PDA

View Full Version : "Chi/Ki/Qi, & it's role in Traditional Budo...



Jim_Jude
1st April 2003, 22:59
After reading the Reiki threads (sorry, I just couldn't jump in to that barrel of monkeys) I read an interesting opinion:

"The human body does NOT possess an "energy field". You cannot cure disease by waving your hands about. But please feel free to prove me wrong."
w/ a corresponding link: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

With a simple google search, I found three articles documenting experiments performed by recognized scietific professionals, individuals with advanced degrees, researching the existance of a human energy field & being funded by such prestigeous institutions such as UCLA, Kazakh University, Lanzhou University, the Medical Sciences Academy in Moscow, & Shanghai Atomic Nuclear Institute.
http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html
http://www.vxm.com/21R.54.html
http://www.trans4mind.com/psychotechnics/energyfield.html

BTW, I've read Valerie Hunt's book, The Infinite Mind. Very interesting read. For example, Hunt shares her findings in the "Mu Room," in which human subjects burst into tears when the electromagnetism of the air was depleted, and regained a sense of clear thinking when the electromagnetism of the air was increased. The Mu Room is a seven foot square shielded room located in the Physics department at UCLA, where the electromagnetic energy of the air can be altered without reducing its breathability (oxygen content).

It seems interesting to me that there can be so much opposing scientific data on such a simple subject.

All of that aside, back to my original intention for this thread.

It seems to me there is very little discusion of chi/ki/qi cultivation in koryu & gendai bujutsu, short of Aikido & it's relatives. Why do you think this is, considering the abundance of "chi" in the chinese arts? Also, I don't pretend to know all there is about all arts. Have any of you learned about or experienced any chi cultivation in Koryu Japanese arts, or any arts for that matter?

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 07:03
Yes, let's open this can of worms again. The woo-woos will crawl out from under their respective rocks and we'll have another pissing contest. But:
Jim, if these people are so respectable, and their research passes muster, why are they publishing on the internet and not in any peer-reviewed journals such as Nature or Scientific American? What are their PhDs in? Anything relevant? Apparently not. The first article is written by a total woo-woo who discusses Kirlian auras and Mesmerism as fact, two ideas that were throroughly debunked decades ago. Also, why have none of these people applied for the $1 million prize? Answer: their protocols are flawed, and they know it. Read up on the Gary Schwartz debacle (http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html) to see what I mean. Besides, if these people really have proven their case, they would be shoo-ins for the Nobel prize. As none of them are Nobel laureates, I guess we'll have to wait a while longer for them to "prove" their case...

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 07:06
Tony.

Are you aware that there is Qi-gong/Ki-Ko training at the Shaolin Temple?

And that the monks belief in it it's existence?

Seeya.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 07:13
But then, there is the whole debate around the current crop of Shaolin monks, and whether they are real shaolin monks at all. Jet Li said when they filmed there in 1980 there were two monks, and they could not do MA at all.

Suddenly the chinese govt discovers monks = cash and now there are touring Monks doing shows in madison square garden.

Funny that.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 07:18
Originally posted by Silent Dan
But then, there is the whole debate around the current crop of Shaolin monks, and whether they are real shaolin monks at all. Jet Li said when they filmed there in 1980 there were two monks, and they could not do MA at all.

Suddenly the chinese govt discovers monks = cash and now there are touring Monks doing shows in madison square garden.

Funny that.

Agreed, that the current temple does not add up to much.
Most of the guys on the tour are standard wushu guys anyway, not ordained monks.

The thread is not if Qi exists or not, but why does CMA have such an emphasis on qi-development that seems to be lacking in the JMA.

According to Tony all the Qi-gong exercises would be woo-woo too.

Like iron shirt, pole standing, etc.

Cheers.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 07:19
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Are you aware that there is Qi-gong/Ki-Ko training at the Shaolin Temple? And that the monks belief in it it's existence?
As I am tired of reiterating on these boards, just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. You know, I should collect all the woo-woo statements in a volume of how NOT to debate, because you inevitably resort to logical fallacies. I could create an index of them. Peter's latest statement is a classic example of argumentum ad verecundium, or Appeal to Authority. His statement goes: The Shaolin monks are great martial artists, and indeed, experts on the subject. They believe in Ki, so Ki must exist. In fact, as the monks are not doctors or scientists, their arguments cannot be considered authoritiative, as the study of "energy" (even in the misapplied woo-woo sense of the word) is a scientific one.
BTW, Peter, I couldn't download your paper last night. Could you post the link again, please? TIA,

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 07:23
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Like iron shirt, pole standing, etc.
These aren't so much woo-woo as simple magic tricks of the sort David Blaine or David Copperfield perform. Take spear-bending for example; the trick is all to do with the assistant's wrists. By angling the force down, no actual pressure is applied to the "master's" (i.e., conjuror's) throat. Being fooled by these people is the same as being fooled by Penn and Teller. Enjoyable, but hardly evidence for the paranormal.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 07:25
Tony.

Than explain to me how and why Qi-gong exercises exist.
And why do CMA practicioners waste so much time on them.


Just saw your above post.

I am not talking about the demos, but things like "Horse stance standing", " 8 Silk brocades" and similar.


Check your pm.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 07:37
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Than explain to me how and why Qi-gong exercises exist.
And why do CMA practicioners waste so much time on them.
Yet another logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populam (Appeal to the masses). CMA practitioners may BELIEVE they are cultivating super-powers, but that is not evidence that they actually ARE. Look how many people used to believe the earth was flat. Such faith didn't change our planet's spherical shape one iota.

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Just saw your above post.
I am not talking about the demos, but things like "Horse stance standing", " 8 Silk brocades" and similar.

I don't know what you mean by that. It's possible I know them by a different term; can you explain?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Check your pm.
Thank you.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 07:45
Hi Tony.

Here are some links:

8 pieces of Brocade Silk. (http://www.yamatanidojo.com/8_brocade.htm)

The link below is for Horse stance standing and is the kind of Qi-development I usually talk about when I mean Qi.

Ma Bu Zhang Zhuang/Horse stance. (http://www.cyberkwoon.com/html/article.php?sid=63)

Another link (http://www.wahnam.com/UK/chikung/types.htm) Picture shows one of the horse stances.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 08:06
Tony.

Forget the third link.

Here is a better one.

Horse stance (http://www.davidjamieson.com/kunglek/pic-001-4.htm)

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 08:08
Thank you, Peter.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 08:33
The form in the third picture is bad, and its from an external system, so it has alterations that limit its use for development of internal power, no matter how you define internal power.

Even if the alterations were okay, it still shows fundementally incorrect posture.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 08:38
Originally posted by Silent Dan
The form in the third picture is bad, and its from an external system, so it has alterations that limit its use for development of internal power, no matter how you define internal power.

Even if the alterations were okay, it still shows fundementally incorrect posture.

I know, I know.

Just didn't feel like grabbing a pic from my Sifu's video at short notice.
;)


Btw, pls, empty your inbox.

Seeya.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 08:57
Well, I've now read all three of those websites, and all I see are a lot of stretching exercises and muscle-strengthening exercises. You could stand in kiba-dachi all day, or do an equivalent number of squats. Still nothing paranormal about anything you've posted, Peter.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 09:01
Then try it.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 09:14
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Well, I've now read all three of those websites, and all I see are a lot of stretching exercises and muscle-strengthening exercises. You could stand in kiba-dachi all day, or do an equivalent number of squats. Still nothing paranormal about anything you've posted, Peter.

Never talked about paranormal.

Jim_Jude.

Sorry, for high-jacking the thread.

Is this what you were talking about when you started the thread or the Rick Mooney variety show of Chi/Qi/Ki.

Cheers.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 09:41
See the problem is that Tony sees paranormal apologists everywhere. what peter and I discuss are based on our own experiences, and we dont think that they are magical in anyway. They are replicable by any person willing to go through the time and effort to do so, and we have never claimed they are magical in anyway. They may be simply physical reactions to blood flow and the parasympathetic nervous system. Does that mean its not Qi, no, it just means that some peoples definitions of qi are extremely limited.

Anytime the word qi comes out, Tony automatically begins to envision everyone in clown makeup. running around invisibly slapping each other.

bruceb
3rd April 2003, 13:39
WHOA!!

Let's go back to the first post and its content.

Hey!

Did Mr. Kehoe read the links of just go off on a tangent again?

I saw observations of ohmmeters, and other types of electrical phenonmenon being observed without any woo-woo science, but within a clinical environment that did make any conclusions to either Ki/Chi/or healing claims Tony loves to dispute.

In fact, I saw a variety of scentific claims that could quite possibly demystify this whole subject and pretty end Kimpatsu's crusade to have everyone take this stupid 1 million dollar challenge he is continually bringing up. Game over Tony.

We are not talking about psychic's, as this thread has been steered off course into the Bermuda Triangle, but we instruemtents that measure strange electrical phenonmena of the human body that is interpreted in terms of thought as a particular repeatable phenonmenon. Not once, or twice, but repeatedly with a high percentage of results within test groups.

BACK IT UP! Let us not get off course.

CAN this mystic off course tangent, and get back to the subject.

What about the measurements of the human bodys electrical fields, or the self induced conditions from visualization, and the relation of these measurements in relation to KI/CHI?

Well?

What about it?

Mr. Kehoe? Are you there?

How does this measure up in relation to your so called arguement of taking the fabled challenge. If we can prove this is some type of scientific phenonmenon that is incorrectly interpreted by the human mind, doesn't that negate the very premise of your challenge arguement?

Explain to me how this would qualify for the million dollar challenge?

You can't.

It doesn't.

You are wrong.

So, be damn skippy, apologise to everyone for being a pain, and we can move on.

Maybe even to your favorite subject of prognostication, and mystics who seem to be lumped into our Ki/Chi discussions, who should now be a separate subject.

Well?

I believe we are all waiting for an apology?

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 14:44
Originally posted by Silent Dan
Then try it.
Then try what, Dan?

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 14:49
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Never talked about paranormal.
Jim_Jude.
Sorry, for high-jacking the thread.
Is this what you were talking about when you started the thread or the Rick Mooney variety show of Chi/Qi/Ki.
Then I'm lost. What exactly ARE you claiming, that's unique to you, and is not replicable outside your organisation? Chi/Ki claims are de facto paranormal in origin, because the very word implies a power not known in science. Please clarify.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 14:53
Originally posted by Silent Dan
See the problem is that Tony sees paranormal apologists everywhere. what peter and I discuss are based on our own experiences, and we dont think that they are magical in anyway.
You claim a power not known in science, that's paranormal. Can you demonstrate this under laboratory conditions?

Originally posted by Silent Dan
They are replicable by any person willing to go through the time and effort to do so, and we have never claimed they are magical in anyway. They may be simply physical reactions to blood flow and the parasympathetic nervous system.
"Parasympathetic" is a woo-woo term. If you can do this at will, please show me under scientific testing conditions.

Originally posted by Silent Dan
Does that mean its not Qi, no, it just means that some peoples definitions of qi are extremely limited.
So what is your definition of Ki?

Originally posted by Silent Dan
Anytime the word qi comes out, Tony automatically begins to envision everyone in clown makeup. running around invisibly slapping each other.
No, I envisage woo-woos who know nothing about science. Care to prove me wrong?

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 14:55
I notice that Bruce B has posted more :rolleyes:
Eidted by mod

Dave Pawson
3rd April 2003, 15:13
Tony

Just as a matter of interest, and I'm not taking sides on this issue as I don't have sufficient knowledge.

In relation to the Martial Arts, a large percentage lay claim that Ki,Chi (what ever you want to call it) exists within their systems.

How would you reconcile training in any system which is being taught (using your teminology here) by a woo woo.

Have you ever managed to get some of these masters to take your test, and have you challenged them by stating they are a woo woo and what they are claiming is a lie?

This is not an attack, I'm just interested in your response, sometimes we can get so far in to something that you can't see the wood for the tree's.

meat
3rd April 2003, 15:20
Tony, I don't understand, the parasympathetic nervous sytem is quite well defined, as a matter of fact I have references to it in quite a few of my uni textbooks, care to elaborate on your comment?

