful Punishment between the Snake (again, the 7k/RW star) and the Friends Star suggesting bad advice possibly or listening to the wrong people but also, trying to seem like the every man (Friend Star) is not working for Romney. So trying to convince Americans he is ‘just like that’ is probably not a smart strategy here. This Ungrateful Punishment produces the Water element, which obviously is not an element that Geng Metal uses too well. Spit remember?
This scene from ‘Game of Thrones’ captures perfectly Xin and Yi, dueling against each other and yet, perfect complimentary allies. Who is the Yi? Why of course,” the grasper from a minor house with a major talent for befriending powerful people”.
Interestingly, the article was accompanied by a photograph of Bernard Madoff. Yes he of Ponzi scheme fame. The article references the work of Dan Ariely, whose book, ‘Predictably Irrational’ is one of my favourite reads. (lest anyone here hasn’t realised it by now, BaZi is entirely about Behavior and has a lot of co-relation to Behavioral Economics)
I have excerpted several interesting parts of the article:
Studies conducted by Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University suggest that creativity fuels dishonesty and that dishonest behavior triggers creativity. “It may be a cycle that reinforces itself,” says Gino. “You could have a situation in which creativity initially pushes you across the line and then dishonesty heightens creativity, which might make it easier to cheat again. It’s a downward spiral.
Creative types are simply “at a higher risk for behaving unethically because they can more easily find reasons why their behavior is not problematic,” says Gino. In other words, original thinkers aren’t more ethically depraved than the rest of us; they’re just better equipped to find ways of being dishonest without compromising their own self-regard.”
From a BaZi standpoint, it is easy to understand this idea if you have an understanding of what are the Stars that are involved in the ‘creativity’ and ‘original thinking’ category, along with the ‘cheating’ and ‘dishonest’ behaviour category. Of course, the Behavioral Economists in the article are trying to work out IF Creative types are more likely to be dishonest and in BaZi, the composition of certain stars, predisposes a person to a greater likelihood to be creatively dishonest.
So, how do we find the creatively dishonest person or the cheating creative?
One of the best ways to frequently understand how a type of behaviour can manifest is to simply look at examples. Two examples stand out in my mind as the example of creatively dishonest: Bernard Madoff and Steve Jobs. [If you are wondering why Mr Jobs is on the creative dishonest list, its simply that it is well known that he often skated the line of innovation...the classic example being the Mouse, which many claim was 'borrowed' from a visit to the Xerox PARC lab]
Bernard Madoff's BaZi Chart (Time Not Accurate)
Steve Jobs chart is as follows:
A number of stars can result in dishonesty or dishonest behaviour:
Indirect Wealth can be dishonest because it is it is inclined towards shortcut success and because it has a ‘doesn’t matter how, as long as it gets done’ mindset. This attitude creates a predisposition towards dishonesty or cheating because it provides instant outcomes.
Rob Wealth can be dishonest because it is inclined towards achieving things quickly, and likes to use Huckleberry Finn tactics (it’s not stealing if you are making it better)
Indirect Resource is highly likely to be sly or at the very least disingenuous because again, it is the Star of shortcuts but also the star of ingenuity and thinking out of the box. And thinking out of the box by necessity involves thinking of ways to do it which involve skirting the rules or unorthodox methods. In particular, the Gino-Ariely study makes note that “original thinkers aren’t more ethically depraved than the rest of us; they’re just better equipped to find ways of being dishonest without compromising their own self-regard” – recall the Indirect Resource strengthens the Day Master whilst giving the person the ability to think out of the box or original-think. Further, in some instances, the Indirect Resource Star may also contain within it the Friend Star/Rob Wealth, which thus further enables people to engage in dishonesty without affecting Self-Regard. In other words, these are the people who are quite capable of lying to themselves.
Eating God may be inclined towards cheating or dishonesty but is more orientated on gaming the system because ‘the system is stupid so I’ll take advantage of it because I’m smart’ – this is an intellectual cheat if you like.
Hurting Officer is potentially inclined to cheat because they are about breaking the rules. However, people who cheat USUALLY do not like to tell the whole world that they have cheated, which does not necessarily sit well with the showboat ways of the Hurting Officer. The Hurting Officer is therefore in my view more inclined to break rules openly or be very candid with their dishonesty.
7 Killings is extremely inclined to play dirty, cheat and be dishonest because 7 Killings is all about winning, no matter what.
Now, it is not enough to have a dishonest behaviour star or stars in your chart alone to create a circumstance where a person will engage in creative dishonesty. You also need an additional pre-condition which is that the Honesty Stars are either weak or ineffectual or not needed in the chart. As such, the Direct Resource and Direct Officer Stars, or the Direct Wealth Star, must be weak or not present in the chart or not needed in the chart (especially the Officer Star) in order for the person to actually engage in creative dishonesty.
So, if we look at the chart of Bernard Madoff (sans Time of Birth), we will notice that the Month Branch (which always is a tipping point when it comes to determining inherent personality and behaviour) contains the Indirect Wealth and Eating God Stars. Although Bing Fire is prominent in the chart, this Star combines with the Day Master to produce Water, which creates an Indirect Hurting Officer Star (a Hurting Officer Star which is showy but has Eating God tendencies). The Day Pillar itself contains the Indirect Wealth Star, indicating a strong tendency towards again, shortcut methods of attaining wealth. Now, strictly speaking, Madoff did not engage in any form of exceptionally creative dishonesty – the Ponzi scheme per Wiki is named after Charles Ponzi, who first perpetuated it in 1920 but the origins of the Ponzi scheme go back to the time of Dickens. He was simply BOLD enough to actually do it. So in this respect, Madoff cannot really be said to be a creative dishonest person – he was just outright dishonest. Notably in this chart, the Rob Wealth Star is required, indeed, is needed to help the extremely weak Day Master – although the Rob Wealth Star, if needed, would tend to manifest its positive attributes, it should be recalled that in itself, the Rob Wealth Star has slightly dishonest (or at least, shortcut driven) tendencies.
In the case of Steve Jobs chart, the combination of Indirect Resource and Eating God (combining to produce the Self Star, which is Fire) clearly indicates a tendency to buy into the Piccassoian notion that it’s not stealing it you make it bigger than the sum of what it is – good artists copy, great artists steal. Throughout Jobs recently released ‘official’ biography, many people mention Jobs tendency to pass off ideas as his own. That is a form of creative dishonesty.
The Eating God-Indirect Resource tendency produces an individual who believes that he is superior to others intellectually – as such, in their minds, any form of creative dishonesty isn’t about cheating or dishonesty – it’s simply about the superiority of the idea or the outcome. If they gamed the system and it worked, then its not because they cheated, but because the system was stupid or inferior and deserved to be replaced. (incidentally, one of Jobs very first entrepreneurial endeavours involved building a device called a Blue Box that enabled people to make long-distance phone calls for free or very little money). In the instance of Eating-God + Indirect Resource personalities, money is rarely the motivation for the creative dishonesty – instead, it is about a triumph of the intellect or the superiority of the idea.
Indirect Resource + Indirect Wealth however will obviously yield a different outcome – this is the model more commonly seen in the financial industry. The charts of rogue traders Jerome Kerviel (Soc-Gen, 2008) and Kweku Adoboli (UBS, 2011) strongly suggest that Indirect Resource paired with Wealth Stars or 7 Killings yields high risk creative dishonesty. In both instances of the charts, the Indirect Resource Star is a key Star as it is needed.
Jerome Kerviel (time not accurate)
A final point however is that environmental factors matter as well in the outcome. One thing that Gino-Ariely’s paper doesn’t look at is how creativity in other industries (like the financial industry) results in dishonesty. Instead, the suggestion from Ariely’s book is that financial dishonesty is because of greed. In BaZi however, it’s fundamentally driven by one key star in my view, and that’s the Indirect Resource Star and what is it coupled with (both within the Branch, and inside the chart)
The composition of these Stars in the absence of opportunity in which to engage in cheating/dishonest behaviour in the first place, will reduce the likelyhood of such behaviour. So for example, in the financial industry, where the focal point is on performance (irregardless of how it is achieved) and making money (no matter how you do it), the rise of the Indirect Wealth/Indirect Resource/7Killings/Rob Wealth types (look at all the charts of the major partipants of the Wall Street 2008 financial disaster), in contrast to the traditional Direct Wealth, Direct Officer, Direct Resource profile of old school bankers, has corresponded with the demands of the industry. In the tech industry, Indirect Resource coupled with Output Stars tends to result in innovation dishonesty (idea stealing) as opposed to financial dishonesty (stealing money). In this regard, it can be argued that we think its okay for someone to break the rules if the end result is something really cool, but it’s not okay to break the rules if it results in a corporation losing billions.