Well, you could try.
One follow up point I didn’t get a chance to edit. The proof of Einstein’s theory is the atomic bomb where a small mass transfer creates enormous power. It wouldn’t occur to anyone to think of an atomic bomb as a trick or magic, unless of course, you described the effects a half-pound of uranium could do before 1944. Come to think of it, around the same time as Uncle Milty's joke.
[This message has been edited by Phils (edited December 08, 2000).]
More talk on the existance of "ki"
Moderator: Available
More talk on the existance of "ki"
What is magic, and what does it have to do with energy and matter?
I've never heard the word "chi" being used to describe anything other than energy.
Energy is expressed through matter, and matter is defined by energy.
What is energy, for that matter?
Since every day I wake up and perceive a fiery ball in the sky that other people tell me exists, because of what they perceive from instruments that they think are real, and think can measure real things, should I say the sun is just a perception?
Does it make any difference what I call it?
------------------
sean
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 08, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 08, 2000).]
I've never heard the word "chi" being used to describe anything other than energy.
Energy is expressed through matter, and matter is defined by energy.
What is energy, for that matter?
Since every day I wake up and perceive a fiery ball in the sky that other people tell me exists, because of what they perceive from instruments that they think are real, and think can measure real things, should I say the sun is just a perception?
Does it make any difference what I call it?
------------------
sean
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 08, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 08, 2000).]
More talk on the existance of "ki"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MetaBaron:
[snip] BACK TO THE TOPIC if I may.
Last night, in my Aikido class, the Sensei demonstrated a Ki principle that I would
like to have insight on.
My sensei, who is in his late 80's demonstrated the "Lead body technique" (i call it
lead body for lack of a better term)
in which he asked me to lift him up.
[major snippage]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Grr!!?!@?K#$ This nonsense makes everyone look at Aikido (and many jujutsu systems) as if they were anything mystical, or inexplicable. Tripe; utter tripe.
2000 years ago in China, people needed a paradigm to explain natural phenomena that they observed... they called it qi. Now we have a bunch o' high-falutin' (and self-serving IMO) people using tricks which are explained simply with basic physics.
There is a story that Rube Goldberg (creator of those fabulous pen and ink machines 'Rube Goldberg Devices') was introduced to Ueshiba (founder of Aikido) once. Since neither of them spoke the other's language they shared a moment of the odd juxtaposition of two grizzled 'old-fogies'. The explaination of this as ki (meaning biochemical energy) is akin to the Rube Goldberg devices, but with no humor (eg, observe something, contrive a set of circumstances to 'explain' it... stand around and wait for the impressionable).
The only explanation of Ki that this type of thing fits is Don Angier (of Yanagi Ryu), who describes ki as being, "a bunch of tricks, that I could teach you to do in an afternoon". He goes on to say that, "ki is nothing more than an understanding of body mechanics, and the ability to selectively relax any and all muscles of the body".
Be well,
Jigme
*who me... bitter?
------------------
Jigme Chobang
aikibudokai@yahoo.com
[snip] BACK TO THE TOPIC if I may.
Last night, in my Aikido class, the Sensei demonstrated a Ki principle that I would
like to have insight on.
My sensei, who is in his late 80's demonstrated the "Lead body technique" (i call it
lead body for lack of a better term)
in which he asked me to lift him up.
[major snippage]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Grr!!?!@?K#$ This nonsense makes everyone look at Aikido (and many jujutsu systems) as if they were anything mystical, or inexplicable. Tripe; utter tripe.
2000 years ago in China, people needed a paradigm to explain natural phenomena that they observed... they called it qi. Now we have a bunch o' high-falutin' (and self-serving IMO) people using tricks which are explained simply with basic physics.
There is a story that Rube Goldberg (creator of those fabulous pen and ink machines 'Rube Goldberg Devices') was introduced to Ueshiba (founder of Aikido) once. Since neither of them spoke the other's language they shared a moment of the odd juxtaposition of two grizzled 'old-fogies'. The explaination of this as ki (meaning biochemical energy) is akin to the Rube Goldberg devices, but with no humor (eg, observe something, contrive a set of circumstances to 'explain' it... stand around and wait for the impressionable).
