oh, ok - there is a guy, Michael Patterson, who is a physiologist who teaches in many osteopathic courses here and abroad, looking at physiology from that perspective in terms of treatment and what not - my wife, a French trained DO as well as US MD (OB/GYN) knows him quite well (I’ve never studied with him personally in my own osteopathic studies), and so just thought I’d find out if the world was indeed that small 
thanks for the lineage, BTW
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;773059]oh, ok - there is a guy, Michael Patterson, who is a physiologist who teaches in many osteopathic courses here and abroad, looking at physiology from that perspective in terms of treatment and what not - my wife, a French trained DO as well as US MD (OB/GYN) knows him quite well (I’ve never studied with him personally in my own osteopathic studies), and so just thought I’d find out if the world was indeed that small
thanks for the lineage, BTW[/QUOTE]
No problem. That would indeed have been quite a coincidence. He (Michael Patterson) must be a great guy. I love his name! 
Holy Sh!t! It’s Mike Patterson! I haven’t seen you around these parts for a while. How ya been?
Mike, you moved
Yes, as I recall you used to live in or near San Diego, is that right? Are you now living in Nevada? If so, may I ask where?
Mr. Wang…it’s time to collect your 1,000,000 prize.
[QUOTE=Water Dragon;773407]Holy Sh!t! It’s Mike Patterson! I haven’t seen you around these parts for a while. How ya been?[/QUOTE]
Holy Sh!t! is exactly right.
I stop in from time to time, just to see what’s up. Just don’t usually have much to say.
[QUOTE=woliveri;773513]Yes, as I recall you used to live in or near San Diego, is that right? Are you now living in Nevada? If so, may I ask where?[/QUOTE]
We are in Las Vegas now.
Greetings..
Oh boy, i hate this part.. but, to be fair, i gotta go ahead and open the door..
I am very familiar with Mike Patterson’s skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. yet, i am compelled to ask, based on the following quote:
Def: “(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one’s inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing.” Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won’t find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.
“Inner strength.. control of muscle and breathing”, what is it that does the “control”? Is it “the Mind”? What is it that causes to muscles to function? Is it “bio-electric energy”? Keep in “mind” i am not contradicting the quote, nor do i have a differering understanding at this level of dialogue.. but, i am also aware that the symbol for Qi can represent a chemical reaction resulting in the physiological “energies” that manifest the Control as mentioned.. its not unreasonable to apply more recent scientific realities such as nutritional regimens, conservation/cultivation of energy methodologies, etc… there is much cross-over from Qi Gong and energetic work that can have excellent benefits..
Sometimes, we may hold to particular beliefs, or specific prejudices to the detriment of emerging realities.. i would be the last to jump on the “mystical magical energy” bandwagon.. but i am also curious enough to do the homework before discounting ALL references to energetics.. not unlike our autos, the quality of the fuel is as important as the quality of the machine.. it seems that there is room for multiple interpretations of Qi, but.. that room has very little space for quackery.. neither the applied physiology nor the cultivation/control of energies is mutually exclusive.. there should be middle ground that benefits ALL interested parties..
Be well..
[QUOTE=TaiChiBob;773624]Greetings..
Oh boy, i hate this part.. but, to be fair, i gotta go ahead and open the door..
I am very familiar with Mike Patterson’s skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. yet, i am compelled to ask, based on the following quote:
“Inner strength.. control of muscle and breathing”, what is it that does the “control”? Is it “the Mind”? What is it that causes to muscles to function? Is it “bio-electric energy”? Keep in “mind” i am not contradicting the quote, nor do i have a differering understanding at this level of dialogue.. but, i am also aware that the symbol for Qi can represent a chemical reaction resulting in the physiological “energies” that manifest the Control as mentioned.. its not unreasonable to apply more recent scientific realities such as nutritional regimens, conservation/cultivation of energy methodologies, etc… there is much cross-over from Qi Gong and energetic work that can have excellent benefits..
Sometimes, we may hold to particular beliefs, or specific prejudices to the detriment of emerging realities.. i would be the last to jump on the “mystical magical energy” bandwagon.. but i am also curious enough to do the homework before discounting ALL references to energetics.. not unlike our autos, the quality of the fuel is as important as the quality of the machine.. it seems that there is room for multiple interpretations of Qi, but.. that room has very little space for quackery.. neither the applied physiology nor the cultivation/control of energies is mutually exclusive.. there should be middle ground that benefits ALL interested parties..
Be well..[/QUOTE]
No disrespect, Bob, but..
Well.., Duh! I don’t believe I made a statement in any form about my personal beliefs. Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding your seeming implication.
I gave direct, literal translation of the Chinese Character and its base make up. Then, I rendered a little anecdote about my “upbringing” so to speak. I deliberately stayed away from this ongoing, broken record of an internet battle because I really don’t care. And I’m not going to get sucked into it now either.
You be well also. 
Greetings..
Hi Mike: Well, i’m not sure what your point on the reply is.. i agree with your definition of Qi, within the context presented.. i also leave room for quantifiable expansions on that definition..
Def: “(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one’s inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing.” Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won’t find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.
I will only point to the elephant in the room.. “to use one’s inner strength”, i assume, incorporates energy, sort of the source of the strength, eh.. or “control of muscle and breathing”, similarly requires some type of energy conversion.. it becomes too convenient to overlook the obvious in favor of a preferred interpretation.. “energy” is the source of strength and the result of its application.. a 70mph punch generates quite a transfer of kinetic energy on impact.. not to mention the benefits of good structural alignment and mechanics.. You can present a definition that doesn’t use the word “energy”, but you cannot escape its inherent place in the equation..
This is not intended to be a contradiction, rather an expansion of the concept.. and, by the way, i intended no implication regarding your personal beliefs.. my familiarity with you is by video only, and i greatly respect the skills demonstrated.. i have studied them well.. without personal knowledge, it would be pointless to address your personal perspectives/beliefs..
Again, Be well..
Bob,
In your first post you said:
[QUOTE=TaiChiBob;773624] <snip>I am very familiar with Mike Patterson’s skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi.. <snip>[/QUOTE]
Now in this post you say:
[QUOTE=TaiChiBob;774138]<snip>my familiarity with you is by video only, and i greatly respect the skills demonstrated.. i have studied them well.. without personal knowledge, it would be pointless to address your personal perspectives/beliefs.. <snip>[/QUOTE]
These two statements seem to be somewhat at odds? How can you both be “very familiar with Mike Patterson’s skills and his understandings of the concept of Qi” .. but yet be familiar with me only through video. I don’t believe there is a single reference or statement on any of my videos regarding my belief and/or perspectives about the concept of Ch’i (Qi).
I don’t visit this forum that often and I certainly have not read anything else you may have written (at least that I am aware of). But it seems to me that you are stating the obvious just to state the obvious?
So again, I will say; Well, DUH!
I mean… if you somehow feel me to be ignorant of kinetics, physics, biomechanics, etc.. you are gravely mistaken.
Let me ask you a question: Do you read, write and speak Chinese? If you do not, you are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the Chinese culture thinks of the concept of Ch’i (Qi).
Now you are certainly free to assign any value you wish to the concept of Ch’i (Qi). I will not try to change your mind. Again, I don’t really care. And I don’t like to involve myself in this kind of squabble. I’d rather be practicing. And, unlike you, I have been at this a very, very long time with “no time off for poor discipline”.
If you want to say everything in the body is motivated by some sort of energy, fine. That would obviously be a statement only an idiot would disagree with. But what I thought was being discussed is what the word/concept means as stated in orginal Chinese, not what any non speaking/reading/writing westerner thinks it means.
Then again, perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this whole thread. They seldom stay on any point of origin. You can have the last word on this one, Bob.
[QUOTE=spiralstair;772864]Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya…
Dark Matter.
Haven’t found that yet either, the most prevalent ‘thing’ in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things… no wait a minute, that’s called something else by Chinese philosophy…
Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can’t be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn’t recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head… love.
Now I know that’s The four letter word on a fighting forum…[/QUOTE]
<startphysicsrant>
Dark matter has been observed actually. It’s just far more mundane and doesn’t account for the BS of String Theorists and Big Bangists: It’s actually just the molecular (two H atoms) form of hydrogen. Because it is far more stable than atomic hydrogen, it is not easily detectable by radio telescope unless it is super heated (and these are the cases where it has been detected, in galaxies with molecular hydrogen which is heated, one can detect it with radio telescopy. The fact that it nearly perfectly accounts for “missing mass” is no coincidence).
See Paul Marmet’s excellent site and paper on the matter: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
Unfortunately, much of physics has been ruined or messed up to a large degree by followers of the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thought (that nothing exists outside the mind, which they use Heisenberg’s experiments to justify…gag).
</endphysicsrant>
[QUOTE=n00854180t;774820]Unfortunately, much of physics has been ruined or messed up to a large degree by followers of the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thought (that nothing exists outside the mind, which they use Heisenberg’s experiments to justify…gag).[/QUOTE]
This is actually of Buddhist and/or Hindu origin. I wouldn’t gag about something you don’t understand, just as you wouldn’t want someone who doesn’t understand physics to gag about what they don’t understand.
Actually, I’ve studied Buddhism/Hinduism quite a bit, and Berkeley/Copenhagen is a gross misinterpretation to the very least, and definitely has no place in physics. So don’t just assume I haven’t done my homework when you absolutely have no idea.
The fact that you think they’re the same also shows a gross misunderstanding or just complete ignorance of either of the philosophies involved. Nowhere does either Buddhism or Hinduism claim that the entirety of existence is created by a single observer collapsing the quantum states of matter. Either of them in some form speak of the mind causing suffering in corporeal bodies, which is definitely true anyway (i.e., people create stress with their thoughts etc.). Both also speak of there being an ascended/enlightened existence and “reality” being the illusory component, but this is definitely NOT the same as Berkeley/Copenhagen. It sounds like you may be confusing things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha Amitabha creating a buddhaketra by his good deeds with this tripe that inadequate scientists want to push on people.
Hi n00854180t,
I realized after my post that I did not take the time to be clear enough. I was not intending to support the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument. I am unfamiliar with it and neither am I particularly interested in it.
According to your comment their conclusion is “that nothing exists outside the mind” and this is what I am commenting upon. This view is clearly asserted in Buddhist philosophy which has its origins in Hinduism. I would refer you to the “Sutra of Hiu-Neng” for starters, but this view is asserted in other sutras as well.
The reason I am uninterested in the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument is because direct experience cannot be demonstrated/proven to a certainty using rational argument. Therefore, it is immaterial whether I am familiar with it or not. That is not to say I haven’t played with rational argument myself in an effort to devise a method of reaching overly rationally minded individuals. However, I consider it a mental exercise rather than an effective means of communicating information about phenomena that occur beyond the capacity of rational argument to demonstrate with a certainty.
It is your comment that led me to conclude that you do not understand “that nothing exists outside the mind”. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment and you merely meant that the Berkeley/Copenhagen argument is inadequate to demonstrate this to a logical certainty. If this was your intended meaning it was not made clear in your comments.
If, as I concluded, that your view is that those who consider “that nothing exists outside the mind” are foolish then I stand by my statement that you are commenting upon something about which you have no understanding.
I would point out that studying a subject does not by necessity result in understanding. It is like a person studying the written experiences of individuals who have eaten oranges, but have never actually eaten one. Their level of understanding is limited to what others have written about it and does not extend to a comprehensive understanding of how oranges taste. One must actually taste an orange in order to have true authority concerning how an orange tastes.
If a person disregards a statement about a phenomenon with which they have no experience or limited experience their comments concerning the experience are subject to criticism.
As you felt free to comment about dark matter in order to enlighten those of us with limited knowledge or understanding concerning it, so I feel free to comment on what appeared to me to be limited understanding of the fact "“that nothing exists outside the mind”.
If my conclusion concerning your comment was incorrect please feel free to help clear my misunderstanding. If my conclusion was correct then I will free to comment in order to help clear your misunderstanding as well.
re: Berkley Copenhagen & Heisenberg:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HEISENBERG/Chapter2.html
re: existence outside of mind
maybe it is an oversimplicfication, but it seems to me that you can have 2 “coexisting” states of “reality” - reality such as it is, and reality as observed and inerpreted by the mind; perhaps we could say that the “goal” of Ch’an is to bring the second as close as possible to the first? just a suggestion…
@Scott, I’d have to say your conclusion regarding my comment is incorrect. While I understand where you’re coming from in regards to Buddhism/Hinduism, there is a subtle different between them. As I noted before, it’s not precisely the same and the difference is rather extreme. Followers of Berkeley/Copenhagen believe not that reality is an illusion (meant to test us) with a greater reality beyond that (which is a basic tenet of either Buddhism/Hinduism) but that any existence whatever is a physical manifestation of thought brought into being by unconsciously collapsing base matter into one of a few (or two, depends on the particle really) states. Now, a keen person can already tell that there is circular reasoning there (what is there to collapse to a state if reality doesn’t exist without reference from an observer?).
However, through an equally keen reading of Buddhist/Hindu texts, it is readily apparent that the above view is not precisely that expressed by these philosophies. Instead, it becomes obvious that these assert that reality is the illusionary component of existence, and that we experience it as such due to our linear-sensing minds (i.e, sight, taste, touch, smell, are all linear-over-time input mechanisms). It’s unfortunate that these get lumped in with the absurdities proposed by the Berkeley/Copenhagen school of thinking, but it happens nonetheless.
I don’t know if I’m absolutely being clear, but I think at the very least I’ve shown that I do know a little about Buddhism/Hinduism, and that my above posts were not even directed towards them. What I do find foolish is the assertion by physicists that because of some (poorly executed…but that’s another matter (regarding Heisenberg’s experiments)) experiments, nothing exists outside the reference of an observer, because there is no one to collapse the state of matter into form. It’s an artifact of Heisenberg’s own preconceptions before conducting his experiments, and has only grown more preposterous over time. Paul Marmet’s site has an excellent overview of why Heisenberg interpreted his results the way he did.
I have utmost respect for Buddhism/Hinduism and very little for the likes of people that call themselves “scientists” but fail to follow the basic guidelines required to do good science (i.e., not imposing one’s own preconceptions and notions onto results, as Heisenberg did with his experiments). Of course, not knowing me you can’t know that, but it’s true.
@cjurakpt, I think that’s a pretty good summation, actually. And I agree with it for my own reasons. To follow your summary, Berkeley/Copenhagen actually assert that the first part of reality doesn’t actually exist outside the reference frame of an observer, and that there is no further part at all. Which is why I mentioned that there is a large difference between that school of thought and Buddhism/Hinduism.
Greetings..
Hi Mike: You are correct in your observation of an inconsistency in my posts.. it seems that by studying your videos i developed a certain belief regarding your skills and your personality.. i was incorrect about the personality thing, as evidenced by your posts..
But it seems to me that you are stating the obvious just to state the obvious?
Well, sort of.. Since you fail to acknowledge the obvious in your post ie: And you won’t find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware... your reference to energy relative to “Chinese boxing”.. It is “my” opinion, for what it’s worth, that it is irresponsible to discount the obvious to make a linguistic point.. Sure, ancient Chinese used the knowledge available “at the time” to develop the “definition” of Qi, but.. that was then, this is now, and we know more, we understand the relationship of energy to mechanics.. to assert that energy is not an essential part of the equation could lead the less experienced students to a false and detrimental conclusion..
Do you read, write and speak Chinese? If you do not, you are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the Chinese culture thinks of the concept of Ch’i (Qi).
Yes, informally.. i am currently studying the language formally, but.. the nature of my “informal” familiarity is not so shallow as you might think.. so, while i may have some disadvantage in linguistic comparison, i am well studied in translated material, and in lengthy dialogues with those that are native Chinese scholars.. but, Kudos to you for the disciplines mastered..
And, unlike you, I have been at this a very, very long time with “no time off for poor discipline”.
Well, i’ve been at this" since 1964, with about 2 years off in the mid '80s to start a family and a business.. but, i am not interested in comparisons of this sort.. i have already conceded skill in your favor.. my interest is in balanced perspectives presented fairly.. and, the time i have invested did yield a practical level of skill..
But what I thought was being discussed is what the word/concept means as stated in orginal Chinese, not what any non speaking/reading/writing westerner thinks it means.
Considering this perspective, i asked my Chinese language teacher the question.. her reply: Qi is energy, rice representing food and air are converted to energy by the body, as indicated by the symbol of rice and air.. i suppose there is more than just your perspective on this issue..
Now, it seems that, by your replies to me, i may have offended you in some way.. i certainly had no such intention.. if i have, i sincerely apologize.. my only intention was a differing perspective, perhaps a little broader perspective..
So, if this is the last word, i hope it is received in the spirit intended.. balanced and non-confrontational..
Be well..
Hi n00854180t,
Thank you for your response. I think you have made your point very well. I would agree that you have expressed more than a cursory understanding of Buddhism.
Hi cjurakpt,
I prefer to think of it as differing perspectives of reality. We interpret reality according to our mental conditioning. The mind is conditioned to interpret reality according to incorrect assumptions. The state of mind that perceives reality erroneously is referred to as the conditioned mind. The state mind that perceives reality directly without error is referred to as the unconditioned mind or the essence of mind. Taoist thought uses other terms, but they are essentially merely different expressions used for the same state/perspective of mind.
I always benefit from your comments so thank you for participating in the discussion.
@Scott, while I agree with some of your comments to cjurakpt, I think the issue is more fundamental than just the incorrect assumptions people are ingrained with. Certainly that is one part of the problem. If you’ve ever heard of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (and while it’s flawed, I think it is so because they’re missing the larger issue) that language shapes the way people compose thought? I think they touched upon the more base issue but failed to see it clearly. To explain, please do a simple thought experiment with me. Consider a non-linear system, or in fact, a non-linear reality(non-linear time component). Given a sentience that existed in this reality but could only conceive of it with linear input devices, my suspicion is that it follows that this sentience could never properly understand its non-linear reality. It would conceive all its thoughts in a fashion alien to the true nature of the external existence. I suspect this is the nature of the issue we deal with in our own reality. Perhaps not exactly the same or even close, but maybe similar.
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;774939]I prefer to think of it as differing perspectives of reality. We interpret reality according to our mental conditioning. The mind is conditioned to interpret reality according to incorrect assumptions. The state of mind that perceives reality erroneously is referred to as the conditioned mind. The state mind that perceives reality directly without error is referred to as the unconditioned mind or the essence of mind. Taoist thought uses other terms, but they are essentially merely different expressions used for the same state/perspective of mind. [/QUOTE]
agreed - and to add in some 20th cen. lingo, Krishnamurti uses the term (which I happen to like very much) “choiceless awareness”, which I believe is essentially the same thing…
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;774939]I always benefit from your comments so thank you for participating in the discussion. :)[/QUOTE]
oh, too kind, too kind - of course the feeling is quite mutual;