xakarii

In his book "The Tao of Taijiquan", Jou Tsung-Hwa argues that an understanding of the book of changes, yin/yang, etc are essential to high level mastery of Tai Chi Chuan. The underlying idea of the I Ching it seems is that an understanding of the mechanisms of change is necessary for mastery of anything in flux. http://www.amazon.com/Dao-Taijiquan-Way-Rejuvenation-Tai/dp/0804813574

As Ricky Ricardo would say "Lucy, you got some readin' to do!" http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Psychology-C-G-Jung-Circle/dp/1843335883

Oh, well if the cluster of white matter in your lower torso says so... Is a "good reason" a pragmatic reason? In this case I do not think so. It's similar to midieval bakers arguing over whether it's a "Brownie" or a "Sprite" that makes the dough and yeast rise into bread. Completely irrelevant at the current level of understanding. If your beliefs affect the way that you conduct your life and the way you treat other people- they are meaningful; if not they are simply trite bloviation, no matter how glib or thoroughly discussed. Your opinion seems more like an irrational knee-jerk reaction than reason by any objective person's measure. If you happen to have all the statistics concerning domestic abuse, promiscuity and disease for all orientations everywhere, please feel free to divulge them. If not, then please think for a little longer or at least use more qualifiers before you make such sweeping generalizations based on anecdotes. If by gay you mean have engaged in intercourse with another individual possessing identical chromosomes, then yes, in the narrowest-minded definition you can go ahead and label away. I'm quite attracted to the opposite sex just as often. And the benefit would be that a same sex couple has a different dynamic, not inferior or superior, but allows an individual to learn more about themselves that they might not have as readily identified and honestly examined in a heterosexual relationship, and the same goes for self-identified homosexuals that are open and willing to try a hetero relationship. Tell you what- You show me the most attractive woman in your opinion, and I'll show you a man that is tired of having sex with her and vice-versa. Beyond physicality, what is your reason for preferring women? And don't give me that "it's natural" crap... bi/homosexuality has been observed across the board in hundreds of species, and monogamy is relatively rare in the animal kingdom, so what beyond programming and cultural modeling is it that makes you so assured of your straightness? I suppose it's a little like the question in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or old Sufi riddle "Why is the sound of an onion?". The question provides more insight into the state of mind that produced it than any answer could. The only way I could see it being "harder" for your child to avoid sex with a man than a woman is if he were bum bum buuuum, gay as springtime. Sounds like you're a little insecure about sex in general, which by the way is a relatively new concept as well. Harmony is instrumental, not theoretical. It is observed in everyday interactions of compassion and mutual love. No amount of logic and/or dogma can invalidate the experience of harmony. "A scholar once told a rabbi that the existence of god is null because one can argue that god does or doesn't exist unceasingly. The rabbi then asked the scholar to argue logically that he doesn't have a nose- as the scholar opened his mouth and began "First of all..."- The rabbi punched him square in the nose and said "What hurts?" Boo hoo. The guy that thinks all gay/bi people in this world need to adopt his belief system or suffer the consequences of disease and domestic abuse and/or risk turning his son gay thinks I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm so ashamed. Effiminancy? Freudian slip? Ok then, I'll grant you that many of our war-mongering leaders are closeted homosexuals, that people in general are more materialistic in general these days, that you and your friends are totally hip metrosexuals and that there's no REAL benefit to choosing one sex over another; however if people didn't have to feel like they needed to cover up their genuine identity to be accepted we wouldn't have so much psychological displacement and scapegoating in the form of homophobia, xenophobia, greed, preemptive wars, etc... Love, (though not in an emotional way, that would be totally gay) Michael

If all is truly Wu, the voidness, in nature. How can the outward manifestation of form be anywhere near as important as the inner physis and experience? In the ancient world there were no such labels as "gay" or "bi". If someone were to have sex with both men and women they called them a, get this, "Human Being". A problem, eh? For whom? Are relationships between people of the same sex "out of control" relative to the rampant adultery and divorce rate of "harmonious" hetero pairings these days? Haven't observed self imposed limitations? From my own point of view that would seem to be a good thing... How exactly does "flambouyancy" (does this mean they're floating and flaming?) throw things out of balance? I'd say with all the foot-stomping, saber-rattling, chest-beating, knuckle-dragging machismo fuelling the wars of aggression and self-interest around the world that a flamboyant parade wouldn't even budge the scales, let alone the idea that instant gratification and a lack of self development are in any way unique to the LGBT community. Whatever the self describes, describes the self. If effeminacy is a problem for you, then that's exactly what it is- a personal problem.

Anyone here tried or know someone that has a Mind-lamp? http://www.mind-lamp.com/ I'm curious to know what exactly it's like as far as responsiveness to intention. I'd like to get one to play with and for biofeedback but the price tag is a little steep. Videos on the subject of mind lamp and PEAR lab studies

As far as I know muscles in the general area of other muscles (the same muscle group) are contracted in an effort to support them. So as far as training pecs, I think it's useful in that it can help to support surrounding muscle groups. I mostly do cao style pushups for the wrist conditioning though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHdoJ-__kpk&feature=channel

Everyone feels this way. Though false gold only exists because there's such a thing as real gold- if you were to go into a medical, business or other trade school and ask why you should believe they are qualified to teach you, you'd likely be shown the door pretty quickly.

He claims to have spent time learning from Dattatreya Siva Baba, though I'm still not sure whether he means in person or just on Youtube. In the words of Rumi- false teachings serve their own purpose like a fur coat in the Winter time. It may keep you warm for a while, but when the sun comes out it becomes an encumbrance and is so cast off. Those that flock to teachers like this are seeking imitations and confusion even if they aren't consciously aware of their intentions.

In "The Way of Power" by master Lam he talks about how geometry relates to the strength found in zhuan zhuang practice. Also, check these snapshots of a dutch baguazhang manual and see if it reminds you of anything in Sacred Geometry

As a clarification of my own viewpoint, which I guess you could say most readily identifies with the school of thought known as "fallibilistic empiricism". I'd like you to know, SFJane, that I do not intend to shut you down by any means, only to proffer an alternative or something of a compromise between absolutism and relativism. As I'm obviously no PHD in Quantum Mechanics or any other science of the kind, I'd be more than happy to engage you on philosophical ground, to avoid any forthcoming disappointment. I've found this discussion thus far quite interesting and it's allowed me to read new meaning into this introduction of the Tibetan book of the Dead or "Bardo Thodol" by Carl Jung (note that his use of the word soul is more appropriately rendered in the original German "steele" as distinct from more common connotation surrounding the word:

"You have not contributed anything meaningful in this thread." -An amalgamation of causes and conditions that takes itself seriously What is your standard for "meaningful"? I'd be interested to know how you think "Ontological Honesty" is possible when you yourself admit to the pernicious nature of cognitive bias of which no one with cognitive activity is unsusceptible, lest you think yourself above the fray when it comes to unadulterated, true thoughts of world-reforming power. And to the individual that went on a long-winded screed in response to some youtube video: I won't bother defending the more poorly conducted experiments because they're obviously not what I was referring to anymore than the deluded scientism-absolutists refer to the works of high-school science projects to prove a point about objective absolutism. Were I to beseech you to look at the more sophisticated experiments involving radiometers, anti-static mats it would be in vain because you've already made up your mind due in large part to cognitive bias and an unwillingness to consider the evidence that opposes your point of view as distinct from just the junk that's easily refuted by a grade-schooler (congrats on achieving that much by the way) it would be like asking a fish to consider the possiblity of a biosphere outside it's pond. It comes down to a willingness to believe your own perceptions at some point. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but your post is just dripping with self satisfied smugness in your ability to tear down straw-houses (still though, I am impressed at your observational prowess) as opposed to create anything new or inventive to support your point of view (assuming you have one, from what I can see in your post you seem to stand against bioelectrical energy and for the obvious alternative- ________, am I right?).

First of all thanks to the original poster for sparking this discussion. There aren't too many places open enough to entertain such ideas. This discussion is beginning to wax philosophical in the worst way. Not to devalue it's "power" to intrigue. I personally think that neither the mystic nor the physicist has the whole picture, because the whole picture cannot be encapsulated by words, thoughts or formal criticism. The best approximation I could give in human language would be the analogy of a feedback loop between what "is" and what "could be". There is a guy on YouTube that goes by the screenname of ShirakOmegaX. He performs controlled experiments in front of a camera without any time lapse. These experiments include but aren't limited to- psychokinesis, pryokinesis, cryokinesis, electrokinesis, etc... Check him out sometime if you'd like something a little more concrete than anecdotal evidence and subjective experience for proof of "powers" as they're unfortunately called. I say unfortunately because we wouldn't consider them as such if everyone realized their own true potential. PS: This comment: "This is ontological honesty we are talking about." had me rollin'! No such monster.

Spin in a circle! But seriously though, read "The Sufis" by Idries Shah if you haven't already. There are all sorts of sects of sufism that have their own techniques for spiritual attainment, though as Shah comments- they're just empty shells without a direct lineage transmission.

Atma- Eternal Boundlessness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJsaIhapZw