qiqong master projects

[Black Jack II]

To believe in this do you have to be mentally ill on some base level??

Kinda like a person who appears to be normal on the outside but who gets suckered and trapped into a absurd religous cult doctrine or is it more like they want to find something so beyond the physical that they make themselves believe anything to get the job done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu99GRUUN6Y

[NJM]

To believe in this do you have to be mentally ill on some base level??

Kinda like a person who appears to be normal on the outside but who gets suckered and trapped into a absurd religous cult doctrine or is it more like they want to find something so beyond the physical that they make themselves believe anything to get the job done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu99GRUUN6Y


Let me guess, they didn't let the two interview guys try it because they would be "hurt"?

[SaintSage]

To believe in this do you have to be mentally ill on some base level??

Superstition is ingrained into our ways of thinking. We all have superstitious thoughts and beliefs. Besides, have you heard some of the stories of Daoist Immortals? They do some of the same things, and the stories are taken as true and sacred. Would you call Daoists mentally ill?

Edit: Forgive me, I did not mean to imply the sacred stories of Immortals were superstition.

[herb ox]

Qi does not equal superstition or mental disease.

The two interview guys happen to be Bill Moyer, a respected journalist, and Dr. David Eisenberg, one of the very first western doctors to go to China to investigate this phenomenon of Qi. It's traditional in journalism not to get involved with those who you are investigating. However, later in the documentary, Moyer does have several first hand experiences of 'qi'.

Eisenberg's book "Encounters with Qi" came out in the early 80's and is quite compelling and well written, documenting some of the most peculiar examples of qi, unexplainable by a well trained western scientist.

Granted, some of the things shown may seem silly or exaggerated, but once you actually feel the qi of an experienced practicioner, you never can really know what's going on.

peace,

herb ox

[Corwyn]

black jack :( I am really disappointed in you!

Don't you know that failure to blindly accept the all powerful life force - which can not be seen, can not be measured, can not be tested and can not be independently replicated using any modern scientific method, and can only be accessed by those who have grown and evolved to a higher plain and opened their minds to accept such great powers - makes you a closed minded child!?

If you do not believe in such powers then it is YOUR fault for not being brave and intelligent enough to accept without proof the knowledge passed down to you by your betters. Keep your mind closed and live in ignorance.

If you care to summon your courage then the information is out there -
On the web you can find dozens of websites with link back to their own proof that what they said on page 2 is truth (never mind circular logic) and others like it with plenty of evidence from peoples stories. And ALWAYS keep in mind that using science or any basis in reality is simply further evidence that you are still operating at intelligence level of a 3 year old. So abandon all reason and rational thought and things will immediately start making sense.

And at the same time, know that TOP level scientists in TOP universities have been studying these powers for decades. Of course I can not name these scientists or published their test results in ANY peer review form because
A) the information is simply too powerful
B) other closed minded scientists who may want to ask pointed questions are simply part of the cabal to destroy these powers and keep them from the people.

[Corwyn]

oh, I didn't think I still had this on my pc and I didn't want to paraphrase it.
While I have outgrown Rand, as most people who read beyond High school philosophy do. I still think she's got a few things right. This stands pretty much at the top and explains the popularity and persistence of such non-sense.

"A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty.
At the crossroads of the choice between "I know" and "They say," he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think.
Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.
His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him."
Ayn Rand

[RonH]

And at the same time, know that TOP level scientists in TOP universities have been studying these powers for decades.

So, if only a certain group of people can't do something, it can't be done?

[Corwyn]

So, if only a certain group of people can't do something, it can't be done?

RIGHT, That's EXACTLY what I said:eek:

As opposed to the woo who believe in alien abductions, ghosts, vampires,
the Bermuda triangle, spiritual healing, holistic medicine and qigong (a different manifestation of the same illness) and all the other insane nonsense that DEMAND that one not only not question such things, but forsake all rational thinking! And these mysterious powers ONLY work for the "true believer" who requires no proof because he's already gave up rational thought when it comes to the specific woo he bought into. Yet EVERY piece of evidence that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable from every field of science that should be able to test this and operates independently comes to the same conclusion - You are a fruitcake, or simply being conned.

But we're the crazy ones :p

[Scott R. Brown]

"A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty.
At the crossroads of the choice between "I know" and "They say," he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think.
Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.
His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him."
Ayn Rand

This is the most foolish definition of a mystic I have ever read. No wonder Ayn Rand’s writings have been criticized as being soph0moric. She fancies herself a expert on subjects she knows nothing about. This is an ignorant definition of a mystic. While there are some who may consider themselves mystics that fit this narrow and ill-informed definition, this is NOT the historical definition of a mystic and is NOT even a close approximation of the character/personality of a true mystic.

At the crossroads of the choice between "I know" and "They say," he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think.

This is ludicrous! A mystic is just the opposite. They do NOT choose the “authority of others” they choose the authority of “direct experience” OVER the authority of others. DUH!!

They choose to trust their own indefinable experiences and explore them in order to see where they lead. This is NOT submission in contradistinction to understanding. It is seeking to directly experience and understand phenomena that cannot be understood without having the direct experience. You cannot know the taste of an orange until you have eaten one for yourself. Reason, no matter how well developed, will NOT provide one with the “experience” of the taste of an orange. Therefore, an individual presuming to be an expert on the taste of an orange must have tasted one themselves. The taste of an orange cannot be accurately taught to another without actually tasting an orange. Any rational argument, no matter how cleverly devised, will never communicate this "direct" experience to another. It is direct experience to which a mystic devotes himself. It is the foolish who consider themselves experts above and beyond those with direct experience of a phenomenon. This foolishness is exuberantly demonstrated by Rand in her ignorant definition.

Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.

I have never read such tripe!

First, there is no such thing as supernatural, only the unexplained. If a phenomenon occurs, IT IS NATURAL! It couldn’t occur at all if it wasn’t natural! DUH again!!! Even those with only rudimentary reasoning ability understand this! Phenomena that cannot be directly measured or explained are “referred to” as supernatural by the ill-informed.

Second, one of Rand’s errors is in not making the distinction between fakirs and mystics. Fakirs are charlatans; they con others into following false truths. Some fakirs are not intelligent enough to understand they are fakirs; others are simple minded followers of what they have been told and are therefore conditioned to believe certain phenomena are true without questioning them for themselves. These are the ones to which Rand refers and these individuals are NOT mystics. A true mystic investigates for themselves and thus directly experiences what has been called transcendental phenomena. A mystic does not ignore reason, they make use of it where it is appropriate, but also understand reason’s limitations.

If Rand had any understanding of the mystic tradition the distinction between fakirs and mystics would be clear! In the case of “true” mystic experience there is NO acceptance of the “superiority of others”. If this were the case the mystic would disregard experiences that do not conform to the world view of others. To conform to a popular world view that contradicts one’s own experience IS the “submission to the authority of others” of Rand. Seeking to explore and understand phenomena that do not coincide with the popular world view is the characteristic of an individualist, NOT a follower. It is the path of an independent mind, not the simple minded sheep of Rand’s view.

His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him."

This is, of course, a definition of an emotionally vulnerable person, a blind follower, NOT a mystic. One cannot be a mystic AND a blind follower since the purpose of a mystic is to experience directly for themselves. This being the case a mystic has a scientific mind rather than the emotionally dependent mind of Rand’s simplistic and ill-informed definition.

I have never had a high opinion of Rand and what little opinion I did have is now lower!

[RonH]

RIGHT, That's EXACTLY what I said:eek:

As opposed to the woo who believe in alien abductions, ghosts, vampires,
the Bermuda triangle, spiritual healing, holistic medicine and qigong (a different manifestation of the same illness) and all the other insane nonsense that DEMAND that one not only not question such things, but forsake all rational thinking!

That's an overgeneralization.

And these mysterious powers ONLY work for the "true believer"

If you didn't believe your legs worked, would you use them?

who requires no proof because he's already gave up rational thought when it comes to the specific woo he bought into.

If a patient is told by his doctor that his legs really work when he thinks they don't, do you think he'll believe the doc when he knows they don't work?

Yet EVERY piece of evidence that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable from every field of science that should be able to test this

Except, the ideas of mysticism have always held that they aren't like things such as electrons and protons. Many of the energies categorized in mysticism exist mostly at a higher vibration than things like solid matter and electromagnetic energy.

and operates independently comes to the same conclusion

If you try to do calculus with the german alphabet, you are gonna sabotage your own efforts.

[Corwyn]

Very nice - I didn't think I needed to quote the whole thing - but I guess this is one of those "depends on what your definition of IS is"

The first and only search I did for the definition of "mystic" at
dictionary. com came back with this result!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mys·tic /ˈmɪstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. involving or characterized by esoteric, otherworldly, or symbolic practices or content, as certain religious ceremonies and art; spiritually significant; ethereal.
2. of the nature of or pertaining to mysteries known only to the initiated: mystic rites.
3. of occult character, power, or significance: a mystic formula.
4. of obscure or mysterious character or significance.
5. of or pertaining to mystics or mysticism.
–noun 6. a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy.
7. a person initiated into religious mysteries.


And SURRPRISE SURRPRISE - picture Gomer Pile here - ALL 7 definitions clearly fit and are consistant with Rand's ( I can't believe I am defending Rand :eek: ) usage of the term while NOT a single one fits yours! But I guess that's part of woo world - whether it's defining chi or defining "kinds' from IDiots - they just make sh8 up to mean what ever happens to fit at the moment.

[Corwyn]

That's an overgeneralization.

WHY, everyone, and these are but a few, of the examples are a consistent example of what I was talking about. In order to believe them to be true, you must reject all rational, testable and repeatable evidence to the contrary

If you didn't believe your legs worked, would you use them?
If a patient is told by his doctor that his legs really work when he thinks they don't, do you think he'll believe the doc when he knows they don't work?

I guess you've never heard of psychosomatic paralysis and blindness!? TVRs from Dishnetwork became available when my oldest was about 5. Somehow he got it into his head that when you paused a show, you were stopping time - as in the universe not the show - and he would become upset to the point of being hysterical that we were destroying the world and more important to him his friends that he had a play date with. Just because he BELIEVED that this was happening to the point where he - very calmly and methodically - destroyed the remote control so that it would no longer work didn't make it so! Just because you live under the delusion that ghosts are real, demons can posses you, aliens kidnap you or that you have access to a mysterious power of the universe called chi doesn't mean it's anymore true !

PS I just thought of this - My 5 year olds thing was well before that movie with
- is it Sam Adams. So other people thought of this. Does this mean that my 5 year old tapped into some mystery of the universe on his own and you should now be sending him a $5 donation for a few grains of majic universe dust so you to can experience the space time continuum :p ?




