Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 259

Thread: What is Ki?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cufaol
    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.
    Me like. And yes, symbols are important to us. If you tell a grandmother to lift a rock, yeah, right. If you make her believe, through hypnosis or something, that her grandkid is under there, that rock's moving!

    Symbols and mental constructs are extremely important. As Harry explained earlier on this thread, the original meaning of chi is breath. That's all it meant. Completely physical and organic phenomenon. But, it also has a symbolic aspect. This is a completely mental construct that allows us to manipulate our bodies. I have received classical voice training, and a lot of it is learning the symbols and mental images/feelings/whatever that work for the individual student to allow them to manipulate their body in such a way as to sing well in the desired mode, be it classical or not. (I should point out that a lot of rock singers and such could really use that kind of voice training, they do some pretty horrible things to their voices at times. This is besides the whole drinking, smoking, and sometimes drugs thing. )

    I should point out that the concept of chi has changed from breath, given the descriptions of it on this thread. Most of the universe doesn't even have air to breathe, so the concept of universal chi obviously does not involve breathing.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    202
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    I should point out that the concept of chi has changed from breath, given the descriptions of it on this thread. Most of the universe doesn't even have air to breathe, so the concept of universal chi obviously does not involve breathing.

    Back to planet earth and it's Carbondioxide madness....
    If ch'i is just steam from a ricecup or air, the entire point is that when you breath right (and as pointed out before, a lot of peolpe breath in a wrong way), you can aply more force (probably because of some complex physical law/theory/system I don't inderstand). Ofcourse, this does make this entire discussion obsolete...


    A typical academic discussion I'd say. We made it peope, now let's get back to training.


    Regards, Christophe.


    Regards,
    Christophe van Eysendyck.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    But you're addressing it as though it were very clear to you. Your replies don't seem to coincide with what I posted.
    My conception of ki is clear to me. Yours is extremely fuzzy to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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?
    This is where it gets fuzzy.



    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    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.[/QUOTE]
    Actually, I believe that Harry pointed this out earlier on the thread. He's certainly mentioned it before on e-budo. If you won't believe his examples...

    And no, Newtonian physics is not a special case of Einsteinian, and it is NOT separate but equal. Newtonian physics has been completely superseded by Einsteinian. Newton's concept of looking at the universe was wrong. Even on earth, you are still using Einsteinian physics, it's just that some of the additional terms are so small we don't bother to include them. Much of the most advanced technology we use today would not be possible under Newtonian physics.

    I keep telling you to read Kuhn, without looking at that, you're fundamentally missing something about the basis of science. Don't read about Kuhn, either, especially not philosophy based on his texts. Read his original work, it's a history of science, and it tells you a great deal about what science really is, not just what the layman THINKS it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    Perhaps, however, it's where it tends to be needed most.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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".
    Musashi could have been referring to a breath pattern and a specific mental pattern that goes with it. This is one of the things that the koryu arts teach. If you've read the book of one of his contemporaries, The Life-Giving Sword, you know that much that is in that book is deliberately incomprehensible. Not mystical, just he gives you part of it, and your teacher has to fill in the rest that is passed down orally. This may be so with Musashi.
    Furthermore, much of what he was doing involved using cultural memes that we now have to suss out. So that feeling of Tut-TUT corresponds to something that we use in Western culture, most likely, he just expressed it in a way uniquely Japanese because those were the memes he was used to.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    This is another example of fuzzy. Really fuzzy. WHAT qualities? Does a premie have genki? What about a baby born addicted? Bad ki from the mother's drug problem?
    If you are talking about a baby's movement quality, or their complete lack of experience, or the hardwired safety responses that they are born with, you need to specify.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    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?[/QUOTE]
    Probably because you got fuzzy on them. Drives scientists nuts. I'll try to pin it down, eh?

    There is no prime question, but there are several different ones that can be asked. If one feels ki, or perceives it in some way, or manipulates it through creative exercise of will, the brain should change. This can be measured electrophysiologically, through MRI, through EKG, etc. So, first one needs to find the changes. This is easy to do.

    The next question that can be asked is what do those changes do? It might help to start generating mouse models at that point, so we can manipulate the system. Mice are living, they should have ki, no? Or is this just a human thing? They're also aware and measurable. At this point, one can try to find the molecules involved, or stimulate the various regions, or inhibit them. Lots of things.

    One can also work on stimulating those areas of the brain to find which neurons are being used. I'm betting on dopaminurgic, myself. Using hypnosis to produce those changes is also useful. One can then determine what benefits those stimuli give. There's lots to do!


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    Actually, the first two have both been proved wrong. I won't proclaim the great Lao Tzu wrong, though. That's a more multi-disciplinary question.
    Won't say that we didn't benefit from Newtonian and Einsteinian paradigms, just that they eventually proved incomplete and were both discarded.


    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    universal energy

    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".

    Have you yet formally defined what the problem is?
    Easy enough. We know the types of the brain that are involved in humor, and in emotion. Their reactions can both be quantified and analyzed.

    I do have a problem, though. Fuzziness alert. Ten thousand things of human consciousness? Define please. Creative application of human awareness? Define please. Human awareness has more holes than swiss cheese. We're just not aware of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.
    This is a problem which we are currently solving on a medicine-by-medicine basis. The reason that people respond differently to different environmental factors is that they have many different alleles of many different genes. These alleles have effects on processing of various drugs. We are currently using genomics to solve the problem, and it's working. Take a genotype before prescribing, and you can figure out how someone will metabolize a given medicine. Not done with all the drugs yet, that will take time and funding, but this is the near future!

    Which suggests an experiment. A fairly easy one, though expensive. Take patients who have never experienced chinese medicine before and have a particular disorder and offer them some free. Take blood and followup on the patients to find out what their experience was and whether the technique worked or not. Use their blood for genomic screening, perhaps using some nice genechips or doing more specific arrays on target genes. There you are, problem solved!

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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.

    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 such thing. Read below.

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    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 ki can do things that our current science cannot predict, then the current scientific paradigm MUST be replaced with one that can. Research ethics. We look for the truth, we can't lie to ourselves about what we find, and we can't hide from that kind of dissent. We MUST resolve it, or we are not scientists. End of story.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Appropriation is Doomed to Failure

    I think it's admirable in a way that you guys are intent on taking on this entire culture that goes back some 6000 years and replacing it, in your mind, with terms you have been taught and have misunderstood as the perfect definition of reality. But to think that you have "superseded their paradigm" when you never even knew what their paradigm really was is just to ignore the truth. You have built a straw man of the Chinese/Japanese concept and declared that their "Pi" is "exactly three". Where things don't relate or convert or translate, you have just assigned your own chosen meanings and values, ignoring and contradicting the meanings that are clearly stated and thoroughly outlined in ancient sources. Your view is biased in that you insist on viewing their material through your prejudices. It is confounded by inclusion of unrelated concepts that you won't drop from your analysis.

    I think it's a shame that you have spent so little time trying to understand "what they are saying" (when their language is full of words for it and so many texts have been written, on which most of my comments are based) and that you have put so much effort into trying to invent in your mind what they "probably" mean by the words--of which you are familiar only with the few that address martial arts.

    This is a meditation forum, not a ki ball or ki throw forum. There is no work in this thread to get back to but "meditation". These questions can't be escaped by declaring that we have superseded their meaning or that we have to get back to working out.

    Your attempts are vaguely amusing but, because of your overriding bias, I find them less and less interesting. You are trying to explain an entire culture having first dismissed all of their cultural elements and substituted your own. This may amuse and satisfy you, but it only relates to your inner view of the matter and does not really matter where one is seriously trying to understand this subject.

    Also, to try to use science so loosely and selectively does not help your case in this and would indicate to me upcoming difficulties in following the scientific way.

    Best wishes.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    Where things don't relate or convert or translate, you have just assigned your own chosen meanings and values, ignoring and contradicting the meanings that are clearly stated and thoroughly outlined in ancient sources.

    Your attempts are vaguely amusing but, because of your overriding bias, I find them less and less interesting. You are trying to explain an entire culture having first dismissed all of their cultural elements and substituted your own.


    Rather than the overtone of
    "I know Japanese culture, you don't hee hee", I'd be interested to see you respond to Trevor's questions

    The fact that you CAN'T answer them shows that you haven't fully sorted this stuff out in your head yet.

    Sorry but my BS meter has been in the Red for the past couple pages...
    it was good entertainment while it lasted.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    This may be so with Musashi.
    Furthermore, much of what he was doing involved using cultural memes that we now have to suss out. So that feeling of Tut-TUT corresponds to something that we use in Western culture, most likely, he just expressed it in a way uniquely Japanese because those were the memes he was used to.
    Japanese is full of "Giongo" which are sound words used to describe certain physical or emotional feelings. Using this also implies a certain internal feeling that's associated with it as well. I will say that in some cases there isn't a western equivalent to exactly describe it...which is why it's kind of pointless to read that stuff in english.
    And Musashi being vague on purpose, I totally agree.
    Both the Chinese and Japanese have the nasty habit of doing that.
    But I mean, can you really blame them? If you spent 40+ years aquiring a certain skill, you're not going to give it away that easily
    Even if you could.
    It's only the "atama no warui ko tachi" that read more than what's actually there.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default BS meter is placed too close to your seat

    Quote Originally Posted by Asura
    Thanks for the pithy input. That's the height of your post, but I will go through a few of your other points.

    Rather than the overtone of
    "I know Japanese culture, you don't hee hee", I'd be interested to see you respond to Trevor's questions
    It's foolish to try to cram another culture into your little frame. I'd be interested in seeing either of you fully address the lines I laid out long ago that you both skimmed past.

    The fact that you CAN'T answer them shows that you haven't fully sorted this stuff out in your head yet.
    I've sorted it quite well enough to know that he never asked a relevant question and skimmed over the answers I did give. If you want to wank on about how you've figured out 6000 years of culture by rephrasing what your professors put you to sleep with in uni classes, fine. Amuse yourself. But it's not real science and it doesn't even address the real culture it tries to supersede.

    Sorry but my BS meter has been in the Red for the past couple pages...
    Don't sit so close to it. You're confounding your instruments.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Asura
    It's only the "atama no warui ko tachi" that read more than what's actually there.
    Uh...you were saying about the snide "I know Japanese culture better than you...." attitude?

    But aren't you going to define the chemical compound that accounts for Musashi's "feeling of tut-TUT"? It can't be translated into English? But you guys claim you can translate it into chemistry and physics!

    You guys need to step back and listen to yourselves.

    You ignore what traditional asian culture says on this topic, supply your own definitions for what "YOU" don't understand but you attribute the lack of understanding to the old masters. You are the ones trying to slap "scientific" labels on things YOU don't understand.

    The way I have referred to ki and qi is completely consistent with the usage in qi gong (or kikoo in Japanese), accupuncture, Chinese medicine, taiji, xing yi and bagua. Some modern guys may skip this explanation, but they do not alter the underlying physical methods established before them.

    You guys, on the other hand, seem to have gotten your ideas from Star Wars. Why do you feel driven to overwrite an entire culture that you don't understand with words that you think you understand? You end up then telling yourself you have somehow conquered the old culture, that you have not only "understood" it but through your superior ways, have "perfected" it.

    But that culture goes on and on as you pat yourself on the back. It will not end as long as there are humans.

    Einstein did not obviate Newton. You can still open a 100 year old physics book and perform every experiment in it with the same results. And Einstein has not been obviated. You can still use his work to build an atomic bomb.

    And neither of these outsmarted or replaced the ancient culture that perceives and lives with universal ki force in every aspect of their lives.

    Not to say that "ki wo tsukete" enters their consciousness as anything like "turn on your holy and mystical ki power to protect you when you are walking down to the train station."

    All it means is that they activate their normal human mind and apply it to their safety in their normal human life. It's not a thing that they "believe" or "don't believe". It is ordinary human life.

    Thanks for your comments.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    104
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane
    But aren't you going to define the chemical compound that accounts for Musashi's "feeling of tut-TUT"? It can't be translated into English? But you guys claim you can translate it into chemistry and physics!
    Of course. Because language, and the english language is still a "human" construct. So is japanese. As such they're still fallible, and there will be parts where they overlap, and where they dont.

    And it can be translated into physiology/physics/neurology.
    Ask anyone that can "do", and he can probably tell you "how" he does it mechanically, and which feeling he needed when he was training that skill

    I never said this stuff/skill only applied to a martial context. Certain aspects are trained more rigorously in a martial context, but any movement done by humans can contain it.

    My own personal opinoin is that people stuck in the "dojo" atmosphere of things tend to get this warped view of asian culture...
    Even here in Japan, seriously you see so many foreigners that look like they want to their virtual topknot and hakama, spend a couple of years with their "sensei" who espouses "deep" thoughts, and then that makes them a philisophical master

    Rob

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Asura
    Japanese is full of "Giongo" which are sound words used to describe certain physical or emotional feelings. Using this also implies a certain internal feeling that's associated with it as well. I will say that in some cases there isn't a western equivalent to exactly describe it...which is why it's kind of pointless to read that stuff in english.
    And Musashi being vague on purpose, I totally agree.
    Both the Chinese and Japanese have the nasty habit of doing that.
    But I mean, can you really blame them? If you spent 40+ years aquiring a certain skill, you're not going to give it away that easily
    Even if you could.
    It's only the "atama no warui ko tachi" that read more than what's actually there.
    This is EXACTLY why I mentioned the koryu earlier in the post. This is the sort of thing they do all the time. Think the word is "gokui." Amdur's posted on it earlier.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimiwane

    Your attempts are vaguely amusing but, because of your overriding bias, I find them less and less interesting. You are trying to explain an entire culture having first dismissed all of their cultural elements and substituted your own. This may amuse and satisfy you, but it only relates to your inner view of the matter and does not really matter where one is seriously trying to understand this subject.

    Also, to try to use science so loosely and selectively does not help your case in this and would indicate to me upcoming difficulties in following the scientific way.

    Best wishes.
    And here I am trying to be helpful, specific, and propose experiments that would sort out whether or not ki exists and what it does. If science has been wrong for years, I want to know it! This is how we get it right!

    And no, what I am doing is being specific, careful, and tightening up my definitions. Could you at least comment on experiments I've proposed, thoughts, etc? I'd be interested to know where you think I'm wrong, or if you think I'm wrong at all.

    Ah, well. I will respond more specifically and thoroughly later, no time now.
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by Asura
    Of course. Because language, and the english language is still a "human" construct. So is japanese. As such they're still fallible, and there will be parts where they overlap, and where they dont.

    And it can be translated into physiology/physics/neurology.
    Well, please, by all means, stop talking about it and do it. You're always talking about people who can "do". Have at it.

    You guys have come to me wanting me to put the old culture in scientific terms and suggested experiments for me to do. I'm not the one claiming a scientific base in this. I am answering the question "What is Ki?" by showing the picture drawn by language and well established and documented arts and healing practices. If you want to analyze it in Western scientific terms, please do and present your findings. All you've done so far is claim that it could be done and demand that I do it. If you are someone who can "do", then define your terms, make your hypotheses, set up your rigorous experiments, document your results, repeat your experiments, see if others get the same results, and then let us know what you come up with.

    But until you do, scientifically, you have no basis to "explain" ki in any terms other than those used by the culture that gave us the concept.

    You have done neither the scientific nor the cultural work to make even the superficial statements you persist in making.

    It's like Intelligent Design. They want to rewrite the rules of science and insert their cultural beliefs fundmental elements of the scientific method. I am a Christian, but I do not want any preachers tampering with the rules of science.

    Likewise, I don't want any scientists coming in and trying to rewrite the Bible.

    You guys are the classic "full cup" types. You brought your Western baggage to the Asian culture, you're watching American soap operas and calling it Kabuki.

    Ask anyone that can "do", and he can probably tell you "how" he does it mechanically, and which feeling he needed when he was training that skill
    That's the way Mochizuki sensei was. That's the way Feldenkrais was. That's the way I am.

    But what if the old guy tells you it was "ki" (as in Morihei Ueshiba)?

    You accept his answer if he explains things mechanically, but you are too smart for him if he says it's ki. You just blithely unpack your Intelligent Design presentation package and hand out bumper stickers condemning the old man a "Ungodly". Or in your "scientific" thinking, "O'Sensei is Irrational". Same cultural bias and self-superiority. But all it's doing is glossing over your own fear of things that have not been explained.

