Shadow_self

You are not talking to people who are fully "there"....as evidenced in the prior string of posts

Nobody needs a PhD to publish a well respected paper...what absolute crap ...bachelors, and masters students do it all the time....more inconsistencies and nonsense..Not only that, but professionals in the field who have no PhD regularly publish too, in the highest ranking journals....It happens ALL THE TIME....and as a person in the occupation, I can tell you that your understanding of the way it works, is totally and unequivocally wrong It absolutely is an appeal to authority to claim the mere presence of a PhD brings credence to something...it does not, and will not ever......your unfounded religious like dogmatism wont change that..anyway you've yourself tied up in so many logical inconsistencies at this stage...its just sad to be honest The difference is, you have to appeal to authority and employ multiple biases and fallacies...I don't....I actually work with these people...do the peer reviewed stuff...do the research, design the protocols, lecture to 100s of students..and have done so for some time...in other words, I teach this stuff as well as practice it. I am more than in a position to tell you that you have no understanding of how this works....none at all So to summarize...you don't know what you are talking about....first you misrepresent the Mo Pai ..and now you misrepresent academia, again something you clearly have no affiliation to (no sane academic would operate with the amount of biases and fallacies you do) This is why nobody here will ever take you or your peers seriously...because you operate from a default of logical inconsistency and will outright lie. I'm pretty sure the entire forum is laughing (or cringing) at the silliness of you... However...its a good record for anyone who ever considers reaching out to you...just to see what it looks like when a person in academia addresses the type of nonsense your are presenting Anyway...we're done now....please refrain from telling lies about PhDs and academics.....we don't take kindly to you misrepresenting us ( much like another group of people you do that with)

The real ironic situation here is that this individuals heavily focuses on appeals to authoritiessuch as academics which is a logical fallacy I am an in academia, and I have had to point out the most basic flaws in reasoning and cognition...to the point that their argument is basically a non runner Now one would imagine, that given their predisposition towards people of this inclination..you would think they would do well to listen and learn

And this is the short form version...Imagine what the long one might look like

No, you were not referring to that...you mentioned if you were in court you would win...I just explained to you how utterly stupid that statement was, and used a real life example to explain why your ridiculous black and white logic is the language and reasoning of a person looking through a keyhole, and upon learning that there is far more to the situation that what you perceive through said keyhole...you refuse to pull your eye away from it Now you are just moving the goalposts, which is yet another logical fallacy I'm not even going to get into it any further...because the more I correct your woeful logic and nonrational viewpoint...the more logical fallacies you employ...and I don't enjoy conversing with people who are irrational and demonstrably incapable of even the most basic logical reasoning.... Anything can be manipulated to an extent...the question is to what degree....we have already established video holds no place in scientific evidence....we have also understood the inherent weakness in that it is often devoid of context...this is before any manipulation potentially takes place.. There is a reason we in the scientific community don't consider video evidence...it is nonsignificant, and objectively proves nothing....now you may want to believe it ...and you are free to your belief...as much as a christian is free to believe in the bible....but the fact that you believe it...does not make it good evidence.. Oh it is silly alright...but not for the reasons you think...allow be the shed some light Heres the logical fallacies in your position Appeal to authority False Dichotomy Strawman arguments appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument) Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case) And now for the cognitive biases confirmation bias belief bias backfire effect in group bias ( due to constant quotes from the WMP "how to argue" 101 playbook, but as you can see.....its neither logical or rational) In effect...your argument is about a strong as a wet cardboard box. I suggest you take some introduction to philosophy classes..it might help your case....because at the moment...you are effectively a lost cause as long as your are attempting to argue with this load of troublesome traits weighing you down This discussion is fruitless...so unless you are willing to address everything ive said, and the criticisms....leave it here, you've made yourself look silly enough already

1. Im glad you understand this..but that wont change the outcome of the discussion unfortunately 2. Back to jurisprudence ? (Sigh) Ok...here we go....Keep in mind you should be having this discussion with another person...so please let this be the last time we visit what constitutes evidence in a courtroom....you are speaking with a person in science...so keep it there please Now regards "court" all this does is influence the subjective opinions of a bunch of people...it still does not lead to objective demonstration of an outcome...rather, it leads to a bunch of random people who did not witness anything testifying that they believe such an event happened ( keep in mind these are everyday people from all walks of life)...So what does this actually achieve?? Moreover...despite the above...to even be allowed to be constituted as evidence...it needs to be admissible ....you are now getting into probative vs prejudicial...and a weighting process takes place But for fun...lets put your theory to the test....a murder takes place.....a man has been randomly attacked and killed The defendant has been captured on video...he has killed this person in what appears to be cold blood....He has no recollection of the matter whatsoever....The video evidence shows this happening....these men live in the same building. The man was seen leaving the building, during which time the video captured the defendant walk up behind the man and repeatedly stab him.... The prosecution aim for second degree murder.....they have the knife...they have the video...it is an open and shut case right?..Well no...wrong actually During the trial...it comes to light that the man had actually been walking around outside the building for days talking to himself (witnesses on the street)....in distress warning everyone of the oncoming apocalypse....Correspondence with his doctor confirms he has suffered numerous depressive episodes, and is schizophrenic...it turns out he had a full psychotic episode, and as determined by two expert witness consultant psychiatrists...was in the acute phase of that episode....he has no criminal history and is a reserved, isolated individual The testimony of said individuals were instrumental in nullifying what appeared to be an open and shut case with both real evidence (murder weapon) and documentary evidence (video)? Why? Because neither provide context.....and in the legal world....context means everything... But dont take my word for it..go have a search...these types of things happen ALL the time So that confidence you have is unfounded...like I said before.. your argument is very much made with blinkers on....and this is a result of employing false dichotomies (ie black and white thinking) another logical fallacy Finally, I never said human memory was better or worse than video...please stop with the strawman arguments now...there's already logical fallacies in your reasoning...no need to add more... 3. I never said it wasn't..but in this the case of science no....a written account of the procedure along with the dataset is more valuable than a video ..that is not to say a video could not augment it ( but not as evidence...rather instruction) ...it can....though in science we prefer to use photographs with corresponding commentary....the data is the actual evidence.....the testimony is just the account of the event and how it unfolded

Indeed I do....However it isn't and wont ever be in the eyes of science....Feeling like ones beliefs are underpinned by an authority gives a sense of security...the reality however is different We do have people who like to do it right...plenty of interesting work in contemplative neuroscience and the likes

You really do have a problem with making unfounded leaps in logic...perhaps ill shorten my responses so its easier to read 1. What I actually pointed out was what Nungali mentioned...that irrespective of whether someone subjectively accepts your attempt to prove an event occured to them, does not take away from the fact that objective evidence does exist...does this make sense? 2. You saying " I personally prefer" is fine...I take no issue here. However when you say "x is better than y" well there needs to be something concrete to back that up. I dont see the argument for it...the fact that memory is fallible does not really nullify testimony...it is just a strike against it...similarly we can make strikes against the use of a video too..If you like, I could make a list of both...you would soon see that niether has any inherent advantage if we are scoring point for point.... 3. I never said anything of the sort...actually I told you they are both terrible. What I did say was that the accepted standard of evidence in the scientific domain is peer reviewed papers.....and what that is is an account of what someone did, the instructions of how they did it, what they found and what to do next, Nowadays (thankfully) a dataset is usually available to run analyses oneself and check for errors ( we do have ways of looking at data to assess the rigour of collection and potential deviance of authors)..the fact that we can access the data and do this...will always make it trump a video or personal testimony...because you cant jump inside a persons words...and you cant jump inside a tv screen to investigate for errors

Your black and white view of the matter is incredibly limited....you have the blinkers on...and should probably take them off I said the RAW data was superior...and was the least suspect of all forms of evidence....why don't you try addressing that point? Video is subject to biases too...to the point that in order to prove something...you would need to establish that the video was not shot in a way which manipulates the fallibility of the vision faculty For example....you have things like forced perspective (this is just one of many) In order to have any chance of video standing up above and beyond subjective acceptance (which is literally everything you and your cohort describe : IE I accept this as real) you would need to establish that nothing was done to 1) Capture it in a way that takes advantage of the sense faculties weaknesses 2) Manipulated in any shape or form post capture to influence an outcome 3) Presented in a manner that appeals to the inherent cognitive biases of the viewer...which are multiple You would also need to do this in line with logic and reasoning according to scientific principles....so appeals to authority or other logical fallacies are off the table here Even then, if you managed that... it still wouldn't stand up to what is considered scientific evidence...I'm sorry to say. Honestly...I have zero interest in jurisprudence...so unless you are bringing something to suggest that video recordings are considered a good standard of scientific evidence...then im afraid that matter has reached its conclusion But I'm certainly open to your providing evidence to suggest otherwise Now on the point of the cogency of evidence 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning So you glossed over that b point...which is strange, although given your argument is not in line with the principles of reasoning..I wonder was it deliberate? What @Nungali was pointing to was the notion that you are describing the process of subjective acceptance of information as "proof"...please remember that cogency will differ person to person, hence the why I use the term subjective....You stating that video is superior to testimony has no actual bearing on reality...it is just something you are stating based on your own subjective understanding of things....the reality is...it is much more nuanced that this (even in the legal setting) But in order to understand this fully...we need to consider how we can best mitigate this idea of subjective acceptance...and the way in which we do so is by having a universal standard...and the universal standard in the Western world is science..this standard is, or rather should be...a means by which we can accept something as true because it has been through an investigative process that is underpinned by rigour and logic...perfect?? far from it...but stronger than arguments that are based on faulty logic and reason most definitely So while you might think video is superior to testimony...the reality is not really...they both fall flat in terms of science that is...This is why datasets are usually made available to the scientific community...in order to "double check" and "repeat" or conduct new analyses..

In all likelihood...it is probably less In my early postgrad days I remember being rigorous with my controls and design, being super critical of myself and the research I was reading....and my supervisor telling me...oh but this isn't required and that isn't required...make it less complex for yourself My response would always be, You can get it done quickly or you can get it done right....the former seems to be their modus operandi....and then you get this level of acceptance of standards below what should be deemed acceptable....In fact, its slipped to the point that the replication crisis is one that really exemplifies just how ridiculous things have gotten. Science is supposed to be repeatable..and yet..the vast majority of it isn't I smelt the BS then and the deeper I went the more I seen Now I am at the point where I equate someone appealing to science as the exact same as someone appealing to religion...both are equally ridiculous because they have both been distorted above and beyond what was intended

That is why I said it is the best we can do....and not perfect...every step back from that is a move towards faith and away from objectivity in scientific terms at least When you get to the point of a video...you have to have invoke faith above and beyond what could be considered reasonable within the scientific context....it might slide in jurisprudence....but science holds used to hold itself to a higher standard...The bar is constantly being lowered and so, now we reach a point where the science is what people say it is...

Scientifically speaking, not really...the presence of any "expert" as a means of a "control" is a logical fallacy...as it rests on an appeal to authority....which as I hope people have noted nowadays in our current situation is dangerous.... You have a vast majority of scientists, at present hypnotised by lies and political propaganda from public health institutions ( and a polarized group on the other side misrepresenting data and making equally outlandish claims)..evidence of this is plentiful...so you have people succumbing to faith here......when in reality by looking at the data we see the truth is not at either end of the black white spectrum,...it is various shades of grey.. But as far as the opinions go..in reality it is no different than a religious person puts their faith in a priest ( we all know how wrong that can end up) Video is only considered evidence in the case of the legal system etc....but the legal system is not objective at all..if we are being truthful Before you reach the topic of proof...You reach the notion of accurate representation....because of the ease to which video can be manipulated...it doesn't sit anywhere on the accepted consensus of scientific evidence....strictly speaking.....an "expert opinion" would hold more weight...which is equally silly to be honest.... The best we could do here would be an open access database where evidence collected is uploaded in real time as it is collected before it is subject to anything....this is the closest we could get to accurate representation, shy of doing it ourselves.. Shy of actually going and checking these things for yourself with some form of test....you are left with faith....and in the case of videos, opinions etc....these are faith based unfortunately There is no real power of proof in journal articles, videos, and such....it is in the data... data, gathered through the sense faculties that is the best case of "proof" provided one can account for their own biases...and investigate said situation accordingly But by all means, please do make the case for video and "experts". Id be interested to see how one could reconcile the above

+1 for not proving it scientifically... In my opinion, not only is proving it scientifically a total and utter waste of time and resources...It is dangerous...Science is inexplicitly tied to politics and business in a manner that anything with potential is hoarded, patented, and exploited by profit making entities...there's a reasons beings with a far greater degree of insight than others keep this hidden. We need more attitudes like yours being honest....any individual can discern fact from fiction if they think about it logically and set up something very basic...it is not hard really... That's coming from a guy in science...its a pointless endeavour...and better kept in the shadows...for various reasons

...

Please see your previous reply

Heres a follow up.....Certainly a few interesting stories here What are peoples take on him?

You keep saying "my school" "my art" "my system" "my teacher" Yet Im asking you to explain how any of this is true..... You see I know people who are quite close to the Mo Pai sect....the lineage do not appreciate your attempt to include yourself under their banner...in fact they find it quite insulting. But even if you are doing what they do...lets clarify something Filling the lower Dantien is not Mo Pai specific....many systems do it. Compression of Qi is not Mo Pai specific, many systems do it Mobilizing the Dantien (if you want to call it that) is not Mo Pai specific, many systems do it So what makes you a practitioner of Mo Pai ( and not just generic neigong) , is acceptance into their school and initiation into their sect...nothing more...The fact that you don't understand the mechanics behind initiation is quite unfortunate...but @freeform explains what these things can look like in other lineages here....and I hope he does not mind me using quotes from his older posts just as a point of illustration Heres one such example In fact in most lineages at a certain stage of getting accepted into the ‘inner door’ of the school, one is initiated into the lineage - and a ‘seed’ is ceremonially ‘stamped’ into the upper Dantien. With any old lineage there is always an immortal being at the head of it. By being aligned through initiation in this way, your cultivation as well as your daily life is to some extent subtly coloured by this attunement to this higher aspect of being. And another quote I’ve been fortunate to be part of an initiation which involves sitting with a Fu that is only revealed for the purpose of initiation. Despite it being many hundreds if not over a thousand years old - it has only ever been seen in this very controlled, reverent sort of way - and never copied by a non-initiate. And I can say that - even as a relative sceptic of this sort of thing (at least I was at the time) - the effect of it left me with no doubt of the power of this sort of stuff! Now seeing as the Western Mo Pai handbook the Magus of Java makes reference to this explicitly...you probably already know this is also an aspect of Mo Pai...but incase you do not...lets explore "Before he left, I went to his house every night for the following two months. One evening he gave me an ancient book containing the secrets of inner power all the way up to Level Seventy Two. He made me promise that I would not open the book and read it until I had finished with Level Three. And I went through a formal Taoist ceremony; Liao Sifu made a cham, a "fu" as we call it. He drew the charm on a piece of paper and I had to write down the following three promises on the same piece of paper, That if I finished with Level Four, 1 I was not allowed to use this power for evil purposes. 2. I was not allowed to make money with this power 3. I would not demonstrate to anyone€ except my students. I signed the fu with a drop of my own blood and Liao Sifu burned lt on a pier. Then he mixed the ashes with another drop of my blood and made me drink it. It bound me, Kosta; I had to do exactly what I promised. Ill leave it up to you to join the dots here...but suffice to say...if you think there is no esoteric/spiritual ceremonial aspects to the Mo Pai...you are not only mistaken. But misinformed Between spirit communion, Keris work, and the above mentioned...its quite steeped in it actually But yes...you don't need to discuss anything further....your statements, and subsequent lack of validation of them, really say all that is needed As I mentioned...the lineage do not appreciate false claims of others stating they are aligned to them...

As I explained previously, I have not mentioned my school in hopes of not having to deal with trolling. Well for a start, nobody's trolling you....this a question about whether or not you have any claim to the Mo Pai Lineage....so far....evidence suggests you do not...however I am most open to you explaining how you do Teachers take students and pass the torch to them. We can trace the lineage back directly. We also have video recordings. In regards to a living teacher, we do have a living teacher. Im not interested in Jim or Kostas or Johns video...two of them are dead...the other wants nothing to do with Mo Pai...so its really not that important. However, you say you have a "living teacher" from the lineage....Alright then, Who is your teacher? Your words sound like just because Pai Mei is dead, his teachings become invalid, and the next generation isn't qualified to understand what he taught. Go tell that to Beatrix Kiddo, when she slaps you with the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. Well no...they aren't Johns teachings...they are simply teachings that he was given from someone before him...however...he didn't transmit them in full to Jim or Kostas....not only did he not transmit them in full...they got comparatively little when considered in light of what was available The living lineage is a different story...its not dead....and the current head as I understand it, is further along than what I've seen mentioned publicly...but I digress...such a matter is not a topic for public discourse I am not sure what more to tell you here, but it sure sounds like one of the worst cases of sour grapes I've ever heard of. Sour grapes? not at all....Qi emission and the likes is not something I am overly interested in...I have other things I gravitate towards...I would much rather focus my attention on spiritual development ( using the actual sense of the word) So no sour grapes, but that sure is a nice attempt to reorient the discussion away from what I asked you about Anyway I would sincerely appreciate it if you would wrap this up, so the original topic can get back on track. By all means...address my questions fully, without trying to frame it as If I harbour some unwarranted jealousy...and I will have nothing else to say...You've just made what seems like quite an unwarranted claim towards as school and an art...I am just trying to establish how warranted this claim is

Yes. OK, so what are the usual tenents of an art, and how does your position fit that criteria? I haven't mentioned my school here to prevent trolling. Well, everyone knows it is Mo Pai because of the language....the posts are always the same tone.... But anyway. Is it your school? Are you an initiate?? I study Longmen/Quanzhen methods, but it is not my school, and I am no initiate...Do you honestly understand what initiation actually means? From an energetic/spiritual perspective I think you may have already demonstrated you don't but even at a practical level? Just to add...Standing outside the gates of Harvard with some an dropout student notes and a video recording of a professor does not make you a person of the school...You understand this correct? I empathize with your need to identify with something you feel passionate about...but I'm not sure I agree with you calling it your school That's a thing that happens. Teachers die. They take students, and they pass the torch. That is how all this works for all arts. We have video of our teacher giving instruction, and we have students that studied directly under him, and taught many of us directly. You can keep on with your mental gymnastics though, if it makes you feel better about all of it. Actually it is not so straightforward.....The person who inherited the Mo Pai Lineage....he is the one with the say on who's in and who's out...who is an initiate and who is not...So the torch was never passed to Jim, Kostas or any Westerner....and actually...there's a lot more to their story that is not public either....Much more Does he recognize you as a student? Have you been initiated? Keep in mind there are people you may not know about who have close ties to these individuals....and visit them in Indonesia We do. So you are being directly instructed by the teacher of the Current Mo Pai lineage then? If not, then by who exactly I do not appreciate the hostility here. You have taken my words and made them black and white....what I said was If you have no living teacher it could be argued that you are dabbling...you have not told me...so I await your response I will have to disagree with you here. In the common sense of the word spiritual the art I study is not. It is purely a technology and absolutely nothing more. You may disagree all you want, you are incorrect.....Have you considered the common use of the term is the issue, rather than the term its self Are you aiming to break the samsaric cycle? If you are then it is spiritual....because thats what all real spiritual traditions are concerned with...the how and why are unimportant....the after death state was and is always the endgame Most things which can be regarded as spiritual are nothing more than woo, but you are certainly free to disagree here. I just did...though I agree many things are woo...there are equally many things that are not.... You can learn to light a fire with a bow tool, and no blessing is required. Explain exactly what you are referencing when you say light a fire...awaken the LDT? This is the sort of woo I was talking about. If magical thinking is your thing more power to you. I prefer what I consider to be good evidence and results any day. Had you said this a few years ago to me, id totally agree with you...However, Ive had experiences via my own practices, especially in the last few months......you can be sure there is nothing magical about it....my own job is in experimental research (the same people you guys pay to answer your questions if you feel it will support your arguments), so I know how to verify something when I need to I prefer to make my map of reality using what I consider the best evidence available to me, that seems reasonable, down to earth and grounded. If you are really studying what you say you are, and going through an authentic neigong process...your definitions of grounded, down to earth and reasonable will all become very much malleable.....and I say that from a place of skepticism

Can you honestly argue the point that you have an art per se...as I understand it, all that is available of the Mo Pai is scraps of information...Jim is dead, as is John...Kostas is dissociated and so you are working with something entirely out of context.... Unless you have a teacher who you can really interact with, ask questions as you are going on your journey and they can demonstrate a level of skill sufficient to show mastery over a certain set of skills...One could possibly argue you are moreso a dabbler than a student 100%....Especially given what's about to come due to the effects of last years conjunction...if someone doesn't know what coming as a result of this...they shouldn't be instructing anyone...because the potential for bad things happening just increased exponentially...no method alone will save someone from this, it is genuine, authentic ongoing instruction and discernment that will be the deciding factors in my opinion at least Mo Pai is far more spiritual than you realize...all nei gong is a bridge to the spiritual...In fact it is the bridge.....thinking that spirituality = woo shows quite a lack of understanding regards the matter Perhaps that book will surface in 2022, seriously...if you just gathered what you wrote on the forum, people would buy it! So well said! Learning anything from a lineage does require blessing to some extent...because the subtle connections you make to a "current" when engaging in their practices are very real....and they can and do have ramifications....results have nothing to do with the fact....the issue is your inability to perceive that which lies beneath the objective sense faculties, or the inability to develop the sense faculties (and extrasensory ones) to a degree that they operate in a manner that these things can be peered into.... Lineage based practices, can in a sense be thought of like rituals. Rituals gather power over time...initiation is key here...because things are done to the energetic/spiritual bodies...connections are formed.. "stamps" if you would are imprinted...its all quite complex. Fu's, talismans, mantras, mudras....when laypeople try some of these (not all) they sometimes dont work...reason being is that connection isnt there....that thing you think is "woo"....the mechanisms behind these things...they explain how these things work quite well...and to those who have been given access....are quite verifiable....but being outside the door means being outside the door....calling something woo, just because you cannot access evidence to verify it is a logical fallacy Seeing as you are trying so hard to Westernise and objectify these things...lets use some logic Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Hello all I am looking for the names of healers who can potentially treat cancer. There is no concern regards location or cost You are welcome to PM me Many thanks!

I don't take him in this way at all... from what I gather.....he's just unapologetic about the amount of false teachings and methods that float around in the public domain Let me give you an example...I recently had a look into some other traditions, such as Tibetan lines.....my research (and discussions with a quite well versed practitioner) indicated, that the most common things you come across.... visualize this deity etc etc...is extremely overemphasized to the public and does not serve the functions many people state it does (that's not to say it serves no function...but what it does vs what you are told it does are miles apart) ….moreover... much like Daoism.... a lot of the actual methods are kept secret for those initiated into lineages... Though in In saying that...I've been shown that there are genuine practices for tsa lung & trul khor on YouTube of all places! so there's probably others for different practices like Tummo & Phowa buried in there but the point is...whats fed to the masses is not always as it seems, nor what it is depicted as

Nice to see someone appreciating Damo, he is a very generous teacher Id like to say im surprised.but, well....he has a nack for making unsubstantiated claims Yeah Damo literally does his best to respond to everyone (no easy task) he has a lot of students!!!

This is one of the main reasons I value him as a teacher so highly....His insight into such matters is quite astonishing, both practically and theoretically...Its just mind boggling to hear someone pick these things apart in the manner he does...and honestly...his books are really just a taster...the catalogue of material in his IAA library is overwhelming to say the least But then, as I mentioned before...the public know very little of his actual level of attainment

Thanks for posting this @freeform This is something I feel needs to be highlighted. When you have someone from a lineage, who is an inner door student...telling you that you can make real genuine progress with methods that are easily available, accessible and within the financial reach of most people. I say this in the absolute most respectful way possible, you really should close your mouth and open your ears. Damo has demystified a fine portion of these arts for people..The one thing that has been relayed to me time and time again, since he started teaching publicly is I wish this was available when I started out. If those who wanted to seek out deeper lineage teachings and high level masters were to approach them with the foundations already in place...your odds of success will go up