The only explanation of Ki that this type of thing fits is Don Angier (of Yanagi Ryu), who describes ki as being, "a bunch of tricks, that I could teach you to do in an afternoon". He goes on to say that, "ki is nothing more than an understanding of body mechanics, and the ability to selectively relax any and all muscles of the body".
Be well,
Jigme
*who me... bitter?
------------------
Jigme Chobang
aikibudokai@yahoo.com
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
More talk on the existance of "ki"
MetaBaron
I almost want to refrain from answering this one for a while, and let George chime in. This is an old, old martial arts magic show trick. However the "trick" is not entirely without application. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
When you selectively relax certain muscles, you will discover that (if you are appropriately flexible) you have quite a bit of "play" in the position of your upper body versus your lower body. This is especially true of you can also relax so much (and you are appropriately squishy enough in your less-than-buff body) to let your insides shift with respect to your outside. The shoulders can move quite a bit before there is anywhere near enough tension registered to begin to move the majority of the rather "liquid" mass.
If you go into some novelty stores, you may find a little balloon-like toy with liquid inside that is almost impossible to hold in one hand. You grab on the exterior at one point, but the liquid in the interior just shifts with the stretchy exterior so that the majority of the mass is outside your grip. The darned thing then just oozes out of your hand. It is quite entertaining.
So...how do you hit and/or move such a person? It's not very difficult. Some rather down-to-earth aikido folk will talk about thinking of this body like a chain. If you pull and twist it enough, eventually the string turns into a rod. At that point, you can move and/or damage the rod-like body at will.
- Bill
I almost want to refrain from answering this one for a while, and let George chime in. This is an old, old martial arts magic show trick. However the "trick" is not entirely without application. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
If you were to put your aikido teacher on a scale, you would note that the weight he registered while he was "channeling his ki" was no different than when he wasn't. Similarly a dead person registers no more weight than a live one with typical muscle tone. So what's the deal?dead weight n. 1. The unrelieved weight of a heavy, motionless mass.
When you selectively relax certain muscles, you will discover that (if you are appropriately flexible) you have quite a bit of "play" in the position of your upper body versus your lower body. This is especially true of you can also relax so much (and you are appropriately squishy enough in your less-than-buff body) to let your insides shift with respect to your outside. The shoulders can move quite a bit before there is anywhere near enough tension registered to begin to move the majority of the rather "liquid" mass.
If you go into some novelty stores, you may find a little balloon-like toy with liquid inside that is almost impossible to hold in one hand. You grab on the exterior at one point, but the liquid in the interior just shifts with the stretchy exterior so that the majority of the mass is outside your grip. The darned thing then just oozes out of your hand. It is quite entertaining.
So...how do you hit and/or move such a person? It's not very difficult. Some rather down-to-earth aikido folk will talk about thinking of this body like a chain. If you pull and twist it enough, eventually the string turns into a rod. At that point, you can move and/or damage the rod-like body at will.
- Bill
More talk on the existance of "ki"
I guess I still an not understanding.
If he weighed 85 lbs before I picked him up, the according to what you stated he should weigh the same after he relaxes. Even if the fulcrum changed and his weight was distributed to two or three times, I still could have lifted him up.
-Meta
If he weighed 85 lbs before I picked him up, the according to what you stated he should weigh the same after he relaxes. Even if the fulcrum changed and his weight was distributed to two or three times, I still could have lifted him up.
-Meta
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
More talk on the existance of "ki"
Metabaron
You have implicit assumptions in your statement that don't hold.
If there were 85 pounds of water, could you lift it in your arms or hands? You could if it was in a stiff container. But let's say it was in no container at all (an extreme example). Then there would be no way you could hold that water in your hands or arms. It would just roll out. Now if all that water were in a big, squishy, elastic container, you would similarly have problems lifting it. The center of mass would be constantly shifting away from your hold, and you would no longer be able to lift it.
Your instructor is just relaxing parts of his body so much that his exterior is like a big, stretchy shell. You just keep pulling on the play of the bag, and you can't get the center of mass in your arms. If you grabbed his skin or arm with a good grip and started pulling and twisting, eventually you would reach the limits of the elasticity. Then you could move him with ease.
- Bill
You have implicit assumptions in your statement that don't hold.