    But is there really anything wrong with Ueshiba's seeing the world entirely without rationality? Did he freak out and kill people because he was irrational? And can our own culture even claim pure rationality? Is the US operated on an entirely rational basis?

    Again, this reminds me of the grandstanders who pander to emotions of fear in their constituency to try to invade and erase another culture and replace it with their own, with no regard to the fact that people have lived very fulfilling lives for thousands of years by their own ways. It is too superior to bear.

    I never said this stuff/skill only applied to a martial context. Certain aspects are trained more rigorously in a martial context, but any movement done by humans can contain it.
    Yes. It is universal. Any movement by humans MUST contain it to be healthy and effective.

    Feldenkrais put his heaviest emphasis on movements like sitting down and standing up from a chair, walking, reaching, pulling, watching something. These areas are where our real personalities are expressed--which is to say where we can observe our false personalities in action. Only when we see the artificialness of our learned movements can we recognize the nature of our real selves and actually choose which one to use in daily life. As long as we don't recognize that we aren't moving "naturally", we are like slaves, moving not at all as our inner nature urges us to.

    We each have a self-image that we store in the kinesthetic sense of our bodies. We stand a certain way, hold our shoulders a certain way, walk a certain way and even maintain a precise set of tensions to produce "our" own voice, which our friends can recognize in a single word. These things add up to a consistent pattern of tonus throughout the body. We maintain our sense of who we are by maintaining that exact set of bodily tensions. When we feel that precise set of tensions, we feel comfortable, because that set of tensions is how we recognize ourself, or we think it is the way to become what we want to be. Any other tonus of the body actually makes us uncomfortable. If a person feels "right" slightly slumped, he will feel "wrong" if he stands straight.

    Some people are so intensely copying their teacher's "correct" movement that they lose the sense of their own "correct" movement. They condition themselves to feel "natural" when they are imitating their teacher, even if he explains what he is doing in scientific terms. Even if the teacher spouts back those same scientific phrases, he will be unable to feel comfortable standing in his own body's best organization.

    We may be copying a movie star or a martial artist or a famous writer or the tough guy down the street. But our habitual kinesthetic tonus maintains our sense of who we are.

    Our "correct" or "natural" tonus is more efficient at everything than any other tonus we can maintain. I call this natural tonus "zero stance". Feldenkrais called it "neutral position". If one can completely release the "artificial" or "imitative" or "coerced" tonus he has adopted in developing his sense of self, his body will naturally assume the "neutral" posture and will naturally exhibit the "three external harmonies" of Chinese Martial Arts. In a natural-tonus body, the shoulders will harmonize with the hips. The elbows will harmonize with the knees. The hands will harmonize with the feet. The person will stand straight, relaxed, tall and light, mobile and strong. And he will be able to do any movement you show him.

    My own personal opinoin is that people stuck in the "dojo" atmosphere of things tend to get this warped view of asian culture...
    That is why it is so unhealthy to "focus only on the martial aspects" of things like ki. To know only the "martial words" out of Japanese language gives a very artificial view of Japanese martial arts--and also of ki.

    I learned that the word "sutemi" means "sacrifice". After thousands of hours of sutemi-waza practice, I also found out that sutemi comes from the same word you use for throwing out trash. That's how you wind up hearing aikido people say "throw him away". Sensei used to say "throw him away for good."

    Since you often wound up choked before you hit the ground with his sutemi waza, and stopped with a nice little JERK, it's easy to see that he meant it.

    I long ago realized that it's more important to understand the sensei and the shihan's DAILY language than to understand everything they said related to technique. The more I understood the daily language (and there's no better way to do that than seeing a baby brought up in that language), the more I understood them on the mat and the deeper understanding I had of words like "sutemi".

    Even here in Japan, seriously you see so many foreigners that look like they want to their virtual topknot and hakama, spend a couple of years with their "sensei" who espouses "deep" thoughts, and then that makes them a philisophical master
    We're lucky to have someone like you among us who is above such things. We can follow your example and be like you. We will, from now on, dismiss with a all the things that are not like you.

    Your attitude reminds me of the old Steely Dan line: "the things that pass for knowledge I don't understand".

    Maybe it's because you really don't understand.

    Don't roll'em out of your head, son.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default tut-TUT

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    This is EXACTLY why I mentioned the koryu earlier in the post. This is the sort of thing they do all the time. Think the word is "gokui." Amdur's posted on it earlier.
    It doesn't matter what "feeling" tut-TUT exactly describes: what's important is that it describes a "feeling". You guys have talked about analyzing the brainwaves of tut-TUT to ascertain exactly what that feeling was.

    But then what do you plan to do? Will you have some computer modem of some kind that will modulate a digital signal into "ki waves" or something, some electrical signal or something that will make you do Musashi's technique like a robot or a puppet?

    Most of the Book of Five Rings is really not meant to be understood by us, hundreds of years down the line, in another country and another language (even if you are in Japan, it's not the same Japan and the language is not the same Japanese that Musashi used) with only the barest of experience with the sword. The book was written for his student to understand and pass down if he wished. I don't think he did, despite the fact that there is a modern Nitto Ryu. I guess I get that opinon for Draegger.

    In fact, the only part of The Book of Five Rings that is completely useful across time and space is the Ground Book, where he compares the way of strategey to the way of the carpenter. That's where most of the useful information in the book is located. The Red Leaves Cut and the "feeling of tut-TUT will never be much use to anyone without decades of sword experience under very deep masters in Japan.

    But his rules, such as "Do not be dishonest" and "The Way is in Training" and "Know the ways of every art, learn the ways of every profession" and "Distinguish Between Gain and Loss in Worldly Matters" are as useful today as when they were written.

    But notice that he does say "KNOW" the ways of every art--NOT "CHANGE" the ways of every art to something you're more comfortable with.

    And here I am trying to be helpful, specific, and propose experiments that would sort out whether or not ki exists and what it does. If science has been wrong for years, I want to know it! This is how we get it right!
    That's good. You have outlined some good things there for anyone who wants to look at the matter through that framework. Since you are the one who wants to do that, please let me know how it comes out.

    And no, what I am doing is being specific, careful, and tightening up my definitions. Could you at least comment on experiments I've proposed, thoughts, etc? I'd be interested to know where you think I'm wrong, or if you think I'm wrong at all.
    I have to admit you did come up with some questions and experiments. If you want to see if anything happens in the brain, maybe you could measure that, but I believe those experiments have been done. I believe they have also been published. Did you do a literature review?

    In any case, your results will tell you much more about your own science than they will about ki and its nature. That's why I say again, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. It's perfectly useable as it is if you understand it deeply enough to recognize how to use it most effectively.

    Anecdotally, I am aware that many surgeons in the US have experimented with accupuncture for anesthesia. The Chinese, of course, have been doing that for a long time. I would say that the proven (usually effective) application of accupuncture to anesthesia shows that, however you describe it, placement of needles at recommended accupuncture points does work as the Chinese model predicts. Again, this is not always true, but that is also balance by the many documented examples of patients "waking" from Western anesthesia enough to feel intense pain but not enough to let the doctor know.

    And where I mentioned that ki treatments do not always heal disease, you jumped on that to say that they are flawed. Yet when I pointed out that Western treatments don't always affect every patient the same way, you glossed over it.

    Sensei was a bone doctor in addition to being a martial artist. When neighborhood kids got broken arms, their parents would bring them to Sensei before taking them to the hospital. He was skilled at massage and accupressure, but for self defense, he never relied on pressure points. "Those will work on some people, but not on others," he said.

    When it came down to serious survival issues, rather than try to numb the arm with a pressure point, he recommended breaking the bone or dislocating the limb.

    When he went on travels, he would get very tired because he didn't like to eat what you could find out there on the road. Everyone else was happy with bento boxes, bought at a station vendor, but those things left sensei disappointed. He wanted his wife's cooking. Those bento, he said, "Don't have kokoro (heart) in them," as did okusan's.

    Do you want to scientifically analyze "kokoro" and see if it can be synthesized by machine for injection into bento boxes?

    Or why not have a quantum examination of a Picasso masterpiece. Say "Guernica". Analyze that with random numbers, extract the essence of "inspiration" and have a computer use that to paint another painting with the same inspiration as Picasso.

    Again, it will tell you more about your science than it will about inspiration or Picasso.

    Your painting may wind up "a real piece of work", but it still won't be a Picasso.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,253
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Well, see, here's the problem. I tell you something can be done, but only if you care to define some of the terms you are casually throwing around as if they mean something very specific. You blow up, get defensive and edgy, tell me that it can't be done, that the two things are totally different, and that I'm no scientist.

    The WAY in which you're going about this tells me that you don't understand the basis of science very well. It's also very fuzzy. If you can tighten it up and come up with something very specific that you believe, it can be tested. Otherwise, I have to interpret WHAT you believe, test that, and you can then tell me that that's not what you believe. So...?

    As they say on other parts of the forum, care to answer the questions?
    Trevor Johnson

    Low kicks and low puns a specialty.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Johnson
    Well, see, here's the problem. I tell you something can be done, but only if you care to define some of the terms you are casually throwing around as if they mean something very specific.
    That's a vague statement, Trevor. Please give examples.

    I'm using the Japanese language itself in both broad and specific examples to show the entire range of this concept.

    You are trying to replace the concept with something that makes you feel more comfortable--in this case, the idea that science accounts for everything. It does not and should not.

    You blow up, get defensive and edgy, tell me that it can't be done, that the two things are totally different, and that I'm no scientist.
    I say that science has its place and that you're over-reaching the bounds. Again, it's like a Creation Scientist trying to force his way into real scientific circles. Ain't gonna happen.

    And likewise, it's clear you guys have very little real work into matters of ki, so you want to just skip all that, write it all off and tell yourself you have explained it "with science".

    That self-satsifaction with an investigation very shallowly done is the hallmark of weak science.

    The WAY in which you're going about this tells me that you don't understand the basis of science very well.
    I'm not approaching it as a science, Trevor. How many times must I say that? I am coming from the traditional asian view on this. I make no claims in terms of Western science. YOU are the one who wants to do that. So, of course, I'm not sticking to scientific rules. But since YOU are trying to approach it as science, YOU MUST adhere to them.

    It's like a judo guy coming into the ring with a karate man and telling him "No kicks, now." because that's outside your system. You have assumed that I am required to discuss this by YOUR rules. I say you are obliged to discuss it from "their" rules and to discard your own until you have correctly assimilated theirs. When you have done that, maybe there will be some value in THEN applying your scientific view to the subject. But as long as you haven't even defined what "ki" is supposed to be, anything you "scientifically" say about it is just so much fluff that will blow away in a minute.

    If you can tighten it up and come up with something very specific that you believe, it can be tested.
    I've given several examples, most recently, that accupuncture, based on ki theory, has been proven to work for anesthesia. Did you just skim over that one? Now you're demanding what I just gave you.

    But in general, no test is necessary. All you have to do is look at the list of terms I gave above. They are a small part of the large linguistic picture of ki as a universal all-permeating energy in human life. I said that's the asian view of it and when you couldn't penetrate that, you tried baffling me with science.

    If you were a serious scientist, you would make no more statements until you have done YOUR experiments and had your results reproduced by others. Why would you expect me, coming from the other direction, to use your methods? See, that's where you seem to have some blind spot. You seem not to realize that it is valid to base a way of life on something other than scientific reasoning. How would your ways have improved Picasso as a painter or James Joyce as a writer?

    Not at all, I'm sure.

    Otherwise, I have to interpret WHAT you believe, test that, and you can then tell me that that's not what you believe.
    Well, all you have to do is give an example of where I said one thing about ki in one place, then changed my definition later. Please give said example or grow up and stop trying to minimize, mis-summarize and dismiss. What I've said.
    As they say on other parts of the forum, care to answer the questions?
    You have skimmed over every answer I have given. YOU have changed your statements and your parameters and contradicted yourself several times in this thread.

    But I will hang with it on the off chance that you'll get your ducks straight and go somewhere meaningful with it.
    David Orange, Jr.

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

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

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... 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
  •