Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 259

Thread: What is Ki?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    As a linguistic comment, just because "ki" is a part of a lot of words, doesn't mean that those concepts are necessarily involved with ki.
    Absolutely not. For instance, in an earlier post, I listed "ki gaeru" as meaning "to change one's mind."

    And of course it actually means "to change one's clothes".

    I was thinking of "kichigae", "changed mind" or "crazy", even though I listed "kichigae" in the same list.

    But in fact, most words involving ki do involve it because they are connected like bamboo with a single root system.

    When someone says "ki wo tsukete," or be careful, they may mean activate your ki just as much as a westerner would be invoking God when saying "goodbye!" (the origin of which is God be with you) Or than they invoke God when you sneeze. Bless you was originally a frantic attempt to prevent your soul flying out your nose! Nowadays, it's just polite. God is a popular linguistic concept to westerners as much as ki is to asians.
    You know, Confucius believed that a word had to have a precise meaning and usage. For instance, if a word means "little white cup", then you can't use it for a little black cup or a small bowl or anything but that exact little white cup.

    Just because the popular usage of a word has become obscure and modern people may not know what it means (not everyone even realizes that "goodbye" does mean "God be with you", for instance) does not evacuate the real meaning of the word. Even though people call bowls and black cups by a name that literally means "little white cup", the real meaning of the word remains unchanged. So what you ultimately have there is incorrect usage.

    I was asking my wife about these things earlier today.

    "Why do we say 'ki wo tsukete' (turn on your ki) but we never say 'ki wo keshite' (turn off your ki)?"

    We agreed that your ki becomes tired, fuzzy and unfocused through boredom and inactivity through the day. The usual time that we say ki wo tsukete is when one of us is leaving the house. Turn on your ki! we say. Become aware of the world and tuned in to what's happening around you!

    Now, to her, this might be a simple meaning, but I have always thought of it as "turn on your ki".

    And when I say "Goodbye," my meaning has always been "God be with you."

    Be careful when using linguistic arguments. The meaning of words changes greatly over time, and just because you call everything you don't get "ki" if you're Asian, and "miracle" if you're a westerner, doesn't mean you're right. Just means you don't yet understand it.
    Well, no one has yet shown an example of any inconsistent use of the word 'ki' in Japanese language. I think it's the height of cultural arrogance to dismiss these words as things the asians "just didn't get".

    Please show an example.

    Goodbye and ki wo tsukete.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Good point

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Tisdale
    There is a tendancy in some who discuss these matters to be snidely derogatory in their manner, and I think it would serve everyone if that would stop. All it does is bring the same out in others, even when they do their darndest to avoid it.
    Ron, as always, point well taken.

    Goodbye and ki wo tsukete.

    Let's take this further tomorrow.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Haltwhistle, Northumbria, Great Britain
    Posts
    6
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I am enjoying Rob and Trevor's posts immensely.
    Having been physically lazy for the last few years
    I and my friends are keen to get into more
    physical combat training. I seem to 'get' a
    relaxed power quite easily, but how do we
    actually TRAIN it and make sure we don't just
    'muscle' through throws and stuff??
    Yes, I expect exercises to include some
    resembling meditation.

    Thanks,
    Ulfric Michael Douglas
    Ulfric Douglas

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Ok,

    First off, let me summarize it as I see it,
    you're trying to describe key from a universal "philisophical" standpoint. That standpoint can be valid, but it's not provable eitherway. Just as the existence of any Deity isn't provable.

    What I am trying to map out is the physical sensations that're often defined as "Ki" within the martial, and even meditational realm (yes they're linked).
    Believe you me, I can also look at the bigger picture and go on and on about how Aun no Kokyu relates to almost everything we do. The "Ki" paradigm you're pushing is more that abstract philisophical view. And I'm not arguing that it "doesn't" exist. It does exist, but mainly only within the human nature, and in nature so long as their are opposites. The whole yin/yang thing. Unfortunately it can be broadly applied to just about anything that the meaning often gets muddied and distorted if you ask me.

    Drooster:
    Basically you have to change the way your body works. In a very loose and general sense (I've discussed this with others in Aikiweb, do a search for "Aunkai" or "Akuzawa") you have to abandon technique and start focusing on exercises that literally mold your body from the inside/out out/inside.
    This can take a variety of forms, Chen Style's Silk Reeling, Bagua's Single Palm Change, Hsing Yi's Santi+Pichuan, etc etc.
    Our own curriculum consists of the Shiko movement (Sumo stamping), Koryu Ten Jin Chi exercises, Body Axis training methedology etc, all which remold the body physically as well as the intention.
    You can see some clips of this here, tho if you want the explanation I suggest you head over Aikiweb where it's been done to death ^^;
    http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...1_MOV01612.MPG

    http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...Jiku+-+Low.avi

    Result w/in the context of kicks:
    note, this is without the six directional contradictory power, but simply emphasizing a clean axis within the spine and using compression to generate cleaner power in the context of kicks. And he's exaggerating the motion to make the power transferance more easily visible. He can do the same in maybe about a tenth of the distance, and easily 10 times the power. Of course then all you'd see is the person drop to the ground, and not "sent" away.

    http://www.badongo.com/vid.php?file=...e+in+Kicks.mpg

    To swing this back on into the "meditation" venue of things, I'd say a certain amount of the same physical attributes are worked within a meditation context since they serve to change the "Yi" or "Intent". It's not an abstract concept but rather a very real physical/psychological "flip". It's this very "flip" which causes the "buddhist" outlook on things.

    Oh yea, and Sagawa was one of the "accomplished" I'd say. To him it was "just" a word expressing an idea. Nothing more nothing less.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Absolutely not. For instance, in an earlier post, I listed "ki gaeru" as meaning "to change one's mind."

    And of course it actually means "to change one's clothes".

    I was thinking of "kichigae", "changed mind" or "crazy", even though I listed "kichigae" in the same list.

    But in fact, most words involving ki do involve it because they are connected like bamboo with a single root system.

    ...

    You know, Confucius believed that a word had to have a precise meaning and usage. For instance, if a word means "little white cup", then you can't use it for a little black cup or a small bowl or anything but that exact little white cup.

    Just because the popular usage of a word has become obscure and modern people may not know what it means (not everyone even realizes that "goodbye" does mean "God be with you", for instance) does not evacuate the real meaning of the word. Even though people call bowls and black cups by a name that literally means "little white cup", the real meaning of the word remains unchanged. So what you ultimately have there is incorrect usage.

    ...

    Well, no one has yet shown an example of any inconsistent use of the word 'ki' in Japanese language. I think it's the height of cultural arrogance to dismiss these words as things the asians "just didn't get".

    Please show an example.

    Goodbye and ki wo tsukete.
    My point is simply that just because you have a bunch of words that come from a single root, that doesn't mean that in actual fact those words come from the same phenomenon. What it means is that the people who made the words thought that they did. Furthermore, words do change. I realize that to a purist such as Confucius or the french Academie that is unacceptable, but that is nontheless the truth. I would never call someone "gay" just because they were happy, and telling someone to go out and gather faggots for the fire would get you arrested nowadays. To insist that because a word used to mean something it still does is hearkening perilously close to the concept of the "True Name," and magick of all stripes.

    Furthermore, there's an issue of culture clash here. Do you consider the Japanese to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge? What are the Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, and Korean words for lighting, for example? If they do not include the concept of ki, is the Japanese word pre-eminent as proof that lightning is the root of ki? What about occidental concepts? For example, a Scandinavian used to know that thunder was Thor being ticked off about something, and lighting was him chucking his hammer. A European Christian used to know that lighting was Divine Wrath. The Druids thought it was Taranis, if I recall correctly. The American Indians were sure it was sky spirits of various types. Are all of those beliefs equivalent? I would hold that it is cultural arrogance indeed to put up Japanese linguistics and beliefs over those of the rest of the world.

    Add that to the fact that we can replicate lighting strikes, and tame them, and indeed know what causes them, and I personally doubt the ki of lighting. Unless, that is, ki=electrons, and they don't show the rest of the characteristics that ki displays.


    Basically what I'm saying here is that using linguistics is a very bad way of proving phenomena. There are several proofs of the existance of God, by distinguished theologians like St. Augustine, that rely upon wordplay to make their case. God does not exist because we can pun him into being. Neither does ki.

    I'm not saying that ki doesn't exist, just that linguistics is no way to prove it.

    Here endeth the reading.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default linguistically speaking

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    My point is simply that just because you have a bunch of words that come from a single root, that doesn't mean that in actual fact those words come from the same phenomenon. What it means is that the people who made the words thought that they did.
    Sure, but I have not seen any example where there is inconsistency or the system fails. The other thing is that I'm not trying to "prove the existence" of ki by saying "Look at all the words that include the term."

    What I was trying to get across is that the "real" nature of ki is much more subtle and all-pervading than the anime martial arts image.

    If people say "Ki is baloney," they may be referring to frauds who move objects by pointing at them or knock out a line of students by punching in front of them, etc.

    What I was trying to point out is that those things are the false image.

    The real nature of ki as illustrated by the broad range of linguistic terms that include the word, is a subtle matter of human feelings, health, attitudes, and a connection to nature.

    I note in Asura's last post that he does in fact agree that "ki exists". Otherwise, literally, we would have to say "energy does not exist".

    But while ki DOES exist, we can only understand what ki means in Japanese culture (and what it REALLY means in martial arts) by seeing how the term is used. It's not magic. It's human life in movement.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Furthermore, words do change. I realize that to a purist such as Confucius or the french Academie that is unacceptable, but that is nontheless the truth.
    Sure, words change, but to really understand them, we have to go to the original intended meaning. What I meant by the Confucius reference was that when they named things, they did not take it lightly and they didn't give nonsense names or call something by a name just because they didn't understand it. These were very deep, quiet and serious people, deeply and subtly observant. When the names were given, they were given with care and deep awareness of nature and human nature.

    I would never call someone "gay" just because they were happy
    I would do it just to be mean.

    (joke: any gay folks, please excuse me.

    telling someone to go out and gather faggots for the fire would get you arrested nowadays.
    Tell me about it. I once told an subordinate worker, "I need to know if you're going to fag out."

    "What's that mean?" she asked. She thought I was calling her gay. I said it was something like a cigarette (fag) burning out. She reported me. It was not pleasant.

    To insist that because a word used to mean something it still does is hearkening perilously close to the concept of the "True Name," and magick of all stripes.
    Yeah, I guess. But...why not? Isn't that why we pursue the oldest, purest form of budo we can find? Isn't that why we'd rather learn from old masters than from young boys?

    On the other hand, I learn from toddlers...

    Furthermore, there's an issue of culture clash here. Do you consider the Japanese to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge?
    Only in matters of budo and Japanese language. This thread, after all, asks for the meaning of a Japanese word. So...

    What are the Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, and Korean words for lighting, for example? If they do not include the concept of ki, is the Japanese word pre-eminent as proof that lightning is the root of ki? What about occidental concepts? For example, a Scandinavian used to know that thunder was Thor being ticked off about something, and lighting was him chucking his hammer. A European Christian used to know that lighting was Divine Wrath. The Druids thought it was Taranis, if I recall correctly. The American Indians were sure it was sky spirits of various types. Are all of those beliefs equivalent? I would hold that it is cultural arrogance indeed to put up Japanese linguistics and beliefs over those of the rest of the world.
    I don't think I'm putting the Japanese over the rest of the world. We are discussing a Japanese word, though...

    Literally, the translation of "ki" is "energy". But it also has the nuance of "spirit", since it refers to living energy, the energy of life, the energy of nature. And all your examples, pretty much, viewed lightning as a kind of spiritual force. So I would say they're all pretty much equivalent.

    My big argument in this thread is quite the opposite: you can't translate the entire Japanese understanding of "ki" into Western physics. You can't explain every element of it with physics and you can't negate the entire united system of ki thinking with statements from western physics.

    Moshe Feldenkrais was also one who disdained "ki" as an explanation for technique. He poo-pooed the idea of ki in explaining judo technique. I think he did say it's only a term for energy. He promoted an understanding of the whole body organized around the whole center--not a little BB below the navel, but the whole hip structure and all the muscles and viscera.

    Before studying Feldenkrais, I thought of my center as being like a BB in my abdomen. Now I think of it as a bowling ball in the same place, that I can move about easily with a great displacement of weight and energy.

    Add that to the fact that we can replicate lighting strikes, and tame them, and indeed know what causes them, and I personally doubt the ki of lighting. Unless, that is, ki=electrons, and they don't show the rest of the characteristics that ki displays.
    Well, I think natural lightning is a great example of ki in nature. It is flowing energy of nature. It's one example. Wind is ki in movement. The ocean is full of ki and it is always moving. It is the energetic universe doing its thing, which is flowing this way and that.