Except, the ideas of mysticism have always held that they aren't like things such as electrons and protons. Many of the energies categorized in mysticism exist mostly at a higher vibration than things like solid matter and electromagnetic energy.

Exactly! and this is WHY it's a sign of mental illness no different then if you believe your the president, or Neapolitan etc etc.

Because if these "energies" exist and the human HAD a mechanism to control direct and use such "energies" in the PHYSICAL world we should easily be able to test, measure and duplicate it. But every time this is asked we get glossolalia.



If you try to do calculus with the german alphabet, you are gonna sabotage your own efforts.


Not even going to try to understand THIS one:rolleyes:

Seriously! Have you heard of Newton? His 3rd law - which has been around now for about 400 years!? states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is why if you try to push off a boat near the pier you often end up face first in the water, or why a gun has a recoil, or why you have to have firm stances when you punch. So lets JUST indulge your fantasy for a moment and claim that chi this - how did you put it - energies categorized in mysticism exist mostly at a higher vibration than things like solid matter and electromagnetic energy:rolleyes: exists. AND people can control and use it.
Lets further assume that this energy doesn't obey the laws of physics (they don't make a smiley face STUPID enough for this notions) how is it that human bodies are able to counter the laws of physics when using these powers? In the video, the victim flies back and flops all over the place yet the practitioner doesn't suffer any recoil at all! :cool: Mythbuster did a nice show showing this when they did the myth of the gunshot victim in movies flying backwards when getting shot.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.. There is much science will admit exists but it cannot measure.. it is always amusing to observe those that have such limited minds as to reject anything not measurable, or quantifiable.. they simply disregard that most of the science they rely on was once in the same category, unmeasurable and unquantifiable.. more ignorantly, these same people seem to think that science is done, that there is nothing left of discover.. they seem to believe that there can't be anything "new" out there..

Qi is a victim of legend and myth.. where our ancestors used the term to describe amazing feats that they had no science to explain.. well, now we have the science.. and the explanations cover several areas of science. i.e.: quantum physics, biophysics, electromagnetics, etc... So, people like Corwyn can hold their breath and stomp their feet all they want.. the descriptions of things related to Qi are quantifiable and measureable.. No, i'm not going to cite sources, check all the other threads where this perennial topic has been beat to death.. Corwyn and company get bored from time to time and start this up again.. leave them to their ignorance, it serves them well..

Qi is not a mystical magical energy.. it is a term used by ancient people that had no science to explain things they couldn't comprehend.. today, there are so many people living in fear of such simple things as "words", like Qi.. if they could accept the truth that Qi is a usable expression, one that can have deep meaning.. now that science is beginning to unravel the myths.. the irrational rejection of Qi, the word.. is as pathetic as the detractors would have people believe the notion of Qi is.. Qi is a delightful description of a combination of quite natural processes that when working in coherent unison produces an effect greater than the sum of its individual processes.. kind of simple, huh?

Be well...

[Scott R. Brown]

Very nice - I didn't think I needed to quote the whole thing - but I guess this is one of those "depends on what your definition of IS is"

The first and only search I did for the definition of "mystic" at
dictionary. com came back with this result!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mys·tic /ˈmɪstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. involving or characterized by esoteric, otherworldly, or symbolic practices or content, as certain religious ceremonies and art; spiritually significant; ethereal.
2. of the nature of or pertaining to mysteries known only to the initiated: mystic rites.
3. of occult character, power, or significance: a mystic formula.
4. of obscure or mysterious character or significance.
5. of or pertaining to mystics or mysticism.
–noun 6. a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy.
7. a person initiated into religious mysteries.


And SURRPRISE SURRPRISE - picture Gomer Pile here - ALL 7 definitions clearly fit and are consistant with Rand's ( I can't believe I am defending Rand :eek: ) usage of the term while NOT a single one fits yours! But I guess that's part of woo world - whether it's defining chi or defining "kinds' from IDiots - they just make sh8 up to mean what ever happens to fit at the moment.

I think it more appropriate to get the definition from an actual mystic rather than a pseudo-intellectual or an inadequate dictionary. If you live your life allowing the ignorant to define your life for for you then you are the follower Rand criticizes!

As an aside my dictionary says:

1) someone who believes in the existence of realities beyond [normal] human comprehension

2) having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding

Both of these mysteriously fit my definition (HMMM???) yet both are still inadequate since a mystic is one who seeks to UNDERSTAND that which is beyond normal human understanding. The lesson here is always question your sources! Just because something purports to be an authority does not make it an authority.

It would be more productive for you to go to those who actually engage in an activity you want to know something about rather than allow the ignorant to provide you inaccurate information. Would you accept a negative criticism and definition of your MA from an individual who has no understanding of your Art? I doubt it, yet you feel Rand's and your dictionary to be qualified to define a term they know nothing about. Feel free to wallow in ignorance if you like. My definition is the accurate one whether you accept it or not! And since mysticism is a topic you and Rand clearly know nothing about and it is one I have spent 30 years studying I'll trust my own understanding and experience over that of the ignorant!

P.S. I was in a hurry earlier and I wasn't able to give your post the attention I now have. It does not appear to me that your definitions have anything to do with Rand's definition. Number six is the closest to my definition and pretty accurate. I would say that a mystic is NOT someone who "claims" to have attained, but one who HAS attained.