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 15:25
Originally posted by Dave Pawson
Just as a matter of interest, and I'm not taking sides on this issue as I don't have sufficient knowledge.
In relation to the Martial Arts, a large percentage lay claim that Ki,Chi (what ever you want to call it) exists within their systems.
How would you reconcile training in any system which is being taught (using your teminology here) by a woo woo.
As I said earlier, argumentum ad populam is NOT evidence. It doesn't matter HOW many people believe it. We're not testing whether people BELIEVE that Chi exists; we're testing whether it actually DOES exist.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. Why can't you see the difference?

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
Have you ever managed to get some of these masters to take your test, and have you challenged them by stating they are a woo woo and what they are claiming is a lie?
Soi-disant Chi masters have been tested before, and none of them have ever passed a scientific test. Let me guess: you're trying to cover for someone, right?

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
This is not an attack, I'm just interested in your response, sometimes we can get so far in to something that you can't see the wood for the tree's.
TREES, surely.
And take the log out of your own eye first...

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 15:27
Originally posted by meat
Tony, I don't understand, the parasympathetic nervous sytem is quite well defined, as a matter of fact I have references to it in quite a few of my uni textbooks, care to elaborate on your comment?
It's like the woo-woo misuse of "energy"; he's not using the word as defined in your textbooks.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 15:30
Tony,


You claim a power not known in science, that's paranormal. Can you demonstrate this under laboratory conditions?


Fallacy 1: where on this forum have I ever claimed any powers, let alone one unknown to science.

Fallacy 2. your definition of paranormal is incorrect. You are once again mistaking the unknown for the unknowable.

Main Entry: paraánorámal
Pronunciation: "par-&-'nor-m&l, 'par-&-"
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1920
: not scientifically explainable


"Parasympathetic" is a woo-woo term. If you can do this at will, please show me under scientific testing conditions.


Fallacy 1: what exactly did I claim in that post to be able to do at will, or at all for that matter? I was not terribly specific. I can list a number of physical indications of "qi" development, such as increased salivary secretion, heightened blood flow to the extremities, pulsating sensation, a sense of detachment. These are all scientifically explainable. The fact that they are does not categorically obviate them from being the result of qi. It just calls into question the technical limitations under which the term was first adanvced. If increased blood flow to the extremities is all that is required to prove to you the existence of ki, then I can do that anytime. But as I said, anyone can. Its not a power. Its a normal physical reaction to performing the "exercises" correctly, just as a person who jumps rope for 10 minutes will have a high heart rate.

Fallacy 2: Parasympathetic is a western medical term.

Main Entry: 1paraásymápaáthetáic
Pronunciation: "par-&-"sim-p&-'the-tik
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
Date: 1905
: of, relating to, being, or acting on the parasympathetic nervous system


Main Entry: parasympathetic nervous system
Function: noun
Date: circa 1934
: the part of the autonomic nervous system that contains chiefly cholinergic fibers, that tends to induce secretion, to increase the tone and contractility of smooth muscle, and to slow heart rate, and that consists of a cranial and a sacral part -- compare SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM

So what is your definition of Ki?

Actually Tony, you are both the translator and the martial artist. Japanese is rife with expressions utilizing the term ki. Can you compartmentalize the Japanese definition of the term for me? Considering your prowess in the linguistics field, it should be far easier for you than for me.



No, I envisage woo-woos who know nothing about science. Care to prove me wrong?

Certainly. Lets get back to your absolute lack of knowledge about the human nervous system.

anatomy 101 (http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u05/u05_010.htm)

This one is illustrated... (http://www.inspirationcenter.net/mindbody/parasympathetic.html)

and more... (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/PNS.html)

Apparently you envisage yourself.

Dave Pawson
3rd April 2003, 15:50
Kimpatsu

As I said earlier, argumentum ad populam is NOT evidence. It doesn't matter HOW many people believe it. We're not testing whether people BELIEVE that Chi exists; we're testing whether it actually DOES exist.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. Why can't you see the difference?


Tony read what I said, I never claimed that it was evidence.

Kimpatsu

Soi-disant Chi masters have been tested before, and none of them have ever passed a scientific test. Let me guess: you're trying to cover for someone, right?


Nope, not trying to cover for anyone, I haven't made any claim into its existance or non existance. I asked a simple question which you have decided to ignore,

I'll ask again,

In relation to those Martial Arts instructors who CLAIM to use Chi, have you called them a LIAR to their face and demanded that they test.



Kimpatsu

TREES, surely.
And take the log out of your own eye first...

And why the insult at the end, I asked a question which you deemed unimportant and did not answer, i.e. you dodged it.

All I was saying is that sometimes we need to step back and look from a different angle, I have found from experience that most of the time my initial instinct is correct.

I cannot explain what Chi is, I don't claim to, and I don't claim that it exists due to the fact I have seen no proof in person. I know there are certain techniques that are claimed to improve Chi, but these as you know are bogus.

Don't be so defensive, you might find out that I agree with a lot of what you say, just not eveything, democracy.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 15:53
Not at all, Daniel. The paranormal doesn't mean something unknown to science; it means something that contradicts established scientific knowledge. So, for example, Chi flowing along meridians is a nonsense, because countless dead bodies have been examined, diced, sliced, and otherwise scrutinised, and NO MERIDIANS have ever been found. Therefore, if you claim you can channel Chi, you are claiming a paranormal power. Don't take my word for it; apply for the $1 million. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) You certainly qualify.
Agreed that unknown does not equal unknowable; that's the default scientific position. I know it better than you do. But your claims about the nature of Chi flatly contradict what we know of science, so if you're right, 200 years of modern anatomy must be wrong. That's paranormal.

Kimpatsu
3rd April 2003, 15:57
Dave, science is not democratic. We don't get to vote on the laws of physics. If you're not claiming evidence, what exactly are you claiming? You implied--no, you specified--that because so many people believe in Chi, it must be true. That's a logical fallacy. See? (Forgive the unintended rhyme.)
If you don't want me to misunderstand you, don't sit on the fence. Are you a skeptic or a believer? It's a very simple question.

Dave Pawson
3rd April 2003, 17:54
Ok Tony I'll give you an answer when you answer the question I have asked on two seperate occasion, now a third time.

Have you approached some of these Masters and called them to their face a liar and a woo woo, Answer that question and I'll answer yours.


The statement about democracy was said to show that we have a right to a difference of opinion, or it was thae last time I looked, or has your interpretation of science invalidated that rule.

Oh and I didn't specify that because so many believe it must be true as you wrote. my exact words were "a large percentage lay claim that Ki,Chi (what ever you want to call it) exists within their systems."

You really need to read what is being written and not just make assumptions, doesn't do your scientific approach much good when you base you written answer on what you thought that person was meaning, even though what uyou thought was actually wrong. (sorry for the long sentance.)

As I said this is not an attack just playing devils advocate with you.

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 22:13
Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Then I'm lost. What exactly ARE you claiming, that's unique to you, and is not replicable outside your organisation?


I am claiming NOTHING unique. everything we do in Chen TJQ and other MA can be reproduced by ANYONE using those methods.

Qi-Gong training is an integral part of CMA(not just the internals) and, AFAIK, also exists in many JMA, KMA, etc.

You are the one insisting that everybody that mentions Qi claims paranormal power.



Chi/Ki claims are de facto paranormal in origin, because the very word implies a power not known in science. Please clarify.

NO, YOUR definition of Chi does that not MINE.
Pls, show me a dictionary entry for Chi/Qi/Ki, also look at the Chinese Character used for "Qi".

Actually none of my Sifu ever gave the term any specific english meaning, but they only mentioned it maybe 5 times in 4yrs. He rather talks about peng jing. ;)

Re-read Daniels post he is better at explaining it than I am.

Qi-Gong means "Vital essence work" exercises to increase the Body's vital essence, not a mystic force or power that you would like to see.

You see that is YOUR problem you see the likes of Rick Mooney that mis-use a term and assume that his 0.5% of MA that use QI are the same as the other 99.5%.

Cheers

Striking Hand
3rd April 2003, 22:33
Tony.

Here to make it easier for you are 2 links:

Chinese Char. for Qi-Gong (http://www.giuliaboschi.com/inglese/chinese_char.html)


Taoist definition of Qi-Gong (http://www.edepot.com/taoqigong.html)

Cheers.

Exorcist_Fist
3rd April 2003, 22:42
It's like the woo-woo misuse of "energy"; he's not using the word as defined in your textbooks; he's hijacking it to give a pseudo-veneer of science to his nonsensical (and disproven!) theories.
OK?

Actually, its far from okay. Apparently Tony is psychic, and can know my thoughts. He should submit himself for testing. Oh, wait, too bad he has failed the prelim test by failing to correctly divine my intent.

Not at all, Daniel. The paranormal doesn't mean something unknown to science; it means something that contradicts established scientific knowledge.

So, in other words, you prefer your own personal definition to the dictionary's. Well, there it is.


So, for example, Chi flowing along meridians is a nonsense, because countless dead bodies have been examined, diced, sliced, and otherwise scrutinised, and NO MERIDIANS have ever been found.

What is a meridian? I don't believe I have ever discussed a meridian before.


Therefore, if you claim you can channel Chi, you are claiming a paranormal power. Don't take my word for it; apply for the $1 million. You certainly qualify.

Hardly, as I said, replicable responses created by the body to stimuli of the parasympathetic nervous system are neither mystical nor paranormal. I can certainly ask the Randi foundation, but I am certain they agree with my position, rather than yours

.
Agreed that unknown does not equal unknowable; that's the default scientific position. I know it better than you do.

It is quite apparent that you do not.


But your claims about the nature of Chi flatly contradict what we know of science, so if you're right, 200 years of modern anatomy must be wrong. That's paranormal.

Again, I would like to see exactly where in this thread my claims of qi contradict scientific findings. You have simply failed to adequately defend your irrational attacks, and are attempt to re-direct the argument by discussing "claims" I have not made.

Furthermore, you pointedly ignored my request for you to define qi, despite your superior experience and ability to do so. It is clear your definition is fallacious, but without you specifying it, I can't correct it.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 00:09
Originally posted by Dave Pawson
Have you approached some of these Masters and called them to their face a liar and a woo woo, Answer that question and I'll answer yours.
Yes, I've told more than one so-called master that I believe he's self-deluded. I did that in Kyoto once in front of a crowd of people. He claimed his Chi made him immovable, but I still pushed him over. No technique involved; just brute force and ignorance. Still proved him wrong, though.

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
The statement about democracy was said to show that we have a right to a difference of opinion, or it was thae last time I looked, or has your interpretation of science invalidated that rule.
You're not entitled to your opinion; you're entitled to an informed opinion.

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
Oh and I didn't specify that because so many believe it must be true as you wrote. my exact words were "a large percentage lay claim that Ki,Chi (what ever you want to call it) exists within their systems."
Thereby implying argumentum ad populam. If that wasn't what you meant to imply, what was the purpose of posting the statement?

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
You really need to read what is being written and not just make assumptions, doesn't do your scientific approach much good when you base you written answer on what you thought that person was meaning, even though what uyou thought was actually wrong. (sorry for the long sentance.)
I have no objection to long sentences, provided they are correctly spelled, punctuated, and parsed. See the preceding paragraph for my reply.

Originally posted by Dave Pawson
As I said this is not an attack just playing devils advocate with you.
I'm sure Satan needs a lawyer with me around. :D

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 03:30
Dan, are you saying that there's nothing paranormal about Chi? And if not, then what is it?

Exorcist_Fist
4th April 2003, 03:38
I am still waiting for your translation of the term from Japanese. Let's work from there.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 03:51
"Spirit energy". It derives from a pre-scientific notion that life is animated by a mystical force, which leaves the body upon death. In truth, life is a set of complex biochemical processes, which when shut down, cause death.
Is that OK?

Striking Hand
4th April 2003, 03:54
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
"Spirit energy". It derives from a pre-scientific notion that life is animated by a mystical force, which leaves the body upon death. In truth, life is a set of complex biochemical processes, which when shut down, cause death.
Is that OK?

Isn't "Spirit energy" the translation of "Reiki"??

Exorcist_Fist
4th April 2003, 03:56
Great.

That's paranormal. Ain't nothing I will ever be able to do to refute that definition.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 04:30
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Isn't "Spirit energy" the translation of "Reiki"??
Yes. Now do you see why I call its proponents "woo-woos"?

Striking Hand
4th April 2003, 04:33
Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Yes. Now do you see why I call its proponents "woo-woos"?

No problem.
How about plain "Chi/Qi/Ki" as used in martial arts, Qi-Gong, etc.
And what Dan and I are talking about?

Brooks Snider
4th April 2003, 05:21
These are, of course, my opinions – Brooks Snider.

Kimpatsu said, “Dan, are you saying that there's nothing paranormal about Chi? And if not, then what is it?”

Chi is the coordination of muscular and neurological biochemical reactions facilitating the most efficient, and by default, strongest, projection of energy (COMPLETELY PHYSICAL, NOT A PROJECTION THROUGH SPACE) and/or awareness. This biochemical synergy is obtained by practice, practice, more practice, which begets improved concentration, and self-awareness. As in “feeling’ your opponents next move is simply a coordination and understanding of subtle body movements, shifts in breathing and posture of the opponent, and includes in yourself, a relaxed awareness and learned (reflexive) responses. Which to the untrained eye may look magical. Such as Nakayama, Nishiyama, Nagamini, Kokuba, or Morio Higaonna running kata or showing Bunki or Uyeshiba performing randori. They appear surreal yet are very real, and are not superhuman, but improved humans through training.

Striking Hand said, “Isn't "Spirit energy" the translation of "Reiki"??”

Reiki, as I understand it, is the opposite of the above. It is the mystical (delusional, this is not a malicious negative term) projection of one’s “energy” into an ill or injured person which then heals them. The aforementioned “synergy” is ONLY within a person. To project your “energy” implies telekinesis, which has not been proven and until proven, is a dream.

I hope this helps. Also, to have a better understanding of the mind and body, I highly recommend the following text, in order of simple to more difficult: Receptors, Richard M. Restak,, MD, Bantam Books, 1994, ISBN-0-553-37441-9; “Psychology and Life, Thirteenth Edition, Philip G. Zimbardo, Harper Collins Publishers, 1992, ISBN-0-673-46509-8, Chapters 3,4,5,6,7 & 8; Biological Psychology Fifth Edition, James W. Kalat, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company - 1995, ISBN-0-534-21108-9; and The Human Brain and Spinal Cord, Lennart Heimer, MD, Springer-Verlag, 1995, ISBN-0-387-94227-0. These should be sufficient or even better, an updated version or a comparable text.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 06:05
I just looked up "Ki" in the Kojien. The entry is huge, because it lists all the compound expressions as well, such as "...ki ga suru", "To have an inkling that...", etc., but the definition as applies to us is: "The primal force that motivates life." As I described above, this is simply not the case. It stems from the cosmology and biology of a pre-scientific people. There is nothing about the "coordination of muscular and neurological biochemical reactions facilitating the most efficient, and by default, strongest, projection of energy". The description is clearly a superstitious one.

Striking Hand
4th April 2003, 06:32
Tony.

Quiet a few people on this and other threads been giving definitions of "Chi/Qi/Ki" and Qi-Gong.

Most of those run along the similar lines and seem to be in agreement.

Problem I see is that you insist that it is ALL woo-woo, but show a definite lack of knowledge about the topic.

To be honest I know NOTHING about "REIKI", all I know is about "Qi" as I was taught about it in my MA studies.
Which are contrare to the "ki-blasts" , "no-touch knockouts" and Rick mooney "Dragon ball" like stunts.

Agreed, there are many charlatans and shisters out there that use "Ki" as advertisment to sell their phoney wares or hide behind "Ki" because they lack true understanding/knowledge and skill.

IMO, you are too hung up on a definition or one single aspect to continue discussing this topic with you.

Cheerios.

JimGould
4th April 2003, 06:33
Yes, I've told more than one so-called master that I believe he's self-deluded. I did that in Kyoto once in front of a crowd of people. He claimed his Chi made him immovable, but I still pushed him over. No technique involved; just brute force and ignorance. Still proved him wrong, though.

Anecdotal. Who was this guy? Where was he from? What was his style? What did he exactly claim? Did you sneak up and push him from behind? Photographical or video evidence? Can we get his name and contact details to check?

I'm sure Tony would expect nothing less of us ;)

Groundhog day anyone?

Exorcist_Fist
4th April 2003, 06:34
yeah, it is. I learned that one, but like peter said, I learned a bunch more specialized semantics from chinese. The preferred usage by my teacher was "internal power" which has a variety of interpretations in English. Someone once asked my teacher about ki/qi, and the reply was that there are so many explanations for the term that it was generally not worth bothering with.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 06:59
Hey, I just quoted from the big dictionary. You don't like the definition, take it up with the lexicographers. Their definition of Ki runs counter to reality, as it's based on a disproven biology. So, all claims to harness said energy are, by deifintion, woo-woo. If you're telling me you define the word differently, then as I said, first take it up with the lexicographers.

And I've told you before: the quote is not mine, it's Richard Dawkins's. You should correct your signature block.

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:05
More personal attacks Tony? You do that a hell of a lot to avoid answering a question don't you? Have you noticed how you are fooling less and less people here?;)

Exorcist_Fist
4th April 2003, 07:08
Well, Tony, since you have no problem ignoring dictionary definitions, I don't suppose it should matter if I do. But yes, I agree, if that is the definition of ki/qi you use, then it would fall under woo woo. maybe...

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:24
When do I ignore dictionary definitions?
Hey, here's one for you:

(With apologies to Ambrose Bierce.) (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/) :D

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:28
I wonder when the mods will step in. Tony, havn't you been warned enough?

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:32
.

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:38
U huh ;)

So tony, You dont think my point was valid? You dont see the hypocrisy in your posts? How do you claim to be a scientist when you don't follow your own rules?

These are valid questions.. note the politeness... I do not need to be rude to discuss, nor do I resort to rudeness to avoid a question that would show my stupidity and lies.

IQ certificate anyone? cutting and pasting off quotation and scientific web sites is no sign of intelligence.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:40
Sue: The act of being taken to court for repayment of fees taken in return for promises of healing, which never materialise.

Woo-woo: The act of blowing off steam to conceal the fact that one's theories are all hot air. Also, the act of venting steam, rather like an overweight locomotive.
:D

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:44
Originally posted by JimGould
IQ certificate anyone? cutting and pasting off quotation and scientific web sites is no sign of intelligence.
Neither is spouting woo-woo theories and arrogantly asserting that you're ahead of mainstream science.
My Mensa certificates are in England at the moment. If you really want me to, I'll pick them up, scan them, and post them here next time I'm in the UK. Or how about this? I'll admit I made it all up, if you'll admit that Reiki is all made up, too. :D

Originally posted by JimGould
I think Tonys point about people getting thrown off this board for their actions is very valid..


Originally posted by JimGould
So mods??????????? Where are you?
Probably rumbling with the rockers. :D

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:44
.

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:46
Neither is spouting woo-woo theories and arrogantly asserting that you're ahead of mainstream science Once again Tony puts words into people mouths.


My Mensa certificates are in England at the moment Yes of course they are.

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:46
Originally posted by JimGould
Ah yes, we see the IQ coming out now...
Can you do better?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JimGould
[B]:D

Kimpatsu
4th April 2003, 07:50
Ki-hoe: The act of raking over old chestnuts like Reiki. See also Rational. :D

Striking Hand
4th April 2003, 07:52
Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Goulash: A tongue-whipping administered to woo-woos by those of us with superior knowledge. :D

OoI, that is one of my home-countries best dishes. I take exception to that.
:redhot: :saw:

Sits back grabs the pop-corn and soda to watch the fight.

JimGould
4th April 2003, 07:53
those of us with superior knowledge. Ummmm well we only have your word for that and that's not been very convincing or intelligent so far Mr K. While I appreciate you are trying to put others down to make yourself appear smarter that stopped working at highschool for many of us.

How do you feel this is contributing to the thread Tony? How have all of your posts attacking me aided in the conversation Mr. K ?