    Basically what I'm saying here is that using linguistics is a very bad way of proving phenomena.
    I hope it's clear now that I am not trying to "prove" ki but to show a more complete picture of what it means in daily life. Japanese language shows ki in many forms, all intimately connected in daily human life in nature. These words DO NOT support the image of ki as a long-distance immaterial weapon that can be shaped into balls and thrown. It's just natural life energy.

    God does not exist because we can pun him into being.
    Speaking of whom...if you wanted to know what a Christian thinks God is like, where would you turn? Would you take an atheist's explanation? Or would you look at the language of the Bible that describes that God?

    You would get a different view by looking at the source material than looking at the arguments of a biased opponent.

    And to know what Ki really means in Japanese, you have to look at how it is used in everyday language spanning the entire spectrum of everyday human experiences.

    Thanks for the comments.

    I'm not saying that ki doesn't exist, just that linguistics is no way to prove it.

    Here endeth the reading.[/QUOTE]
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default trying to describe ki

    Quote Originally Posted by Asura
    you're trying to describe key from a universal "philisophical" standpoint. That standpoint can be valid, but it's not provable eitherway. Just as the existence of any Deity isn't provable.
    Again, I'm not trying to prove anything and I'm not trying to describe anything. I am posting exact examples of how Japanese language describes ki.

    The linguistic spectrum of words using "ki" add up to a picture of a natural energy of life.

    They do not support "magic" ki.

    They support nature.

    As for your comments about zero point energy, I referred to two different things. I casually mentioned that "maybe ki is 'zero point' energy". And, in fact, I believe that they are the same thing.

    Next, I mentioned a training exercise where I teach people to develop sensitivity through using tiny forces that I call "zero force". Meaning "no more force than necessary to achieve the result". And that tiny force does not require any generation because it is already present in the body as potential energy in the tall stance. To exerty zero force energy, all you do is lower the weight. The bend in the knee presses into the partner's pressure point. Gravity does ALL the work.

    As for "zero point" energy, I'm under the impression that, being all-permeating, it cannot be generated.

    However, there is some possibility that it can be generated. I may have mentioned a thing from a PBS special called "Megafloods" in which huge vortexes of flowing water released tremendous energy when the vortex collapsed. Scientists believe that these massive collapsing vortices drilled hole in solid rock because there are several perfectly round holes, maybe hundreds of yards wide, drilled in solid stone in the area in question (maybe around Montanna? see PBS for accurate details).

    So perhaps this zero point energy does 'appear' sometimes on earth, through natural phenomena.

    I remember Mochizuki sensei once telling me to "think about whirlpools. Think about tornadoes..." He said it's all right there.

    Best wishes.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    I note in Asura's last post that he does in fact agree that "ki exists". Otherwise, literally, we would have to say "energy does not exist".
    Sure, words change, but to really understand them, we have to go to the original intended meaning. What I meant by the Confucius reference was that when they named things, they did not take it lightly and they didn't give nonsense names or call something by a name just because they didn't understand it. These were very deep, quiet and serious people, deeply and subtly observant. When the names were given, they were given with care and deep awareness of nature and human nature.

    Literally, the translation of "ki" is "energy". But it also has the nuance of "spirit", since it refers to living energy, the energy of life, the energy of nature. And all your examples, pretty much, viewed lightning as a kind of spiritual force. So I would say they're all pretty much equivalent.

    My big argument in this thread is quite the opposite: you can't translate the entire Japanese understanding of "ki" into Western physics. You can't explain every element of it with physics and you can't negate the entire united system of ki thinking with statements from western physics.
    Well, if you really WANT to use the Confucian Doctrine of Names, then I'll hold you to it. That's not good for your argument.

    For one thing, the meaning of ki has changed over the years, as with many other words. Its original meaning was "breath."

    What is the vital difference, on first glance, without the complex math and biochemistry of today, between a living and a dead man? Simple. The living one's breathing. There is power in breathing, expressed in the sound produced by the kiai, the manipulation of the abdomen for force, etc. Originally, living energy meant breathing, because if you stopped you weren't living very long. Breathing right is also good for the health. Lots of people breathe wrong.

    So, if you want to mean vital energy, the thing that keeps living things alive, I'd have to go with ki meaning ATP. Given its rate of decay, dead things lose it quickly after death, and poisons which interfere with its production are very quickly fatal. At that point, ki is expressed in chemical bonds.


    Look, one of the things that being a scientist has taught me is that we all make constructs in our head and fit the world into them. The problem is, our brain's a liar. It adapts the world it senses into the world we know because that way we can handle it. If a person charges you with a banana, you may see them as having a knife. Why? Because if you assumed a knife was a banana, you could die, but assuming the other way, you're less likely to do so, and your brain doesn't have time to ponder and make that decision, it needs to act.

    Ki was a construct, and a good one. It makes sense, and is very useful even today. We don't have time to tell each other to tense these specific muscles just this much, and relax these, and such and so forth. So, ki comes in handy. Flow with ki, use ki, and you just do it right. Once you "feel the ki," every movement of that type is made easier because you can just tune into the feeling. And when someone's trying to kill you, you need to move right! So ki keeps you alive and is useful, and is passed down. It's a good way to move; efficient, fluid, etc. However, over time it was too useful, and got expanded beyond its original meaning by having other concepts attached to it. So be it.

    And yeah, I'm involved with ki myself. My girlfriend's mom just went and did the whole feng shui thing on me to determine if we should stay together or not. I'm getting her a rabbit for luck in the coming year. (Whether or not I think the whole concept is silly, going with the flow is clearly the course of wisdom in this case. Besides, the omens for our being together were so strong, how could they be wrong, right? )

    My sensei's also taught me to move with the feeling of ki, he finds it useful for certain parts of training. He doesn't believe it's mystical, just a very practical way of doing certain things.


    And, btw, I will agree that not everything your theories of ki say can be tested by modern physics. However, that's where biology comes in. All of the effects ki should have on the body can and should be tested, especially the effects on the mind. I know, I know, people think the mind's a black box. It's not, not anymore. The brain is a wonderful thing, and it's getting more and more comprehensible now. It's possible that ki is entirely a mental phenomenon, as I suggest. It's possible that it's more. Simple physics may not be able to test ki, as you say, but I would suggest that you go find a competent neurobiologist. I would also go ask a very good PhD-level physicist. Physics is getting wierder every day, it's possible that it's gotten there and nobody's noticed because it's just a bunch of wierdos in an ivory tower somewhere. (Like nuclear physics before the A-bomb. )


    Now, you may not be doing this, but some of the arguments I've seen about ki have gotten nowhere because, when someone came up with a good argument against the existance of ki, the ki-proponent changed theories or became vaguer and vaguer about the nature of ki. Having an argument elsewhere with someone who does exactly that. Drives everyone nuts. If one could come up with a standard unified ki theory, then it would be very easy to test. However, if it stays fuzzy, one side will propose, and the other side will throw up their hands in disgust, because there's no substance, just verbiage. And if there is a concrete energetic version of ki, then we can start doing things with it, using it, in a way more efficient and effective than ever before. So it benefits us all to generate one.