These experiences are only beyond the understanding of some because they do not apply themselves to the pursuit. Rand's view, and it appears yours as well, is similar to a person who presumes to critique those who eat oranges and write about their experiences with oranges without actually eating an orange. Only a fool would take the word of someone who has never had the experience. The only way for another to validate the writings of an expert on the taste of an orange is to eat one. The proof is in the pudding. If they refuse to eat an orange, but presume to criticize those who have had the direct experience of eating an orange they have demonstrated willful ignorance. Their foolishness then becomes compounded when they consider themselves authorities on something they know nothing about.

[RonH]

Not even going to try to understand THIS one:rolleyes:

Seriously! Have you heard of Newton?

Have you heard of colors other than cyan? I'm asking that you not reply anymore in that color. It's hard to read.

His 3rd law - which has been around now for about 400 years!? states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is why if you try to push off a boat near the pier you often end up face first in the water, or why a gun has a recoil, or why you have to have firm stances when you punch. So lets JUST indulge your fantasy for a moment and claim that chi this - how did you put it - energies categorized in mysticism exist mostly at a higher vibration than things like solid matter and electromagnetic energy:rolleyes: exists. AND people can control and use it.

It isn't necessary to put the roll eyes emoticon in. I already understand your viewpoint.

Lets further assume that this energy doesn't obey the laws of physics (they don't make a smiley face STUPID enough for this notions) how is it that human bodies are able to counter the laws of physics when using these powers?

First off, do you understand that the laws of physics have been in a regular state of expansion after a deeper understanding of the relationship between matter and energy?

If you do then, we move on to the next thing: apparent laws of physics disobeying.

Take this example: How does a plane fly? Why can it get off the ground? It weights a crap load, no matter the type. The answer is because of using propulsions: propellar, jet engine, etc. It circumvents the law of gravity to make it fly = using one law or a series of laws against another or another series of laws. The laws of physics, the ones you are refering to with cause and effect, deals with a classifcation of energies that are of 4 types. Qi is not a part of these 4, so a further clarification with this one in mind would expand on the laws of physics, which is the relationship between matter and energy.

Also, which laws are you saying it doesn't obey? There are some that it does. It has mass, so it does move slower than light, but it doesn't have to follow a linear path, so it can seem to move faster than light when it doesn't. This is another example of one law being used against another to circumvent a problematic scenario.

In the video, the victim flies back and flops all over the place yet the practitioner doesn't suffer any recoil at all! :cool: Mythbuster did a nice show showing this when they did the myth of the gunshot victim in movies flying backwards when getting shot.

Part of the teachings include projecting energy into the ground to refrain from being moved. This is one example of how. Another is that it isn't so much as brute forcing the opponent's body around, but sending energy to specific locations in the body, which cause reactions, like convulsions, which can make the body flip around. Convulsions are uncontrollable muscle contractions and expansions. The body instictively moves away from sources it doesn't like, such as yanking your hand away when you touch a burning hot pan.

They move away, with some of their body uncontrollably convulsing, but their legs can also be subject to the convulsions, so they act much like a fish just out of water.

I saw the episode with the gunshots and how the old movies without the special effects got it right. But, just because you project Qi, it doesn't mean that there is a continuous line between the projected Qi and your body, which would allow the transference of kinetic energy to pass back through that line to the projector. It'd be no different than someone taking a rock and throwing it at someone's head: The one hit would get rocked around, falling, but the thrower doesn't have any recoil experience.

Next?

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi RonH,

Your comments are very thought provoking. They got me thinking about this in a manner I have never considered.

1) There is no physically manifested "opposite reaction" when a person is shot with a taser.

2) When a person is shot with a taser they do the monkey dance. This is considered a normal reaction since the electric charge causes the muscles to spontaneously contract. This monkey dance is similar to the exaggerated movements of some of these subjects. Although I question whether there may be some overacting taking place, it would not be an unusual reaction if the Qi transmitted to them affected them on an electrical basis.

Therefore, if some applications of what has been called Qi are electrically based as some have suggested, the reaction of the subjects is explained. There would be no need to have a physically manifested "opposite reaction " since the infusion of energy is not in the form of a physical impact.

[jrm]

I think one thing that can definitely be concluded from the video is that it was a poor piece of journalism. Moyers just stood around in goofy wonderment while allowing all of the students to demonstrate their master's power of chi. He should have asked for a demonstration on himself. I want to see something authentic (maybe he was), and a bunch of impressionable and willing students doesn't convince.

TaiChiBob is right though, this topic has been kicked around to death and guys like Corwyn can never stop themselves from bringing it up for their own petty amusement.

Nice take down of Rand by the way, Mr. Brown. I always enjoy a good Rand-Slam.
I'll give her some credit though, she certainly was a lively one.

John

[Corwyn]

I guess it's obvious that our world views of what is reality are so opposed that there is no point in continuing this any further.

I sincerely hope that you do not put any faith in this stuff to protect your life or anyone else you care about because you/they will be in serious trouble.

As posted in the other thread I PUT my money where my mouth is, any time and anywhere you care to prove that this nonsense has ANY basis in reality I'm ready.
But I am not holding my breath!
Otherwise regardless of how many pages of gibberish and utube videos you post I will continue to hold your belief in mystery powers as delusional along with all the other nutters worshipping pyramids, crystals, aliens.

a side note - you REALLY should pick up a basic high school physics books because what you posted is just frightening, but I guess not surprising with the state of US education.

[RonH]

I guess it's obvious that our world views of what is reality are so opposed that there is no point in continuing this any further.

I don't know if this is directed to me or someone else, but I'll respond, as if it was, to cover this base.

Opposing views don't necessitate a stopping of a discussion.

As posted in the other thread I PUT my money where my mouth is, any time and anywhere you care to prove that this nonsense has ANY basis in reality I'm ready.

I started to, but you don't wish to continue any longer, for whatever your reason.

But I am not holding my breath!
Otherwise regardless of how many pages of gibberish and utube videos you post I will continue to hold your belief in mystery powers as delusional along with all the other nutters worshipping pyramids, crystals, aliens.

Then, you never were really interested in any part of a disussion, other than mocking others. You say that regardless of anything anyone says, you won't believe them. That negates the whole idea behind *having* a discussion on the topic to begin with.

a side note - you REALLY should pick up a basic high school physics books because what you posted is just frightening, but I guess not surprising with the state of US education.

So, you deny that the laws of physics have been in a constant state of expansion and deeper understanding for thousands of years? You deny that a plane uses the laws of physics involved in propellar and jet engine design to allow a plane to get off the ground, defying gavity?

[Corwyn]

I don't know if this is directed to me or someone else, but I'll respond, as if it was, to cover this base.

Opposing views don't necessitate a stopping of a discussion.

You're right, but in order to have a discussion BOTH parties have to share some basis in the same reality! You seem to live on planet X when it comes to this stuff. In the last few posts you have claimed

1) that chi can travel faster then the speed of light
2) can't travel faster than the speed of light
3) that chi is some kind of electricity
4) that you can TRAIN yourself to defy Newtonian laws when using chi
just to name a few, I know there is more, but I am not going to go back and re read your posts. they give me a headache


I started to, but you don't wish to continue any longer, for whatever your reason.



Then, you never were really interested in any part of a discussion, other than mocking others. You say that regardless of anything anyone says, you won't believe them. That negates the whole idea behind *having* a discussion on the topic to begin with.

Again, we can not have a discussion if you are UNWILLING or even UNABLE to define what it is you claim you can do or believe. To ambigiously claim some mysterious power and offer no other proof then your word - which is no different then the delusional homeless person I pass to work everyday claiming that the aliens are listening to our thoughts through the Starbuck coffee cups - is NOT a basis for having a discussion.

So, you deny that the laws of physics have been in a constant state of expansion and deeper understanding for thousands of years? You deny that a plane uses the laws of physics involved in propellar and jet engine design to allow a plane to get off the ground, defying gavity?






Well I am going to make some assumptions here 'cause this last paragraph was somewhat incoherent! You seem to be claiming here that the LAWS of Physics are changing!? I certainly hope that(giving you a HUGE benefit of the doubt here) you are referring to recent discoveries of the so-called fine structure constant - which measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with one another and with light. Other wise HOPEFULLY you just meant that human understanding of the laws of physics has changed. This is true but ONLY because we stopped believing in the big sky daddy and other superstitious mumbo jumbo like chi and stopped burning people at the stake for using science.

As for your airoplane comment - again you are being iess than clear so I'm really not sure what your point was! Planes fly for the same reason that birds fly. They are able to generate more lift then the affect of gravity pulling them down. Planes, or rather the engineers that design them use something called the Bernoiulli(sp) effect. You might know it as aerodynamics. I'd do the math for you but I am pretty sure it would be a total waist of my time. This works whether you build the plane, I build the plane, or the GOD D***Russians build the plane and whether I believe in it or not! UNLIKE your fairy dust chi power, it follows the laws of physics and math, whether I believe it or not, whether it's Tuesday or Wednesday or whether the moon is in Scorpio or Gemini! Apply enough thrust and lift and the ****ed thing is going to fly. MAKE this HAPPEN with CHI!!! Or even put enough math on the table to prove your hypothesis like Leonardo Da Vinci - while he lacked the technology in materials to build a working flying machine. If you could transport aluminium and canvas back to say 1510, he would have no idea how the materials were made but he would have no problem building you a plane. You can't make a cogent sentence that defines chi and is consistant with the laws of the universe the rest of WE live in.

[Scott R. Brown]

You can't make a cogent sentence that defines chi and is consistant with the laws of the universe the rest of WE live in.

I know it is nit-picking, but I laughed that after a lengthy reasoned comment and a sentence criticizing the lack of ability to formulate a cogent sentence you forgot proper grammar.

It happens to the best of us!:eek:

Not me of course, LOL!!;)

In Ron's defense, just because some people are not able to formulate a cogent sentence to demonstrate their beliefs effectively enough to meet your standards, does not mean it cannot be done. Also, he is still learning to effectively argue his beliefs and he IS improving. As you know, it does take practice for all of WE!!:D

[Royal Dragon]

When I first saw this guy on Channell 11, I went and did all the same demos he did...My participants didn't get as theatrical, but I still moved them just the same.

Also, where he's trying to throw him at the 5:40 mark, the master has a really good structural alignment and good physical rooting....the student is on the WORST possible angle for generateing any type of leverage....of course he couldn't throw the master....Judgeing by the demo, he was either going light on purpose, or the teacher has been taking his money all these years and not showing him the basic fundementals of proper structureal, skelital alignment....

Qi is real, and it can be measuerd simply. All you need to do to illuminate it, is to have a living person laydown next to a freshly dead person. You will easily be able to see the contrast between someone who is full of Qi, and one who has lost all of thier Qi.

