another cool fact. Jesus never healed or performed a miracle in the town was living in.
Just saying, cause its an interesting fact reflecting the psyche of the human being.
Sal,
while you I don’t discount the effects on clients that you report, and while I agree that there is something going on that is more than just the client’s belief system at play, my issue is that the old saw “it works, I don’t care why” just doesn’t cut it when one is a practicing healthcare professional - rather, it is one’s responsibility as such to continually investigate and explore what is going on; to do any less is unethical, IMPO - and in regards to what you are talking about, there are numerous extant mechanisms by which phenommena such as “qi” can be readily explained (in fact, if you read through the links in my sig, there are a few “scientific” articles that I think discuss what is going on physiologically when we are sensing things w out touching them (e.g. - so-called “energy”)
furthermore, there is a point at which intuitive healing looses it’s traction - generally it’s those stubborn little vertebral joints that don’t release without manipulating them, or that one little zone of visceral fascia that won’t unwind indirectly that you have to go digging into, etc. - if you are going to do this sort of thing, you better be thinking logically about what you are doing, because the intuitive stuff won’t help you make the decision about whether to do it or not all by itself…
“Logic Police”…hmmm, have to figure out where to put that on my CV
btw, the people who complain to you about me: there’s this thing called the “ignore” option - if they find me so distasteful, i invite them to utilize it, because if someone jumps on here w a strong opinion and can’t handle it when they get one back at them that they can’t argue well against, I will post as I choose (at least until Gene tells me otherwise); interestingly enough though, there are plenty of people who post here regularly with whom I have perfectly fine interactions, who, when I rattle their cages on a specific point, don’t go crying to moderator, but instead seem to be able to hold their own just fine in a point by point discussion…of course, they tend to be guys like Scott and Xiao Meng who seem to have a balanced perspective of the uses / limits of both logic and intuition…interesting…
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1083786]Has science been able to prove that we actually have thoughts? a conscience?
I don’t mean brain activity, but prove that we actually THINK at all?[/QUOTE]
Materialistic perspective would be that brain activity is the cause of thoughts. 
[QUOTE=Dr.Rob;1088245]another cool fact. Jesus never healed or performed a miracle in the town was living in.
Just saying, cause its an interesting fact reflecting the psyche of the human being.[/QUOTE]
Well, if we are going to nitpick;), his name wasn’t Jesus either!:eek:
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088174]
talking about looking internally, you may want to spend sometime re-examining your own apparently non-conscious bias and thinly veiled attitude of “I’ve got it all figured out about what’s best” perspective…considering it’s your first post on the forum, it’s a pretty opinionated way to make an entrance; which is fine, of course, it’s your right to post however you like; and certainly others here will agree with you; others, of course, won’t…[/QUOTE]
I certainly don’t feel I have it all figured out, and I’m not quite sure why you would make that assumption from my post. I fully realize it was my first post, and my intention was simply to further discussion and post a viewpoint. Of course some will agree and some won’t…that is what makes for an interesting discussion. We all have different viewpoints from where we stand, and that is what makes us unique and interesting.
Just to be clear as I stated in my original post, I fully support research into Qigong and all mind-body medicine. I think an integrative approach combining the best of Western and Eastern medicine is what works best and will hopefully be embraced more and more in the future. I welcome counter viewpoints, as again this is what makes any discussion interesting. However, as Sal noted in his reply you seem to want to go on the attack and systematically pick apart others posts, which makes it quite difficult to build a thread in which we all learn and take away something of value.
I actually did mean empirical evidence. For instance, when the Taoists spent centuries discovering what herbs, tonics, and practices were beneficial and which were not it was based upon direct observation, however I can certainly understand why someone may want to consider it anecdotal, even though records were kept and books were written. I am fine either way.
Scott, I am actually in 100% agreement with you on this point. In fact, it doesn’t matter if Qigong works because it is real or because a person simply believes it is real. If it works that is all that matters! My original teacher stressed this point. In fact, our system was called “Nianli” which roughly translates to “Mind Power Healing”. The Yi or intention was the most important part. It is absolutely the mind that produces positive or negative results.
It can be all be considering Qigong, whether it is practiced by a Chinese Taoist or an American Indian Medicine Man. Qigong is a vast umbrella and ultimately anything that involves working with our own energy and intention for self-cultivation or healing can fall under it. I imagine that the Medicine Man and a Taoist healer would probably be in agreement on various underlying principles.
Ha! Sarcasm. I love it. Sarcasm is one of my absolute favorite tools as well. With my original quote “When you want to learn and understand more you need to do just the opposite. Look internally and practice more.”, I was trying to stress that any mind-body practice is about turning inwards to seek answers instead of always looking outside yourself. An intuitive mind and asking question is also extremely important, especially for anyone fortunate enough to have access to a really knowledgeable teacher. But you gain real understanding when you then go and practice. Certain things can only be learned from actually practicing. I believe that nowadays more than ever the majority of us already spend more than enough time focused externally. A little more time working on the mind-body connection can only be a good thing. The most difficult part is finding the time each day to spend on self-cultivation, when we all have fast-moving busy lives filled with obligations that must be fulfilled.
We have the power to shape our reality, to a limited extent of course.
My reality is not yours nor your mine.
In Osain Bolts reality, he can run the 100 meters in under 9.6 seconds, in mine, I can’t do that.
And that is a physcial thing, far more constraining than other things that are subject to reality.
Some say that Christ healed because he had found the true name of God and used it and all the power that came with it, others say that he had found out that the source of life ( spirit) could be manipulated and used to heal.
Of course its quite ok to say anything, proving is another matter.
Anything that stimulates are bodies natural systems that heal and fight illnesses will help in doing just that, be it foods, exercise or medicine.
For soemthing to be proven by science or accepted as fact it must be not only done over the course of many studies, typically blind and controlled, bu it must also be reproduced, consistently.
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]I certainly don’t feel I have it all figured out, and I’m not quite sure why you would make that assumption from my post. [/QUOTE]
well, your first post started out with a very strong proscriptive statement:
[INDENT][QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337] I just joined this forum and I found it odd that the first few threads I read revolved around scientific proof. Although I’m not opposed to research being conducted in order to help prove the effectiveness of Qigong, it should certainly not be the main focus point. [/QUOTE][/INDENT]
(bold added for emphasis); you basically come on here w ur preconceptions (“I found it odd”)and saying how something should (or should not) be (“It should not be the main focus”); so while you now make a case for your own equanimity, your initial post was hardly an example of that
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337] I fully realize it was my first post, and my intention was simply to further discussion and post a viewpoint. Of course some will agree and some won’t…that is what makes for an interesting discussion. We all have different viewpoints from where we stand, and that is what makes us unique and interesting. [/QUOTE]
everyone has and is entitled to a viewpoint; some viewpoints are just more well-informed and / or are communicated more effectively than others…
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]Just to be clear as I stated in my original post, I fully support research into Qigong and all mind-body medicine. [/QUOTE]
that is a very different tone than the above referenced statement from your first post;
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]I think an integrative approach combining the best of Western and Eastern medicine is what works best and will hopefully be embraced more and more in the future. [/QUOTE]
why? for example, I use an osteopathic manual approach; as compared to the tuina I have studied / seen done, it blows it away in terms of efficiency and specificity, as well as in regards to whole-body functionality; when combined w skilful application of more “standard” PT methodology, it addresses my patient’s needs, never needing to “go East”; OTOH, perhaps you mean to suggest that a combination of logic and intuition is what is needed, as opposed to just one or the other; which I agree is the case, but that one must be careful not to use either unduly…
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337] I welcome counter viewpoints, as again this is what makes any discussion interesting. However, as Sal noted in his reply you seem to want to go on the attack [/QUOTE]
hey, if you want to qualify it as an “attack” because I took issue w what u wrote, and because you don’t like how I post, that’s your issue - don’t come onto a public forum and expect that everyone will answer you in a way that you find appropriate - if you don’t like it, put me on ignore; OTOH, maybe don’t be so sensitive and see if the content of what I write is something of use to you or not
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]and systematically pick apart others posts, which makes it quite difficult to build a thread in which we all learn and take away something of value. [/QUOTE]
lol; so when I answer point by point, that’s a “bad” thing now? should I just respond holistically? I;m sorry, I didn’t realize there were some set of “mind/body” rules to responding I was ignoring? (BTW, this is sarcasm , you may recognize it as you profess to use it a lot); that said, again, if the style in which I post impedes your capacity to “take away something of value”, then just ignore me; you may also want to read up on the way in which Ch’an Buddhists communicate w each other in certain cases…
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]I actually did mean empirical evidence. For instance, when the Taoists spent centuries discovering what herbs, tonics, and practices were beneficial and which were not it was based upon direct observation, however I can certainly understand why someone may want to consider it anecdotal, even though records were kept and books were written. I am fine either way. [/QUOTE]
empirical evidence can be either anecdotal or research-protocol based - it has to do with direct observation, regardless of the manner in which that information is gathered; however, the entire body of TCM knowledge prior to recent times is ALL anecdotal, because it’s not based on a defined research methodology / use of statistical analysis (same w a lot of other approaches, including so-called allopathic medicine); which is fine there is nothing wrong w anecdotal, it’s a critical component, but it’s also highly subjective, and therefore to generalize based on anecdotal report, even when there’s lots of it, can be misleading; that’s why in medicine now there is a push towards “evidence-based”, because a lot of the “evidence” for even contemporary medical practice is anecdotal in nature (e.g. - a great deal of surgical technique is largely based on anecdotal evidence, not research protocols)
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]Scott, I am actually in 100% agreement with you on this point. In fact, it doesn’t matter if Qigong works because it is real or because a person simply believes it is real. [/QUOTE]
actually, it matters a lot, because it’s two different mechanisms, and understanding what they are, how to access them and when to use one, the other, or both is actually important when one works with patients on a regular basis in a professional capacity;
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337] If it works that is all that matters! My original teacher stressed this point.[/QUOTE]
he is wrong; this is a dangerous perspective to convey to people who have no capacity to judge the contextual ramifications of this position;
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337] In fact, our system was called “Nianli” which roughly translates to “Mind Power Healing”. The Yi or intention was the most important part. It is absolutely the mind that produces positive or negative results. [/QUOTE]
that works with one particular type of therapeutic approach, and it is the one best suited to amateurs with no formal training or license, because in most cases, you will just be riding the wave of the homeostatic imperative that you are facilitating; the problem is that people who do this sort of healing work tend to get swept along by the entrainment wave it generates, and often become very enamored of themselves and what they think that they can do…
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]It can be all be considering Qigong, whether it is practiced by a Chinese Taoist or an American Indian Medicine Man. Qigong is a vast umbrella and ultimately anything that involves working with our own energy and intention for self-cultivation or healing can fall under it. I imagine that the Medicine Man and a Taoist healer would probably be in agreement on various underlying principles.[/QUOTE]
yes, and as such, to call it qigong or anything else actually is limiting - what we are looking at here is the INTRINSIC capacity of the human (and animal) organism to respond homeostatically in a certain way to just about any sort of “therapeutic” input
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]Ha! Sarcasm. I love it. Sarcasm is one of my absolute favorite tools as well. With my original quote “When you want to learn and understand more you need to do just the opposite. Look internally and practice more.”, I was trying to stress that any mind-body practice is about turning inwards to seek answers instead of always looking outside yourself. [/QUOTE]
tell me, at what point does your “self” end and the “outside yourself” begin? if you can answer me that, I will bow down and call you my teacher!
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]An intuitive mind and asking question is also extremely important, especially for anyone fortunate enough to have access to a really knowledgeable teacher.[/QUOTE]
not necesarilly; one can discern “truth” as such for oneself without another person teaching them how to do it; some people need a teacher, others do not;
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]But you gain real understanding when you then go and practice. Certain things can only be learned from actually practicing. [/QUOTE]
absolutely true; except it’s not practice - there is no such thing…
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]I believe that nowadays more than ever the majority of us already spend more than enough time focused externally. [/QUOTE]
there is no distinction between focusing internally and externally except when one makes that distinction;
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088337]A little more time working on the mind-body connection can only be a good thing. The most difficult part is finding the time each day to spend on self-cultivation, when we all have fast-moving busy lives filled with obligations that must be fulfilled.[/QUOTE]
my teacher talks about the “lotus in the flame” or “threading the needle’s eye” as indicators of how one can “practice” while engaged in the hectic pace of modern life…the time is there, the circumstances, the opportunity are all there AT ALL TIMES, even when one is stuck in traffic, overloaded at work, stressed at home - one only needs that instantaneous realization to create an infinite spaceousness regardless of temporal circumstances - thus, while it is fine to “set aside” time for quite, solitary contemplation, it is in fact not the true opportunity to “practice” - it is when one is in the midst of the chaos of life that one has the chance to practice - and as such, there is no such thing as practice, no time to practice - there is only that such as it is, and how we negotiate it in that moment - thus, all dharmas are empty, all “practice” set aside from the everyday is simply polishing a stone to make a mirror
I hope none of the above hurt your or anyone else’s feelings…:rolleyes: (more sarcasm)
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088394]a combination of logic and intuition is what is needed, as opposed to just one or the other; which I agree is the case, but that one must be careful not to use either unduly…
to call it qigong or anything else actually is limiting - what we are looking at here is the INTRINSIC capacity of the human (and animal) organism to respond homeostatically in a certain way to just about any sort of “therapeutic” input
[/quote]
Ah, resonance… catch the wave properly and you can reach the shore.
I hope none of the above hurt your or anyone else’s feelings…:rolleyes: (more sarcasm)
I for one am devastated.
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088394]
I hope none of the above hurt your or anyone else’s feelings…:rolleyes: (more sarcasm)[/QUOTE]
My delicate sensibilities have been thoroughly violated.
Hi discoverthefire,
You have earned some respect for having the cajones to at least respond to the criticism of your very first post here.
A lot of people wet their pants and go crying to their mommies.
The problem with many Western Taichi, Qigong students is, they are dilettantes who have no idea what they are talking about. They think the Eastern way is to just all get along with hugs and kisses and therefore they can’t take being challenged. They laughably think that responding to being aggressively challenged is beneath their maturity, that is, beneath how they THINK a person with THEIR SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING should behave! These types of people are bound by the chains their own preconceived notions.
They concentrate on living a Yin existence fearing the Yang. This gives them a very unbalanced world view and they can’t take being challenged. Heaven forbid they might learn something they didn’t know. Many of them think they already have it all figured out and don’t want their “safe little world” challenged!
It isn’t called Yin-Yang for nothing. One must take the one with the other. In fact we don’t have a choice in the matter. Pretending there is no Yang in the world doesn’t make it go away!
Being challenged in our beliefs and what we think we know is what stimulates growth. The challenge to communicate what we do believe in a more understandable or comprehensive manner is what establishes out beliefs.
Our muscles get stronger by challenging their capacity, so does our brain!
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088394]all dharmas are empty[/QUOTE]
NOT ME!!!:eek:
Hey Scott,
I am with you on the yin-yang relationship, and how many Qigong practitioners begin to focus more strongly on the yin and forget about the yang. It is really only when we are challenged in some way that we grow.
Plus I may be posting in the “Qigong and Meditation” section, but I also train hard in Hop Gar Kung Fu and I imagine my Sifu would be a bit disappointed in me if I went crying to mommy over a few words. 
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1088477]
A lot of people wet their pants[/QUOTE]
good thing there’s a nurse around to clean it up!
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1088477]
NOT ME!!!:eek:[/QUOTE]
true - you are full of it; now shut up and get back to your 10x scope!
[QUOTE=discoverthefire;1088491]Hey Scott,
I am with you on the yin-yang relationship, and how many Qigong practitioners begin to focus more strongly on the yin and forget about the yang. It is really only when we are challenged in some way that we grow.
Plus I may be posting in the “Qigong and Meditation” section, but I also train hard in Hop Gar Kung Fu and I imagine my Sifu would be a bit disappointed in me if I went crying to mommy over a few words. :D[/QUOTE]
well said…
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088503]true - you are full of it; now shut up and get back to your 10x scope![/QUOTE]
Big Nose!
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1088512]Big Nose!:p[/QUOTE]
Old hairy-hands!
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1088538]Old hairy-hands![/QUOTE]
Who you calling OLD…you young whipper snapper…
Whyyyyyyyyyyy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OUGHTA…
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1088560]Who you calling OLD…you young whipper snapper…
Whyyyyyyyyyyy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OUGHTA…:p[/QUOTE]
Gram-paaa!!!
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1088560]Who you calling OLD…you young whipper snapper…
Whyyyyyyyyyyy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OUGHTA…:p[/QUOTE]
With you on all of the above, Sal. Dancing a debate with science-is-my-god-and-if-you-don’t-believe is usually frustrating and pointless in these areas. But I guess it can be fun sometimes.
[QUOTE=Northwind;1089031]With you on all of the above, Sal. Dancing a debate with science-is-my-god-and-if-you-don’t-believe is usually frustrating and pointless in these areas. But I guess it can be fun sometimes. :P[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure where you are getting a “science-is-god” subtext from any of this (notwithstanding that it was Sal himself who started this thread as an example of “scientific proof” relating to thoughts constructing reality); first off, “science” as such - what is it? what do you mean? “science” covers a large array of things; if you mean “scientific method”, then what you are talking about is a RELATIVELY objective approach to quantifying / qualifying empirical observations; meaning that it is impossible to ever be 100% objective, but that an attempt to do so is made, in order to control for undesired variables that may effect a given outcome; this forms the basis of evidence-based research methodology, which seeks to minimize subjectivity, in order to maximize generalizability; now, this sort of thing is very useful in certain instances, less useful in others - it allows one to “get into the neighborhood”, and even possibly get into the right house, so-to-speak; however, it does not account for the degree of variability that one often sees in clinical practice, especially where the individual operator effect is a consideration; meaning that, whereas I can use a double-blind RCT to assess the effectiveness of a given medication, when I start getting into something like manual therapy, TCM, it gets more difficult to control for factors such as placebo, entrainment, regression to the mean, etc., because the nature of many of those modalities is to actively engage the innate homeostatic mechanism as a therapeutic variable; as such, some people, like Sal, for example, are intrinsically “better” than other people at engaging this response - in Sal’s case, he gets his effect using “qigong”; someone else may get similar effects using “reiki”, or “faith healing” (Benny Hinn notwithstanding, of course), or “polarity”, “craniosacral”, etc.; these things can be difficult to assess using DB RCT’s, because there is moment-to-moment variability that can impact the “protocol” used, meaning that if one sticks to the research protocol, one may get less effective outcomes across a range of patients than if one deviates from it - but of course, that renders the protocol / research study invalid;
the bottom line is that while on the one hand, one needs must have a very active mechanism of discernment when employing certain types of approaches (meaning that, IMPO, the whole “I don’t care why it works as long as it does” is an inappropriate default), but at the same time, to base everything on EBM approach ignores the inherent 'non-linearity" of the human organism in certain situations (for example: one person with chronic headaches might need direct manipulation to the head; another may need it in the thorax; another might need it in the pelvis and still another may need it in the ankle, and the rationale for each will be different, although they will still be in function of the anatomical / physiological interrelationships that govern / are governed by our intrinsic nature);
it’s not “either / or”, but rather a clear understanding of when the relatively objective or the relatively subjective are required, and acting out of that;
Keep in mind that I also said I find this type of thing usually frustrating & pointless, so I’m not sure how long I will stay in this, but…
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1089092]I’m not sure where you are getting a “science-is-god” subtext from any of this (notwithstanding that it was Sal himself who started this thread as an example of “scientific proof” relating to thoughts constructing reality)
[/QUOTE]
Not directed at any particular individual, but rather the broad base that I was referring to. This type of “discussion” is far from uncommon.
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1089092]
first off, “science” as such - what is it? what do you mean?
[/QUOTE]
I mean “the science” behind the James Randi thought process of put-up-or-shut-up to any and all things that are odd to day-to-day life.
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1089092]
“science” covers a large array of things; if you mean “scientific method”, then what you are talking about is a RELATIVELY objective approach to quantifying / qualifying empirical observations; meaning that it is impossible to ever be 100% objective, but that an attempt to do so is made, in order to control for undesired variables that may effect a given outcome; this forms the basis of evidence-based research methodology, which seeks to minimize subjectivity, in order to maximize generalizability;
[/QUOTE]
Uh-huh. I’m familiar with the phrase.
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1089092]
now, this sort of thing is very useful in certain instances, less useful in others - it allows one to “get into the neighborhood”, and even possibly get into the right house, so-to-speak; however, it does not account for the degree of variability that one often sees in clinical practice, especially where the individual operator effect is a consideration; meaning that, whereas I can use a double-blind RCT to assess the effectiveness of a given medication, when I start getting into something like manual therapy, TCM, it gets more difficult to control for factors such as placebo, entrainment, regression to the mean, etc., because the nature of many of those modalities is to actively engage the innate homeostatic mechanism as a therapeutic variable; as such, some people, like Sal, for example, are intrinsically “better” than other people at engaging this response - in Sal’s case, he gets his effect using “qigong”; someone else may get similar effects using “reiki”, or “faith healing” (Benny Hinn notwithstanding, of course), or “polarity”, “craniosacral”, etc.; these things can be difficult to assess using DB RCT’s, because there is moment-to-moment variability that can impact the “protocol” used, meaning that if one sticks to the research protocol, one may get less effective outcomes across a range of patients than if one deviates from it - but of course, that renders the protocol / research study invalid;
the bottom line is that while on the one hand, one needs must have a very active mechanism of discernment when employing certain types of approaches (meaning that, IMPO, the whole “I don’t care why it works as long as it does” is an inappropriate default), but at the same time, to base everything on EBM approach ignores the inherent 'non-linearity" of the human organism in certain situations (for example: one person with chronic headaches might need direct manipulation to the head; another may need it in the thorax; another might need it in the pelvis and still another may need it in the ankle, and the rationale for each will be different, although they will still be in function of the anatomical / physiological interrelationships that govern / are governed by our intrinsic nature);
[/QUOTE]
Completely agreed.
It seems that most here are annoyed by the title being “Scientific proof” and yet it is not. I can understand that, however, my agreements with Sal are twofold:
- I’m into that stuff
- I get the “if I make my headline controversial, more folks will actually read the article”. It’s a bit of content marketing and not too shabby.
Anyway, it looks like we don’t really disagree on too much here other than his use of the title.