    Care to take a stab? You have my theory of ki above, and it's one I can test, eventually. Is there a concrete theory of ki that makes explicit predictions about the behavior of a ki-filled universe that you can write, or that someone else has written?
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Naha, Okinawa
    Posts
    220
    Likes (received)
    7

    Default Link to relevant article on "ki"

    An article titled "What is Ki?" starting on p.15 of Issue 4 in Meibukan Magazine may be of some interest.
    Nullius in verba

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Quick Comment...

    Quote Originally Posted by eelecurb
    An article titled "What is Ki?" starting on p.15 of Issue 4 in Meibukan Magazine may be of some interest.
    No time for fancy replies or yet to read that article...

    but must reply...

    don't want that old guy on the magazine cover to hit me.

    domo
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Basic Terms

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    Well, if you really WANT to use the Confucian Doctrine of Names, then I'll hold you to it. That's not good for your argument.
    For one thing, the meaning of ki has changed over the years, as with many other words. Its original meaning was "breath."
    I don't see how that changes anything. Except I'm not sure you guys are even addressing "my argument". Would you mind stating what you think my position is?

    If we want to talk in scientific terms, we first have to get on the same page. I never was able to get clear on basic terms with Asura. I don't think we ever talked about the same thing from one post to the next.

    What is the vital difference, on first glance, without the complex math and biochemistry of today, between a living and a dead man? Simple. The living one's breathing. There is power in breathing, expressed in the sound produced by the kiai, the manipulation of the abdomen for force, etc.
    Isn't that exactly what I said? You even use "kiai" to illustrate that the condition of life is power (energy????).

    Originally, living energy meant breathing, because if you stopped you weren't living very long. Breathing right is also good for the health. Lots of people breathe wrong.
    I thought you were disagreeing with me? All the old "ki" development exercises involve breathing methods. As I understand it, one of the main concepts of taijiquan is that breath brings "external qi" into one's body where it is mixed with "internal qi".

    So, if you want to mean vital energy, the thing that keeps living things alive, I'd have to go with ki meaning ATP. Given its rate of decay, dead things lose it quickly after death, and poisons which interfere with its production are very quickly fatal. At that point, ki is expressed in chemical bonds.
    ATP? A chemical (doesn't leap to mind).
    But that doesn't account for the ki in the sky or that in rocks and water.

    Look, one of the things that being a scientist has taught me is that we all make constructs in our head and fit the world into them. The problem is, our brain's a liar.
    What kind of science? I work in epidemiology and biostatistics. I know the things I'm about to say are familiar to you, but I want to set them out here for others who may not be familiar with our methods. Epidemiology is an observational rather than experimental science. We use four standards by which to measure every result we come up with:

    the results come from bias
    the results come from chance
    the results come from confounding
    the results are true

    We don't come to any final conclusions at all. Virtually never, because all epidemiologists do is present the data and the study parameters. They say that the results "indicate" a relation between a work factor (occupational epi) and a disease suffered by the workers. But they don't say "our study 'proves' a link between "factor X" and cancer or kidney disease or whatever.

    For instance, we know that painters have higher rates of lung cancer than other occupations. But we still have to find out about their smoking habits because that counts. Say you find that 80% of the workers in a painting shop have lung cancer. It would look like the job caused it. But then you find out that 80% of the workers (100% of the cancer cases) were heavy smokers...if you did not account for smoking in your analyses, it would look like you had "confounded" data: a very big factor that you failed to account for.

    Or if you got all your subjects from the patients of a certain hospital. This could be a kind of selection bias and cause all manner of distortion in the final conclusions.

    Chance, I guess, speaks for itself. We have to use special methods to account for chance in our results.

    Only when we have searched as deeply as possible to try to eliminate chance, bias and confounding can we make a statement such as "there appears to be a relation" between the suspect conditions and the disease.

    And we put that study out there and other people either follow up our same group of subjects or do a new study in another country or another company or state. They must address our study when they do so. They must consider our findings and if they can, point to a facet of our study that could have distorted our findings, as hard as we worked to eliminate chance, bias and confounding from our methods.

    When many, many of these studies have been done, if they all point to the same conclusions, then we begin to feel that we are dealing with sure facts.

    Ki was a construct, and a good one. It makes sense, and is very useful even today. We don't have time to tell each other to tense these specific muscles just this much, and relax these, and such and so forth. So, ki comes in handy. Flow with ki, use ki, and you just do it right. Once you "feel the ki," every movement of that type is made easier because you can just tune into the feeling. And when someone's trying to kill you, you need to move right! So ki keeps you alive and is useful, and is passed down. It's a good way to move; efficient, fluid, etc. However, over time it was too useful, and got expanded beyond its original meaning by having other concepts attached to it.
    So you feel that modern misuse and misunderstanding of the nature of ki has actually "changed" the nature of ki?

    Not at all. Say men today want to wear leather chaps without the pants because "cowboys wore leather chaps". Does that mean that cowboys wore their chaps without pants? (Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding, I am of the opinion that cowboys wore pants with their chaps).

    And think of all the pseudoscience available today. Think of that guy who photographs frozen water with high speed cameras and claims he gets all these buddha images and mandala type things when he exposes this frozen water to positive thinking and such.

    Well, without exhaustive studies, I am hesitant to say that this does not really work. But there is a certain part of my mind that insists that ice crystals are always the same whether you pray over them or expose them to a Steven Seagal movie (uggghhhhhhh......what horror....).

    But what of people who want to wedge Bible studies into science classes? Will we hear, ten years from now, "The theory of evolution was incomplete and inconsistent until we balanced it with the theory of intelligent design. Now it is a complete, balanced and rational true science, based on the Book of Genesis."

    Then you would get all kinds of people saying "The theory of natural selection DID mean "evolution" AT ONE TIME. But now it means intelligent design."

    Because modern people don't know what the ancient meaning was does not erase that meaning from the universe. The original meaning remains intact and useable.

    Just as Einsteinian physics did not replace Newtonian physics, nothing has replaced or superseded the ancient meanings of 'ki' and 'qi' as universal energy that flows through all living and non-living things as well as the sky and the empty space that surrounds the planet.

    And yeah, I'm involved with ki myself. My girlfriend's mom just went and did the whole feng shui thing on me to determine if we should stay together or not. I'm getting her a rabbit for luck in the coming year.
    Isn't this the Year of the Dog?

    My sensei's also taught me to move with the feeling of ki, he finds it useful for certain parts of training. He doesn't believe it's mystical, just a very practical way of doing certain things.
    My point exactly. It is everyday life. My problem with Asura was the insistence that only 'martial ki' is of interest. But that's like saying "Gulf of Mexico water is different from Carribean Sea water."

    The point being that water flows freely between the two "artificially defined" areas of one huge global body of water. Maybe if there were a wall between the two...but Asura had erected a mental wall between "martial" ki and all other ki in the universe.

    And, btw, I will agree that not everything your theories of ki say can be tested by modern physics.
    I don't think any of it can--at least not yet. But to be clear about that, I don't think it ever will be. You would have to have some kind of "inspirationometer" or "feelingograph" or something. You would have to be able to measure the energy and its movement. I think the best device for that is a type of biological instrument called a "Chinese doctor".

    In the future, I guess we'll all have robots to make love to our wives because science will convince us that human agents are too imprecise and unreliable to do things like that.

    However, that's where biology comes in. All of the effects ki should have on the body can and should be tested, especially the effects on the mind.
    These things have been tested for thousands of years by Taoists, accupuncturists and shiatsuists.

    I know, I know, people think the mind's a black box. It's not, not anymore. The brain is a wonderful thing, and it's getting more and more comprehensible now.
    I suggest two books on this matter, both by Moshe Feldenkrais: "Body and Mature Behavior" and "The Potent Self".

    Oh, but he never uses the word "ki". His thesis is that the deeper functions of the mind and nervous system are self-resetting and are accessible through conscious attention to small movements of the body.

    It's possible that ki is entirely a mental phenomenon, as I suggest. It's possible that it's more.
    Feldenkrais, here, would throw you with kuki nage and ask if that were mental or physical.

    In fact, he insisted that neither can be isolated from the other. What kind of thoughts could a disembodied mind have? Everything we think about relates back to our social or physical situation.

    And what is a body without a mind?

    Simple physics may not be able to test ki, as you say, but I would suggest that you go find a competent neurobiologist.
    I never discuss ki with neurologists. If they ever believed that ki were a "real" phenomenon, they would believe that Western methods had rendered it pointless.

    But maybe you could tell me what question I should ask my neurologist colleagues next time we do meet?

    I would also go ask a very good PhD-level physicist. Physics is getting wierder every day, it's possible that it's gotten there and nobody's noticed because it's just a bunch of wierdos in an ivory tower somewhere. (Like nuclear physics before the A-bomb. )
    Well, physics is not my field. But I doubt you could get anywhere on this matter with a physicist either--if only for lack of a clearly defined subject for the question. So please tell me how you would phrase your question to a physicist.

    Now, you may not be doing this, but some of the arguments I've seen about ki have gotten nowhere because, when someone came up with a good argument against the existance of ki, the ki-proponent changed theories or became vaguer and vaguer about the nature of ki. Having an argument elsewhere with someone who does exactly that. Drives everyone nuts.
    But isn't that what you guys have been doing here? Lack of a common defintion of what we're discussing has made this a very slippery conversation with more disagreement than has been necessary.

    If one could come up with a standard unified ki theory, then it would be very easy to test.
    Ther is such a unified theory. It's called Chinese medicine. It has been tested over thousands of years. It is known to work well with some people some of the time, less well with others at other times. Also, depending on who's doing the work. And who's being worked on.

    if there is a concrete energetic version of ki, then we can start doing things with it, using it, in a way more efficient and effective than ever before. So it benefits us all to generate one.
    I would like to be involved, but I am extremely tied up right now, working on some kind of round thing that I can use to convert vertical kinetic energy into horizontal energy, facilitating the movement of weighty items from one point to another. My brother says that's "reinventing the wheel". I said I don't believe in wheels. My invention will be unique in history.

    Is there a concrete theory of ki that makes explicit predictions about the behavior of a ki-filled universe that you can write, or that someone else has written?
    Sure. They're the ancient texts of Chinese medicine.
    AND The I Ching.
    AND Tao te Ching.

    They do what you ask, but not in western scientific terms.

    And that, I feel, is the weakness of this discussion. You guys have been trying hard to make one kind of measuring system completely interchangeable with a completely different kind of measuring system.

    For a very rough analogy, think of Americans supplying large left-side-steering cars to the Japanese market which needs small right-side-steering cars. This doesn't mean either kind of car is wrong, but they don't match up.

    Maybe a less rough analogy: "I want an American car, but I want all the English-system parts to match metric-system tools..."

    That really may be the best analogy for trying to make Asian ideas of ki fit into the western scientific straits.

    Thanks for the interesting discussion.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Training ki

    Quote Originally Posted by DRooster
    I am enjoying Rob and Trevor's posts immensely.
    Having been physically lazy for the last few years
    I and my friends are keen to get into more
    physical combat training. I seem to 'get' a
    relaxed power quite easily, but how do we
    actually TRAIN it and make sure we don't just
    'muscle' through throws and stuff??
    Yes, I expect exercises to include some
    resembling meditation.
    The books of Yang Jwing-Ming, especially "Baguazhang: Emei Bagua", contain all the information you could want on this matter.

    Best wishes.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    I don't see how that changes anything. Except I'm not sure you guys are even addressing "my argument". Would you mind stating what you think my position is?

    If we want to talk in scientific terms, we first have to get on the same page. I never was able to get clear on basic terms with Asura. I don't think we ever talked about the same thing from one post to the next.
    Your position may be clear to you, not so to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Isn't that exactly what I said? You even use "kiai" to illustrate that the condition of life is power (energy????).



    I thought you were disagreeing with me? All the old "ki" development exercises involve breathing methods. As I understand it, one of the main concepts of taijiquan is that breath brings "external qi" into one's body where it is mixed with "internal qi".
    What I am saying is that if you're breathing, you're alive. That's all. I'm making no statements about bringing energy into your body or anything else. Breathing is a physical thing, and it allows things that are perfectly explainable by the laws of biology and physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    ATP? A chemical (doesn't leap to mind).
    But that doesn't account for the ki in the sky or that in rocks and water.
    Adenosine Tri-Phosphate? Look up the Krebs cycle. It's the stuff that provides energy for everything you do, and is produced in mitochondria. It's the stuff that you breathe in O2 to make. Breathing is for getting enough O2 to make ATP, which is the fuel for every energetically unfavorable reaction in your body, and there are a lot of them! So, for the thing that differentiates the quick from the dead, that's it biochemically. You don't have ATP, you stop breathing, heart stops beating, brain dies, liver, kidney, etc stop, and you're dead.

    If rocks and water are alive, then it's a new one on me. This is where your explanation gets a tad unclear. HOW are these things full of living energy? WHAT makes them live? Are they then in some limited sense sentient? What is your definition of life?

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    So you feel that modern misuse and misunderstanding of the nature of ki has actually "changed" the nature of ki?

    But what of people who want to wedge Bible studies into science classes? Will we hear, ten years from now, "The theory of evolution was incomplete and inconsistent until we balanced it with the theory of intelligent design. Now it is a complete, balanced and rational true science, based on the Book of Genesis."

    Then you would get all kinds of people saying "The theory of natural selection DID mean "evolution" AT ONE TIME. But now it means intelligent design."

    Because modern people don't know what the ancient meaning was does not erase that meaning from the universe. The original meaning remains intact and useable.

    Just as Einsteinian physics did not replace Newtonian physics, nothing has replaced or superseded the ancient meanings of 'ki' and 'qi' as universal energy that flows through all living and non-living things as well as the sky and the empty space that surrounds the planet.
    I'm raising the possibility that the ancients who used qi as a metaphor changed the meaning long before you got here.

    And yes, Einsteinian physics completely and totally replaced Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is dead, buried, and gone. If you don't believe me, read T. S. Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and see for yourself. You don't see the difference, but that's because of how science is taught. The difference between the two is vast.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Isn't this the Year of the Dog?
    Yes, it is. And apparently she requires a rabbit to balance the ill luck that it's going to bring her. Gofig.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    My point exactly. It is everyday life. My problem with Asura was the insistence that only 'martial ki' is of interest. But that's like saying "Gulf of Mexico water is different from Carribean Sea water."

    The point being that water flows freely between the two "artificially defined" areas of one huge global body of water. Maybe if there were a wall between the two...but Asura had erected a mental wall between "martial" ki and all other ki in the universe.
    Actually, for me, the only application of ki that I ever use IS martial. For me it is a way of moving and of thinking about movement, that is linked to breathing and relaxation. Meditation, if you will. It's very efficient and has certain benefits, though it can't be used all the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    I don't think any of it can--at least not yet. But to be clear about that, I don't think it ever will be. You would have to have some kind of "inspirationometer" or "feelingograph" or something. You would have to be able to measure the energy and its movement. I think the best device for that is a type of biological instrument called a "Chinese doctor".

    In the future, I guess we'll all have robots to make love to our wives because science will convince us that human agents are too imprecise and unreliable to do things like that.



    These things have been tested for thousands of years by Taoists, accupuncturists and shiatsuists.
    Feelings are products of the brain. They are caused both by chemical release into the bloodstream and brain microenvironment and by direct chemical interactions at synapses. People are working on ways to measure them, and have already gotten technology that measures aggressiveness and willingness to harm developed. Simple matter of looking at bloodflow in the brain. Not as hard as you think to do this.

    Honestly, I prefer instruments. Less bias. Which is why we use them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    I suggest two books on this matter, both by Moshe Feldenkrais: "Body and Mature Behavior" and "The Potent Self".

    Oh, but he never uses the word "ki". His thesis is that the deeper functions of the mind and nervous system are self-resetting and are accessible through conscious attention to small movements of the body.



    Feldenkrais, here, would throw you with kuki nage and ask if that were mental or physical.

    In fact, he insisted that neither can be isolated from the other. What kind of thoughts could a disembodied mind have? Everything we think about relates back to our social or physical situation.

    And what is a body without a mind?



    I never discuss ki with neurologists. If they ever believed that ki were a "real" phenomenon, they would believe that Western methods had rendered it pointless.

    But maybe you could tell me what question I should ask my neurologist colleagues next time we do meet?
    Which is my point. All of ki may be explainable by interactions within the brain itself. In other words, it's a way you FEEL that you think has extensions outside of your own head. The fact that other people have such feelings as well is because the brain can be trained to function that way. In other words, the brain reorganizes its synapses to produce the feeling because you are being conditioned to feel it by your teaching. So, if you can find evidence that the feeling of ki is not a feeling that can be conditioned, you eliminate that hypothesis.

    I will have to read Feldenkrais to get more of an idea what he's saying, but if he's saying that the brain and its' interactions with the body can produce a certain feeling, and that that feeling is known as ki, well, we may just agree.

    And please, why NOT discuss it with neurologists? This sort of question is something some of them would love to answer! The brain and behavior people could do some nifty experiments, if they had a clear definition to work with.
    Some people, when faced with proof that their arguments are faulty, change the arguments and the definition so that they aren't wrong, regardless of the data. As an epidemiologist, I don't think you'd do that. Whole scientific ethics thing. However, you'd need to pin down a definition that can make predictions, which some of them can help you with.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Well, physics is not my field. But I doubt you could get anywhere on this matter with a physicist either--if only for lack of a clearly defined subject for the question. So please tell me how you would phrase your question to a physicist.
    1st, define it. 2nd, make a prediction. One person I know tests things like this by using quantum-level random number generators, that should produce an even statistical spread, and finding ways that people may perturb them from a distance. There's lots of ways. The whole promise of a scientific career is that if you're ingenious enough, you can solve a problem. The trick is being smart enough to tackle it, and a lot of them are VERY smart. There's more tricks in the field than you think. Give it a shot!

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    But isn't that what you guys have been doing here? Lack of a common defintion of what we're discussing has made this a very slippery conversation with more disagreement than has been necessary.
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Ther is such a unified theory. It's called Chinese medicine. It has been tested over thousands of years. It is known to work well with some people some of the time, less well with others at other times. Also, depending on who's doing the work. And who's being worked on.



    I would like to be involved, but I am extremely tied up right now, working on some kind of round thing that I can use to convert vertical kinetic energy into horizontal energy, facilitating the movement of weighty items from one point to another. My brother says that's "reinventing the wheel". I said I don't believe in wheels. My invention will be unique in history.
    Which is a problem. If a phenomenon is not reliably repeatable in vitro or in vivo, one has to find out why. Look, I'm not saying that your data's not correct, here. I'm saying that your paradigm may be faulty. Totally different thing. If I can find a paradigm that explains your results as well as the lacunae in your data, the stuff that you can't test, then my paradigm can supersede yours. This does not mean that the paradigm is completely right, just that it provides better tools for understanding the current questions.