You could even begin to create an observable scale of Qi levels by taking an old person near death, and a young really health athlete and putting them in order of who has the most Qi.

Create a scale from 0-10, 10 being the most Qi, and 0 being none.

The order would be simple, the young healthy athlete would be 10, the normal person would be say a 6 on the scale, the old soon to die might be a 4 or a 2-3 even, and the dead one would be a zero.

If you layed them all down on the ground next to eachother you could clearly see the difference between someone with a lot of Qi, and one with none, and also see the various grades inbetween.

Doctors and nurses (And I know a few) often say they can tell when a paitent is going to die no matter what the effort to save is exerted...because they look "Dim", or Pasty". Experiance has allowed them to recognise the low levels of Qi, and they instinctively know when someone has lost too much to survive, even if they don't conciousy realise that is what they are seeing.

[RonH]

I had typed out this really long thing in response to what you wrote, Corwyn, going over detail after detail, since you're complaining I'm being vague. But...I lost it, so I'll repost it as the abridge version because I dont feel like doing that much typing again.

You're right, but in order to have a discussion BOTH parties have to share some basis in the same reality!

This would require that people have similar beliefs before hand, utterly chucking away the idea of keeping your mind open to new possibilities. Utter rubbish.

You seem to live on planet X when it comes to this stuff. In the last few posts you have claimed

1) that chi can travel faster then the speed of light

You delieberately ignored where I said it can follow a nonliear path, making it appear to move FTL. BS.

2) can't travel faster than the speed of light

So, you pay attention here, but only use it so you can claim I'm not prividing evidence of the concepts to begin with. BS.

3) that chi is some kind of electricity

Scott R. Brown brought up electricity in this thread. I have, however, said in the past in other threads that the physical counterpart to etheric chi is electricity.

4) that you can TRAIN yourself to defy Newtonian laws when using chi

I specifically said bracing yourself with projecting chi behind you, as well as using a small amount of chi to effect the meridians of a target and make them react, like you're yanking your hand from a heat source. So, once again, you try to pass off BS as the truth.

just to name a few, I know there is more, but I am not going to go back and re read your posts. they give me a headache

That's your own fault. It takes far more energy to come up with BS and act like that's what I said than to actually work with what I said and my own words and my own contexts.

Again, we can not have a discussion if you are UNWILLING or even UNABLE to define what it is you claim you can do or believe.

You'd prefer I dumped a crapload of information that'd be hard for you to digest than to start simple with concepts and ideas that'll be built upon and easier for you to understand?

Don't put your weird requirements onto me.

To ambigiously claim some mysterious power and offer no other proof then your word

If you're able to not lie about what I've said and pay attention, it'd be easier on all of us.

Well I am going to make some assumptions here 'cause this last paragraph was somewhat incoherent!

Why not? Go with it. You've been unwilling to work with what I've given you so far. What's one more assumption?

You seem to be claiming here that the LAWS of Physics are changing!? I certainly hope that(giving you a HUGE benefit of the doubt here) you are referring to recent discoveries of the so-called fine structure constant - which measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with one another and with light. Other wise HOPEFULLY you just meant that human understanding of the laws of physics has changed.

The title 'the laws of physics' is a human construct for categorizing the relationships between matter and energy. Why there was any difficulty in understanding I was talking of people's understanding of how matter and energy relate to one another is beyond me.

This is true but ONLY because we stopped believing in the big sky daddy and other superstitious mumbo jumbo like chi and stopped burning people at the stake for using science.

Tell that to folks, like Einstein, Galileo, Descartes and Pasteur. All thesepeople had spiritual/religious beliefs and they were key figures in science. There were also a crapload of others that had spiritual and/or religious beliefs up to and including today.

As for your airoplane comment - again you are being iess than clear so I'm really not sure what your point was! Planes fly for the same reason that birds fly. They are able to generate more lift then the affect of gravity pulling them down. Planes, or rather the engineers that design them use something called the Bernoiulli(sp) effect. You might know it as aerodynamics.

I said specifically it was one law or group of laws of physics used against another. Again, more BS of what I've said.

I'd do the math for you but I am pretty sure it would be a total waist of my time.

Given that you have been unable to show any willingness to be truthful about what I've written, I wouldn't trust any math you showed unless I went through and self-verified your figures myself.

This works whether you build the plane, I build the plane, or the GOD D***Russians build the plane and whether I believe in it or not! UNLIKE your fairy dust chi power, it follows the laws of physics and math, whether I believe it or not, whether it's Tuesday or Wednesday or whether the moon is in Scorpio or Gemini!

Wrong. Chi follows the mind, whether you believe it exists or not. It'll even follow the mind if you don't believe it follows the mind, but believe in chi.

Apply enough thrust and lift and the ****ed thing is going to fly. MAKE this HAPPEN with CHI!!!

Chi interacts weakly with solid matter, so you need a crapload of it. But, it can happen.

Or even put enough math on the table to prove your hypothesis like Leonardo Da Vinci - while he lacked the technology in materials to build a working flying machine. If you could transport aluminium and canvas back to say 1510, he would have no idea how the materials were made but he would have no problem building you a plane.

I was attempting to do just that, but you had had enough, threw up your hands and didn't want to listen. So, instead of have a constructive discussion, you lied about what I said, lied about the effectiveness of what I was saying because you don't even know the entierty of my argument to back it up. This is not a very scientific attitude of you.

You can't make a cogent sentence that defines chi and is consistant with the laws of the universe the rest of WE live in.

Don't lecture me on sentence structure when you've screwed up the sentence saying I can't be cogent. It's called hitting the 'preview post' button.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Royal Dragon,

I am a nurse and I see more people die in a year than most people see in a life time. I will confirm your comments. There is clearly something "not there" in a dead person that is present in a living person.

We know when most patients make the "turn". There is not just a physical change, but a mental change occurs too. They begin a mental withdrawal; one could say they are withdrawing their spirit in preparation for the transition.

Some patients start to see people or loved ones. I had one patient who for the last month or so of her life would talk to her husband. He was located in the upper left corner of her room near the ceiling. Right before she died she took all of her possessions that were within reach and put them in her lap, including her purse. she was preparing for her final journey.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

We squabble over a "word".. if we could examine the various interpretations of that "word", we may find some common ground, even at the extremes of those pointing at the "word".. Qi is an expression that describes a certain set of conditions or effects, it is not a description of "magic".. although some will never let go of that notion, it serves their need to incite conflict..

Yi (mind) leads Qi (energy).. i intend (think/mind) to move my arm.. energy follows my intent, activates muscles and other energy systems (CTS) and my arm moves.. basic Yi leads Qi.. we can easily determine that we have the capability to improve the Yi/Qi relationship, regardless of the words used to describe it.. It seems that Corwyn is the one most attached to the notion of Qi being woo woo stuff, the rest of us seem a bit more comfortable with its scientific and pragmatic elements.. from the perspective of potential, it is wise to reserve judgement on human capabilities, we are still infants in the evolutionary process..

Be well....

[cjurakpt]

this is too much guys...

look, here's what's what: "qi" is a metaphorical description of the net of functional interelationships that occur in the body and in the environment in which it operates (basically the whole universe);as such, it was once very useful in terms of describing the functional macro and to some degree micro interrelationships that occur in the natural world in the abcense of more specific observational analysis; in medicine, for example, "qi" was once state of the art technology; now, it is still useful to help describe certain types of imbalances in the body that cannot be directly imaged or measured, and that have not been given the full attention of allopathic medicine, largely because allopathy has been generally busy with trying to handle the things that kill you really fast (and has been doing a bang up job for all you folks who rag on the failures of western medicine); back when "qi" was the best thing available to give PREDICTIVE VALUE to medical assessment (in terms of cause, course and treatment) it worked because it was internally consistent - which is why combining it with allopathic principles doesn't make that much sense - they function off of different assumptions; so too would comparing "qi" and quantum mechanics be a mistake - they might seem similar, but the processes underlying them are different both in terms of inception and method - also, if you really understand quantum physics, you know that at the macro level Newton still and always will hold sway - what happens at very small levels happens due to the inherent uniformity at that level so the laws governing it are possible, where as at this level of order and differentiation, you need other types of laws for that structure to hold

the problem is that when you try to measure "qi", you can't do it, because "qi" is not one specific thing; however, if you look at things like electromagnetism, heat, gravity, kinetic energy, etc. these are all aspects of a human organism's natural function, and therefore are all part of what makes up the functional interrelationships that "qi" describes; so even if you could actualy push someone across the room without touching them, whatever you used to do it would still not be "qi" - it would be some sort of quantifiable force that is part of the overall descriptor;

the benefit of using "qi" as a descriptor is that it's an experience-based, subjective assessment (which BTW means that some people are going to be better at assessing it than others - which of course flies in the face of "objective" allopathic principles), so it enables you to make intuitive leaps of faith, or to make non-linear / complex decisions that you may not necesarilly be able to break down as to exactly why you made them

as to "proving" that "qi" exists - you can't prove something that inherently has no impetus to be proven - it is simply a metaphor that has proven useful; when it is no longer usefully, it will fall into disuse; the mistake is to take something profoundly ordinary and elevate it to the level of supernatural because it gives one a sense of of being in on something "special" which, if true, inherently subverts the basis upon which the rest of the world functions...

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

cjurakpt: Nice Post!!! now, if some people could let go of their own attachment to Qi as "mystical", maybe we could get on with the "experience".. and get past the description of it...

Be well..

[mantis108]

this is too much guys...

look, here's what's what: "qi" is a metaphorical description of the net of functional interelationships that occur in the body and in the environment in which it operates (basically the whole universe);as such, it was once very useful in terms of describing the functional macro and to some degree micro interrelationships that occur in the natural world in the abcense of more specific observational analysis; in medicine, for example, "qi" was once state of the art technology; now, it is still useful to help describe certain types of imbalances in the body that cannot be directly imaged or measured, and that have not been given the full attention of allopathic medicine, largely because allopathy has been generally busy with trying to handle the things that kill you really fast (and has been doing a bang up job for all you folks who rag on the failures of western medicine); back when "qi" was the best thing available to give PREDICTIVE VALUE to medical assessment (in terms of cause, course and treatment) it worked because it was internally consistent - which is why combining it with allopathic principles doesn't make that much sense - they function off of different assumptions; so too would comparing "qi" and quantum mechanics be a mistake - they might seem similar, but the processes underlying them are different both in terms of inception and method - also, if you really understand quantum physics, you know that at the macro level Newton still and always will hold sway - what happens at very small levels happens due to the inherent uniformity at that level so the laws governing it are possible, where as at this level of order and differentiation, you need other types of laws for that structure to hold

the problem is that when you try to measure "qi", you can't do it, because "qi" is not one specific thing; however, if you look at things like electromagnetism, heat, gravity, kinetic energy, etc. these are all aspects of a human organism's natural function, and therefore are all part of what makes up the functional interrelationships that "qi" describes; so even if you could actualy push someone across the room without touching them, whatever you used to do it would still not be "qi" - it would be some sort of quantifiable force that is part of the overall descriptor;

the benefit of using "qi" as a descriptor is that it's an experience-based, subjective assessment (which BTW means that some people are going to be better at assessing it than others - which of course flies in the face of "objective" allopathic principles), so it enables you to make intuitive leaps of faith, or to make non-linear / complex decisions that you may not necesarilly be able to break down as to exactly why you made them

as to "proving" that "qi" exists - you can't prove something that inherently has no impetus to be proven - it is simply a metaphor that has proven useful; when it is no longer usefully, it will fall into disuse; the mistake is to take something profoundly ordinary and elevate it to the level of supernatural because it gives one a sense of of being in on something "special" which, if true, inherently subverts the basis upon which the rest of the world functions...

I am not sure I can agree with the position - "qi" is a metaphorical description of the net of functional interelationships that occur in the body and in the environment in which it operates (basically the whole universe).

Personally, I believe "metaphorical description" would simply render Qi as "condition" which is relative and irrelevent both in terms of the absolute and pranja (the void). I believe that perspective isn't wrong coming form a Ch'an Buddhist POV. However, I believe it's prudent to bear in mind that Buddhist worldview that require indepth knowledge of Hindu traditions is not necessarily one and the same as Daoist worldview that came about from Chinese experience.

I would say the following with caveat. If we take Qi as metaphorical description which is basically saying that it's a mind's construct only and it is in no way absolute. In that case, we can take that out of the ontological equation. But can we afford to do that? Personally, I don't know for certain that is helpful or we can afford to do that just yet.

Qi in my mind is the fifth element (re: soul/atman/shen) which is a form of energy - spiritual/informational energy or quanta - one that is mysteriously intelligent (and organic I might add) that is presented in live organisms or sentient beings. It is not that different than say energy that is categroized as potential, heat, kinetic, etc IMHO. The fact that western science through out tradition is uncomfortable and incapably of investigating this form of energy doesn't proof anything other then to say that there hasn't been enough effort invested into the understanding of it. It is a sign of limitation rather that absolute proof. Why can't energy be intelligent? It would seem that the principles governing the celesterial bodies function similarly with the principles governing DNA of living organisms.

If we look at the equation E=MC^2, most of the time (pun intended) people are concerned with C being the speed of light, which btw has been suggested that it's not a constant or a certain at all, but never have they really asked the question what is essentially that light? Do we know if at all what information does that light contain? Could that be quanta? Intelligence in any organism (or sentient being) seems to evolve and refine over time. It's not a certain nor is it a constant as the nature of the light. Scientists pride themselves as being thorough. Are they really? That alone we have to wonder.

Now I have to stress that I don't advocate the concept of preordained devine destiny but I do find the concept of intelligent design rather intriguing. Perhaps we might benefit from understanding the mandala (simply a tool) of Qi being an element (relatively absolute to the ultimately absolute) in the various expressions of intelligent design (relative).

So I don't believe it's prudent to jump to conclusion yet. I do however agree with the direct experience position.

Just some thoughts

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi mantis108,

Your comments have stimulated in me some thoughts.

First a comment on Ch’an:

Some consider that the Ch’an perspective states that all things are essentially unreal. This is a slight misunderstanding. The word “essentially” here means “at its original source”, or as its “first cause”. “Unreal” means something close to “undifferentiated”, but may also be stated as “real, yet unreal”, or “undifferentiated, differentiation”. So from one perspective matter/phenomena exists, yet it does not exist depending upon how one chooses to perceive it or define it. I like to use the following optical illusion to illustrate this concept. This illustration is at once both an old woman AND a young woman. Regardless of whether we observe the old woman or the young woman it is not the picture that changes, but the mind that perceives it. So while essentially life/matter/phenomena are all undifferentiated, all things are also differentiated depending upon the perspective of the perceiving mind.

Second:

Science has the purpose of measuring and cataloging matter, forces and other phenomena. The determining factors of “real”, from a scientific sense, is whether something can be measured and predicted to repeatedly occur according to specific circumstances. While attempts are being made to measure Qi, it has not yet been comprehensively measured to a certainty wherein its existence cannot be explained by other phenomena.

The question is, is Qi a substance, a force or a substance with force? Tradition seems to indicate it is a substance with force or at least energy closely connected to/attached to matter. If Qi exists under these conditions then it is only a matter of time before it is comprehensively measured. Just because there was no means to measure infra-red light in the middle ages does not mean it did not exist, but since it could not be measured it could not be scientifically stated to exist with certainty. I think this is where we are, scientifically speaking, with Qi at this time.

Third,

I like your idea of “spiritual/informational energy or quanta”!

If E=MC^2, then M=E/C^2! This means Mass IS Energy in Motion, so to speak. Different forms of Matter are differentiated by the amount/type/level of motion of their energy.

Humans are composed of matter, humans are sentient; can we therefore say that matter is sentient, or that “some” matter is sentient? From a strictly materialistic point of view we would have to say, Yes! If all things/matter is composed of Tao/God, and Tao/God is sentient then all matter is sentient. Since matter is nothing more than differentiated energy then energy is sentient as well.