If there were 85 pounds of water, could you lift it in your arms or hands? You could if it was in a stiff container. But let's say it was in no container at all (an extreme example). Then there would be no way you could hold that water in your hands or arms. It would just roll out. Now if all that water were in a big, squishy, elastic container, you would similarly have problems lifting it. The center of mass would be constantly shifting away from your hold, and you would no longer be able to lift it.
Your instructor is just relaxing parts of his body so much that his exterior is like a big, stretchy shell. You just keep pulling on the play of the bag, and you can't get the center of mass in your arms. If you grabbed his skin or arm with a good grip and started pulling and twisting, eventually you would reach the limits of the elasticity. Then you could move him with ease.
- Bill
More talk on the existance of "ki"
"A bunch of tricks that I could teach you in an afternoon."
"ki is nothing more than understanding of body mechanics, and the selective ability to relax any and all muscles at will."
How come no one is ever taught these tricks in an afternoon?
Understanding of body mechanics seems like a hard thing to quantify.
And what is the best way to learn body mechanics?
------------------
sean
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 09, 2000).]
"ki is nothing more than understanding of body mechanics, and the selective ability to relax any and all muscles at will."
How come no one is ever taught these tricks in an afternoon?
Understanding of body mechanics seems like a hard thing to quantify.
And what is the best way to learn body mechanics?
------------------
sean
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited December 09, 2000).]
More talk on the existance of "ki"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SEAN C:
"A bunch of tricks that I could teach you in an afternoon."
"ki is nothing more than understanding of body mechanics, and the selective ability to relax any and all muscles at will."
How come no one is ever taught these tricks in an afternoon?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'm gonna be a complete jerk here... because it pays the bills to string folks along. If they believe that they will be privy to some spectacular understanding that will allow them to controvert physical laws... heck, that sounds pretty good.
The fact is that many people have been taught these tricks (in a very short time) by the amazing Randi and a couple of other de-bunkers (including some instructors who have a profound distaste for this sort of thing). While the non-MA who learn these tricks are not as polished, they can replicate the forms shooting the assertion that 'you must be a 20+ year disciple' in the foot.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Understanding of body mechanics seems like a hard thing to quantify.
And what is the best way to learn body mechanics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Best way to learn body mechanics? There are so many pedagogical methods to choose from... but when people take advantage of 'modern' or 'western' advances this doesn't change the fundamental nature of one's art. As one example, when we (as students and instructors) apply priciples of exercise physiology, injuries are reduced. So we can transmit information contained in the form of an art with vastly different methods than were employed even 50 years ago.
On Tricks:
Don't forget that the whole side-show/demonstration thing is the product of the late Edo period, when folks (formerly bushi or samurai) had to go out and find ways to support themselves. Many individuals developed show-y demos (the implication being, 'hey, come train with me and you too can have magic powers') to get students. Ueshiba was certainly not afraid of self-promotion; some of these tricks he performed regularly. But why can we not progress beyond those tricks?
So, should we discount the ability to relax specific muscle groups? No. It is the result of a lot of training (look at seniors of any good art, and you will notice that they can generate power in a relaxed fashion... for most people, developing that is a long, involved process). It isn't very sexy to have the tricks exposed, but in the long-run, its better for everyone.
Be well,
Jigme
------------------
Jigme Chobang
aikibudokai@yahoo.com
[This message has been edited by kenkyusha (edited December 09, 2000).]
"A bunch of tricks that I could teach you in an afternoon."
"ki is nothing more than understanding of body mechanics, and the selective ability to relax any and all muscles at will."
How come no one is ever taught these tricks in an afternoon?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'm gonna be a complete jerk here... because it pays the bills to string folks along. If they believe that they will be privy to some spectacular understanding that will allow them to controvert physical laws... heck, that sounds pretty good.
The fact is that many people have been taught these tricks (in a very short time) by the amazing Randi and a couple of other de-bunkers (including some instructors who have a profound distaste for this sort of thing). While the non-MA who learn these tricks are not as polished, they can replicate the forms shooting the assertion that 'you must be a 20+ year disciple' in the foot.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Understanding of body mechanics seems like a hard thing to quantify.
And what is the best way to learn body mechanics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Best way to learn body mechanics? There are so many pedagogical methods to choose from... but when people take advantage of 'modern' or 'western' advances this doesn't change the fundamental nature of one's art. As one example, when we (as students and instructors) apply priciples of exercise physiology, injuries are reduced. So we can transmit information contained in the form of an art with vastly different methods than were employed even 50 years ago.
On Tricks:
Don't forget that the whole side-show/demonstration thing is the product of the late Edo period, when folks (formerly bushi or samurai) had to go out and find ways to support themselves. Many individuals developed show-y demos (the implication being, 'hey, come train with me and you too can have magic powers') to get students. Ueshiba was certainly not afraid of self-promotion; some of these tricks he performed regularly. But why can we not progress beyond those tricks?
So, should we discount the ability to relax specific muscle groups? No. It is the result of a lot of training (look at seniors of any good art, and you will notice that they can generate power in a relaxed fashion... for most people, developing that is a long, involved process). It isn't very sexy to have the tricks exposed, but in the long-run, its better for everyone.
Be well,
Jigme
------------------
Jigme Chobang
aikibudokai@yahoo.com
[This message has been edited by kenkyusha (edited December 09, 2000).]
-
Gilbert MacIntyre
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2000 6:01 am
- Location: Sydney, NS, Canada
More talk on the existance of "ki"
As for the existence/or not of chi, I'm not sure. I do find it interesting to study. We seem to have trouble accepting something we can't see. We know the body has a blood system, we can see it. The same can be said about a nervous system or skeletal system.
When it comes to chi we ask for proof because it can't be seen, proper thing. Turn your attention to the existence of bio-electricity and we find something we can't see and yet know to be there. However this bio-electricity did not always enjoy that status. It is only through research we learned of it.
Is chi bio-electricity? I don't know. Is it different yet similar? Same answer. I am willing to learn. I try to study as much as possible about the subject. I'm sure there are people who teach/publish/follow the study that may try to trick others, as I am sure there are those who truly believe. I am willing to be taught.
Just because we can explain something in accepted terms doesn't make it any less amazing. I keep thinking of the idea of someone who has such strong chi their aura is almost visible, then relate that to how Jesus is depicted.
I do know that the only way for anything to be credible is for it to be challenged. If it is, then it will be proven, if not then it should be shown for what it is.
On this not I am drawn back to something posted by Phil...no disrespect fine Sir.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Again no disrespect just wanted to point that out to you.
Gilbert.
[This message has been edited by Gilbert MacIntyre (edited December 09, 2000).]
When it comes to chi we ask for proof because it can't be seen, proper thing. Turn your attention to the existence of bio-electricity and we find something we can't see and yet know to be there. However this bio-electricity did not always enjoy that status. It is only through research we learned of it.
Is chi bio-electricity? I don't know. Is it different yet similar? Same answer. I am willing to learn. I try to study as much as possible about the subject. I'm sure there are people who teach/publish/follow the study that may try to trick others, as I am sure there are those who truly believe. I am willing to be taught.
Just because we can explain something in accepted terms doesn't make it any less amazing. I keep thinking of the idea of someone who has such strong chi their aura is almost visible, then relate that to how Jesus is depicted.
I do know that the only way for anything to be credible is for it to be challenged. If it is, then it will be proven, if not then it should be shown for what it is.
On this not I am drawn back to something posted by Phil...no disrespect fine Sir.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
True but that happens this way...your next quote.People talk about that theory as a given.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I stand to be corrected but whenever I hear this I always think...theories aren't proven yet, that's why they're theories.The proof of Einstein's Theory is the atomic bomb
Again no disrespect just wanted to point that out to you.
Gilbert.
[This message has been edited by Gilbert MacIntyre (edited December 09, 2000).]
More talk on the existance of "ki"
I don't know about teaching these "tricks" in an afternoon... I'll tell you about one time I taught a martial arts "trick".
Went to a martial arts "demonstration" in the early 80s where a 12th dan (not a typo) was doing the "demonstrating"... He was breaking 12"X12"X1" pine boards and telling everyone that you had to be a "Grandmaster" to reach his level of expertise. I happened to be standing near the stage area and beside this stack of boards there. This "Grandmaster" took a break and being the troublemaker that I am, I asked this little girl sitting there watching with her parents (her older, teenaged brother took lessons from the "grand bastar....ummmm you know...
)... anyway, I asked her how old she was.
"Seven whole years old."
"Wanna learn a trick?"
"Yeah!"
"OK, stand like this... put your hand like this... now hit my hand. Good... Now I want you to try to hit that wall behind me. Look at the wall... think about hitting that wall as hard as you can and when I say go, hit that wall. OUCH! You hit really good. Wanna try it again?"
"Yeah!"
We did this for a little bit and then I picked up one of the boards off of the pile and let the seven year old girl treat it like a piece of wet toilet paper! When the, ahem, "Grandmaster" returned, this girl was having a blast going through his stack of boards like popcorn! 
Needless to say, I got roughly told to leave and asked to pay for the boards! I immediately left, but told them that I didn't break the boards, they'd have to talk with the seven year old "new grandmaster".
Went to a martial arts "demonstration" in the early 80s where a 12th dan (not a typo) was doing the "demonstrating"... He was breaking 12"X12"X1" pine boards and telling everyone that you had to be a "Grandmaster" to reach his level of expertise. I happened to be standing near the stage area and beside this stack of boards there. This "Grandmaster" took a break and being the troublemaker that I am, I asked this little girl sitting there watching with her parents (her older, teenaged brother took lessons from the "grand bastar....ummmm you know...
)... anyway, I asked her how old she was. "Seven whole years old."
"Wanna learn a trick?"
"Yeah!"
"OK, stand like this... put your hand like this... now hit my hand. Good... Now I want you to try to hit that wall behind me. Look at the wall... think about hitting that wall as hard as you can and when I say go, hit that wall. OUCH! You hit really good. Wanna try it again?"
"Yeah!"
We did this for a little bit and then I picked up one of the boards off of the pile and let the seven year old girl treat it like a piece of wet toilet paper!
When the, ahem, "Grandmaster" returned, this girl was having a blast going through his stack of boards like popcorn! Needless to say, I got roughly told to leave and asked to pay for the boards! I immediately left, but told them that I didn't break the boards, they'd have to talk with the seven year old "new grandmaster".
More talk on the existance of "ki"
As far as theories go, scientists use the word to mean things most nonscientists don't. If someone has a crazy idea that subatomic particles behave like waves, that's a hypothesis. After that crazy hypothesis has a wealth of experimental evidence to support it, its a theory.
Einstein's theory isn't perfect, but its astonishingly useful for making predictions about the world. Newton's before it (essentially overturned by Albert's) was also very useful although more imperfect--yet it remains essentially true for daily life, and is used all the time when daily life is the only concern.
Anyway, the point is they're "theories," they're not perfect, but i wouldn't confidantly step off a skyscraper because gravitation is a "theory." And to dismiss all the understanding humankind has accumulated as "theory" pretty much takes an agnostic tack that would knock us back to the stone age.
Further, holding chi and its relatives to that same level of skepticism reduces it entirely to vaccum. IMHO.
Einstein's theory isn't perfect, but its astonishingly useful for making predictions about the world. Newton's before it (essentially overturned by Albert's) was also very useful although more imperfect--yet it remains essentially true for daily life, and is used all the time when daily life is the only concern.
Anyway, the point is they're "theories," they're not perfect, but i wouldn't confidantly step off a skyscraper because gravitation is a "theory." And to dismiss all the understanding humankind has accumulated as "theory" pretty much takes an agnostic tack that would knock us back to the stone age.
Further, holding chi and its relatives to that same level of skepticism reduces it entirely to vaccum. IMHO.
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
More talk on the existance of "ki"
All these massively educated people arguing over Qi reminds me of a riddle:
It is greater than God,
More evil than the devil,
The poor have it,
The rich need it,
And if you eat it you will die.
What is it?
Kindergarteners have a 65% higher success rate with this than Stanford grad students - so I'm told.
My point? Qi is a primitive way of explaining a myriad of what we now know to be extremely complex interactions in the human body and between human bodies. Some Physical, some psychological, and some (gasp) spiritual.
If you charge into me and my body position is correct, you will be damaged and I will not, wow! my Qi was stronger than yours. Some people will jump back when you say boo! and some will not. Your Qi is stronger than those who do and maybe weaker than those who do not.
Qi might mean body structure in one instance or immune system strength in another. It might mean I have transmitted force into your body effectively with very little overt effort, because I performed a technique correctly. It might mean that my charisma (what ever that means) is very strong and people will do what I want them to.
Frequently people will claim to have their Qi really up and use the discernable heat beteen their outstretched hands as proof. OK, circulation is good, metabolism is up, they're alert and in "the Zone", their Qi is indeed up. People who have developed micro control over their body have greater Qi than those that do not. People in better mind, body, spirit balance have greater Qi, at least healthier. I could go on and on. Some of these Qi tricks are simply the same as those of a great slight of hand magician; skills and aptitudes explained as something else.
Qi gave and gives a way of explaining complex events in a simple, understandable and readily repeatable way. As my sensei explains, a doctor can observe the effects of what I do when I use kyusho techniques and explain what I have done, but he generally can't give me a system of applying them that can predict what will happen if I do this, then this, then this. TCM can.
I know intuitively that Qi exists at least conceptually. I do not think it is one single discernable energy that we can measure like electricity.
Beware over analysis, it can get you killed.
ted
It is greater than God,
More evil than the devil,
The poor have it,
The rich need it,
And if you eat it you will die.
What is it?
Kindergarteners have a 65% higher success rate with this than Stanford grad students - so I'm told.
My point? Qi is a primitive way of explaining a myriad of what we now know to be extremely complex interactions in the human body and between human bodies. Some Physical, some psychological, and some (gasp) spiritual.
If you charge into me and my body position is correct, you will be damaged and I will not, wow! my Qi was stronger than yours. Some people will jump back when you say boo! and some will not. Your Qi is stronger than those who do and maybe weaker than those who do not.
Qi might mean body structure in one instance or immune system strength in another. It might mean I have transmitted force into your body effectively with very little overt effort, because I performed a technique correctly. It might mean that my charisma (what ever that means) is very strong and people will do what I want them to.
Frequently people will claim to have their Qi really up and use the discernable heat beteen their outstretched hands as proof. OK, circulation is good, metabolism is up, they're alert and in "the Zone", their Qi is indeed up. People who have developed micro control over their body have greater Qi than those that do not. People in better mind, body, spirit balance have greater Qi, at least healthier. I could go on and on. Some of these Qi tricks are simply the same as those of a great slight of hand magician; skills and aptitudes explained as something else.
Qi gave and gives a way of explaining complex events in a simple, understandable and readily repeatable way. As my sensei explains, a doctor can observe the effects of what I do when I use kyusho techniques and explain what I have done, but he generally can't give me a system of applying them that can predict what will happen if I do this, then this, then this. TCM can.
I know intuitively that Qi exists at least conceptually. I do not think it is one single discernable energy that we can measure like electricity.
Beware over analysis, it can get you killed.
ted
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
More talk on the existance of "ki"
Ted
Gee, I guessed this one right away when someone approached me with it a few months ago. Wonder what that says about me...
Generally very well written.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
But this is precisely what frustrates me. It reminds me of reading Greek and Roman Mythology, where phenomena around us were attributed to the actions of "the gods". In the end, I'd a lot rather use the first-principles explanations and understandings than catalogue a whole array of unrelated phenomena into one squishy label. And I don't call that "Western", I call that an application of acquired knowledge - regardless of the ethnicity of the source. Unfortunately we in the American continent - on average - rank quite low in our education of math and science. Without the basic technical background, most are deprived of speaking the language. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Furthermore, I have a lot more confidence in explanations I've seen coming from the medical community. They make sense. But then I speak the language. Perhaps to much of the world, I come from the Tower of Babel.
- Bill
Gee, I guessed this one right away when someone approached me with it a few months ago. Wonder what that says about me...
Generally very well written.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I couldn't agree more.Qi is a primitive way of explaining a myriad of what we now know to be extremely complex interactions in the human body and between human bodies. Some Physical, some psychological, and some (gasp) spiritual.
But this is precisely what frustrates me. It reminds me of reading Greek and Roman Mythology, where phenomena around us were attributed to the actions of "the gods". In the end, I'd a lot rather use the first-principles explanations and understandings than catalogue a whole array of unrelated phenomena into one squishy label. And I don't call that "Western", I call that an application of acquired knowledge - regardless of the ethnicity of the source. Unfortunately we in the American continent - on average - rank quite low in our education of math and science. Without the basic technical background, most are deprived of speaking the language. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I beg to differ. Of the randomized, controlled studies I've seen, the very foundations of "TCM" (such as 5E theory and location of accupoints) have been called into question. In the end, TCM explanation of kyusho appears to be a very complicated set of post hoc rationalizations. The utter complexity violates Occam's Razor (the simplest paradigms should be selected first until proven not to work).As my sensei explains, a doctor can observe the effects of what I do when I use kyusho techniques and explain what I have done, but he generally can't give me a system of applying them that can predict what will happen if I do this, then this, then this. TCM can.
Furthermore, I have a lot more confidence in explanations I've seen coming from the medical community. They make sense. But then I speak the language. Perhaps to much of the world, I come from the Tower of Babel.
- Bill
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
More talk on the existance of "ki"
Glasheen sensei
I find that I understand things in a more metaphorical way than scientific. I have an artists mind, I have been told; more intuitive. The TCM paradigm works for me so far, but I neither have your knowledge of the human body nor of Karate, so I definitely do not seek to contradict you. I feel that the whole Qi/TCM thing is probably an oversimplification of some things and flat wrong on some things, but has some applications which appear quite effective and outside the scope of most modern (I do not like "western" either) medical training. The thousands of years of practice must have achieved something. We do not know what that kind of time and study will reveal about what medical schools are teaching now either.
I just feel the argument over Qi is kind of like Creationism vs Evolution. I was taught evolution in school and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. I was taught about creation in church and it too seems correct in a simple-minded way. Later in life it was explained by the pastor of my church that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive at all. What was the mechanism of creation? How could primitive leaders and scribes explain a long term process of development, which they themselves did not understand, to their followers? Evolution as the mechanism is a more amazing story than the abracadabra one, in my mind.
I put Qi and TCM/5 Element theory vs Modern medicine in this category. There is something to be gained from both approaches. There is even a macro vs micro perspective that could be argued. Modern medicine is fairly recent to the game in acknowledgment of the environmental factors and lifestyle factors affecting health, in contrast to the intrinsic consideration of those factors in the more primitive approache of TCM. I say this based on the information I have been privy to in my life regarding public health policy, which is no more than that promoted in the mainstream media. As an ignorant seeker, I have something to gain no matter what.
I am very appreciative of the knowledge you and others on this forum share. Discussion of this topic is very valuable. I think the emotional argument over it is stupid.
My first approach to that riddle was to over-analyze it.
ted
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited December 12, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited December 12, 2000).]
I find that I understand things in a more metaphorical way than scientific. I have an artists mind, I have been told; more intuitive. The TCM paradigm works for me so far, but I neither have your knowledge of the human body nor of Karate, so I definitely do not seek to contradict you. I feel that the whole Qi/TCM thing is probably an oversimplification of some things and flat wrong on some things, but has some applications which appear quite effective and outside the scope of most modern (I do not like "western" either) medical training. The thousands of years of practice must have achieved something. We do not know what that kind of time and study will reveal about what medical schools are teaching now either.
I just feel the argument over Qi is kind of like Creationism vs Evolution. I was taught evolution in school and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. I was taught about creation in church and it too seems correct in a simple-minded way. Later in life it was explained by the pastor of my church that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive at all. What was the mechanism of creation? How could primitive leaders and scribes explain a long term process of development, which they themselves did not understand, to their followers? Evolution as the mechanism is a more amazing story than the abracadabra one, in my mind.
I put Qi and TCM/5 Element theory vs Modern medicine in this category. There is something to be gained from both approaches. There is even a macro vs micro perspective that could be argued. Modern medicine is fairly recent to the game in acknowledgment of the environmental factors and lifestyle factors affecting health, in contrast to the intrinsic consideration of those factors in the more primitive approache of TCM. I say this based on the information I have been privy to in my life regarding public health policy, which is no more than that promoted in the mainstream media. As an ignorant seeker, I have something to gain no matter what.
I am very appreciative of the knowledge you and others on this forum share. Discussion of this topic is very valuable. I think the emotional argument over it is stupid.
My first approach to that riddle was to over-analyze it.
ted
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited December 12, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ted Dinwiddie (edited December 12, 2000).]