    No need to get snippy here. This is, at least on my end, a FRIENDLY discussion. If you want to be annoyed at me, go right ahead. I, however, am not going to reciprocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Sure. They're the ancient texts of Chinese medicine.
    AND The I Ching.
    AND Tao te Ching.

    They do what you ask, but not in western scientific terms.

    And that, I feel, is the weakness of this discussion. You guys have been trying hard to make one kind of measuring system completely interchangeable with a completely different kind of measuring system.
    Which is one of the usual things I run into. Someone tells me I can't approach this from a Western perspective, because they're totally different things. If that were true, then reality would be fundamentally different in Asia. Our minds are the same, our brains are the same, we have the same neurology, biochemistry, and genetics. If we can take drugs that the chinese use for medicine and find the ingredients that make them work, and then translate them into western-style medications, then we should be able to do the same for all of the medicine that they use. It's not that hard, and people are doing it. The problem is eliminating the placebo effect. If you've been steeped in a culture's ways and medicines for years, the placebo effect is considerable and is indeed therapeutic. However, it's due to your own beliefs and mental programming that it works. Once you have eliminated placebo, however, what is left is what works. Next question is, once you've distilled that out, HOW does it work. We can figure that out. As above, just takes someone smart enough, and we've plenty of those!
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Pi is exactly 3!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    Your position may be clear to you, not so to me.
    But you're addressing it as though it were very clear to you. Your replies don't seem to coincide with what I posted.

    If rocks and water are alive, then it's a new one on me. This is where your explanation gets a tad unclear. HOW are these things full of living energy? WHAT makes them live? Are they then in some limited sense sentient? What is your definition of life?
    There's nothing in this world that isn't here to enhance the presence of life on earth. Every rock is part of the energetic system that, as I said before, permeates everything in the world and also the space that holds the world and the stars and other planets in that space. That's why I have no problem thinking that it could be the same as zero point energy, which, as I understand it is a vital part of string theory.

    So everything on earth is made of that energy, when you get to the subatomic level. Isn't that the scientific view?

    I'm raising the possibility that the ancients who used qi as a metaphor changed the meaning long before you got here.
    Well, that would be getting to the meat of the subject. Please show some examples of that.

    [qote]And yes, Einsteinian physics completely and totally replaced Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is dead, buried, and gone. ...The difference between the two is vast. [/quote]

    Well, again, as I understand it, Newtonian physics is perfectly useful below the speed of light and within certain ranges of scale. In other words, on earth, it is the only useful physics. Even for moon shots, I believe, Newton still holds the apple. Einsteinian physics is the only thing that works on the subatomic and interstellar levels. But as far as I know, it's pretty much useless on earth.

    So if I want to deal with almost anything on earth, I believe I must still use Newtonian physics. Say, to calculate the architectural stresses on a concrete dome, for instance.

    So Einstein did not obliterate Newton. They are two very different measurement systems for use in very different levels of reality.

    Yes, it is. And apparently she requires a rabbit to balance the ill luck that it's going to bring her. Gofig.
    I was thinking maybe it's supposed to be like a sacrifice to the dog, or maybe the dog is supposed to chase the rabbit all year and so she'll have a vigorous year. Who knows?

    Actually, for me, the only application of ki that I ever use IS martial. For me it is a way of moving and of thinking about movement, that is linked to breathing and relaxation. Meditation, if you will.
    Ahh, but moving and thinking about movement permeate all aspects of life, don't they? You wouldn't say that the only time you move is to do martial arts, would you? It's a huge mistake to think that ki can be segregated off into martial arts technique when it is not present in any other aspect of daily life.

    Which is my point. All of ki may be explainable by interactions within the brain itself. In other words, it's a way you FEEL that you think has extensions outside of your own head.
    Well, when I say "feeling" I am not talking about "sensation" but more like emotion. Like when Musashi says, "Cut down strongly with a feeling of tut-TUT!"

    What is that? And would we hook up Musashi to some kind of meter with a tut-TUT scale on it? But Musashi could convey that to his student in a way that the student could receive it.

    And when I say "feeling" rather than "sensation" I want especially to differentiate between an emotion and a sensation that ki is flowing through your body in such a way or other. The sensation of doing something with ki is pretty much entirely bogus or misguided. The only "sensation" I associate with real ki is just the natural pleasure of a relaxed, healthy body moving easily. That's called "nothing special" and that state is the best state to be in when the fight starts. No need to "feel" ki in your punches. The relaxed body and easy movement will convey your "feeling" to the attacker. Like Bruce Lee said, "emotional content".

    The fact that other people have such feelings as well is because the brain can be trained to function that way. In other words, the brain reorganizes its synapses to produce the feeling because you are being conditioned to feel it by your teaching. So, if you can find evidence that the feeling of ki is not a feeling that can be conditioned, you eliminate that hypothesis.
    We can get rid of that hypothesis now because babies are full of the best kind of ki. It's called 'genki' or 'original ki', meaning, like a baby's. Its usual usage means 'vigorous'. Healthy. That's all. What is the sensation of "healthy"? Who has to be taught to feel it? Only the sick. Everyone else knows without being told. It's nothing special, but there's nothing better.

    I will have to read Feldenkrais to get more of an idea what he's saying, but if he's saying that the brain and its' interactions with the body can produce a certain feeling, and that that feeling is known as ki, well, we may just agree.
    He says that the effects of judo techniques as described by ki can better be described as Kano described them, as the result of momentum and leverage.

    Mostly what he says is far more important than that because it does relate to every aspect of daily life. He says that through small movements of the body we can activate a sort of "reset" function of the brain, which causes the body to go back to its "default" setting, or optimal tonus.

    He did this with actors, a Prime Minister, martial atists and children with cerebral palsy. He showed them how their habitual tonus, the pattern of muscular tension and relaxation throuhout the body, could cause rigidity in the body, affecting the self image and the ability to act as we intend and wish.

    There's been a lot of discussion on the Aikido threads about how to get people to see and do what the teacher shows them. The fact is that most people cannot really act fully as they wish and often, not as they intend. Picture the classic inability to talk to a girl one wishes to meet, or the inability to go for the judo technique when one sees the opening. same thing.

    Feldenkrais works on helping people to recognize that they ways they hold their bodies and move are not really "them". They hold themselves in ways clearly recognizable from a distance. They do this because this is how it feels "right" for them to stand.

    When it comes to feelings, most people's speedometers don't start gauging movement until they're already going 20 mph, if you know what I mean.

    And please, why NOT discuss it with neurologists? This sort of question is something some of them would love to answer!
    Well, there's your problem. "This sort of question" is not a question. As I requested earlier, tell me what question should be asked.

    [qutoe]The brain and behavior people could do some nifty experiments, if they had a clear definition to work with.[/quote]

    Which is why I would like you to be precise as to what exactly the prime question would be. You see, I have experience in talking with such scientists about "these sorts of questions" and now that I have had experience in my current area, I see exactly why their thinking is as it is. So I have no questions left for neurologists in this matter. Do you?

    Some people, when faced with proof that their arguments are faulty, change the arguments and the definition so that they aren't wrong, regardless of the data. As an epidemiologist, I don't think you'd do that. Whole scientific ethics thing. However, you'd need to pin down a definition that can make predictions, which some of them can help you with.
    That's assuming I want to waste more time trying to convert English to metric. As I see it, Einstein is right. Newton is right. Lao Tzu is right. If they don't fight among themselves, I'm not going to stir them up.

    1st, define it.
    universal energy

    2nd, make a prediction.
    This root energy manifests itself as the ten thousand things of human consciousness, including the body and the world that supports the body and all the oher human bodies.

    This root energy permeates the entire system in which humans live, on every level that they can observe.

    This root energy cannot be manufactured, generated, perceived or manipulated by any mechanical or artificial means. It can only be contained in the elements of the living system and can only be manipulated by creative application of human awareness.

    It will be scientifically measurable the day we can quantify and analyze "humor" and "passion".

    One person I know tests things like this by using quantum-level random number generators, that should produce an even statistical spread, and finding ways that people may perturb them from a distance. There's lots of ways. The whole promise of a scientific career is that if you're ingenious enough, you can solve a problem.
    Have you yet formally defined what the problem is?

    Which is a problem. If a phenomenon is not reliably repeatable in vitro or in vivo, one has to find out why.
    Well, the same carcinogen doesn't always give two different people cancer. Even sometimes, the non-case has longer exposure. Why would that be?

    Why is a medication not always as effective on one person as on another?

    Just apply all those same reasons to Chinese medicine and shiatsu.

    Look, I'm not saying that your data's not correct, here. I'm saying that your paradigm may be faulty.
    And I say you're just missing the fact that it is a completely different realm of consideration. What you suggest is like doing Einsteinian physics with neurology questions. You cannot scientifically "take over" ki and just replace everything involved there with a scientific substitute.

    Totally different thing. If I can find a paradigm that explains your results as well as the lacunae in your data, the stuff that you can't test, then my paradigm can supersede yours.
    As I said above, that's just trying to scientifically "take over" an entirely different field, like neurologists trying to take over the field of engineering.

    And that's where the reinventing the wheel remark comes in. It's not supposed to be snippy. It's supposed to draw attention, though, maybe like an accupuncture needle. That's my point. There is no need to supersede Chinese medicine with 21st Century science. It's a different system. Like Newton and Einstein. Each has his place, neither obviates the other.

    No need to get snippy here. This is, at least on my end, a FRIENDLY discussion. If you want to be annoyed at me, go right ahead. I, however, am not going to reciprocate.
    Well, I appreciate it.

    Which is one of the usual things I run into. Someone tells me I can't approach this from a Western perspective, because they're totally different things.
    No, I think it's fine to "approach" them from a western perspective, but not to try to supersede them and replace every aspect of that system which is beyond fully rational comprehension with a scientific schema.

    If that were true, then reality would be fundamentally different in Asia.
    Well that's assuming that the west has perfect and complete comprehension of reality. We don't. And again, Einstein did not kick Newton off the earth and Newton's gravity cannot hold Einstein down. But I don't think you'd be very productive trying to design a spruce-winged airplane to fly at 80mph with two passengers using Einsteinian physics. As far as I know, Einstein's discoveries did not alter that level of reality. You still need Newton for things like that airplane and Newton still works for that. Anything that worked before Einstein will still work today.

    And the entire world of ki is still a valid approach to living on this planet in a human body.

    So why not just accept that "ki" refers to a complete network of human existence in the environment which Western science simply cannot translate?

    If it can, then it should be able to answer the koans. And then what? If you answer the Roshi from your physics book, will you still be enlightened?

    Thanks for the interesting comments.
    Last edited by kimiwane; 24th January 2006 at 05:15. Reason: noticed a reference stating that "Pi is exactly 3" --forgot to chang it!
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    202
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I'd like to say a few words about ch'I here, while we're on the subject...


    Primo:
    Ch'i as being a Universal Energy, may indeed exist. But as far as I'm concerned, it is nothing more than the energy described by Western science in their current String/M-theories. Is energy the basis of everything? Yes, basically. Does this mean we can 'use' it? No. Ofcourse not. these energies we speek of, are all bound together in tight structeres/forms/fields. Structures known as rocks, planets, chemical elements and indeed humans...So this theory over everything, is really not that new at all. It just happens to be so, that science has finally gotten to a point were it can prove it (more or less, I know). Now, human beings posses a certain amount of free will. We can do things that are against instincts or nature. Our brain is really one of the most powerful things ever. (way beyond any pc.) And, thanks to our understanding of nature and it's laws, we can enhance our performances on a lot of areas. If we train ourselves (both mind and body) we can achieve incredible feats. But it is all natural ofcourse. If we focus, we can concentrate all our power and intelligence in 1 point/action/... So, when we do that, we may achieve some pretty freaky things, like a 80-year-old master throwing/thrashing a bunch of young, trained Judo athletes. However admirable this feat may be, it's experience, focus and training who made it possible, rather than having more ch'i. Unless ofcourse, ch'i means to you 'training, understanding of how the human body works, focus...etc.'

    Secundo:
    We musn't underestimate the power of symbols. Certain symbols can help generate huge amounts of power, if we believe in those symbols.When we believe there is an underlying power we can tap into, we just use our own body and mind to a greater/larger extent than ever. Why is that? Humans are weak. We just lack self-confidence. If we could only free our minds, a lot of this sort of discussions would become completely unnecessary. Why do we need a god/elohim/allah/....or ch'I to feel better ? We can do what we do without the help of such concepts. Bottomline is that we are all scared. Scared of being alone on this tiny planet, 3th rock from the sun, in a god forsaken universe, somewhere in time. Hell, there's even a chance we live in a sort of multiverse. It's all pretty confusing. But, now that we are here, we might as well enjoy it.

    That mostly covers what I wanted to say. Thanks for reading, enjoy.



    Kind regards, Christophe.


    Regards,
    Christophe van Eysendyck.

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •