Do you believe in holistic medicine or non-metaphorical chi/prana/orgone/...?

[nac]

Just curious.

 

Thanks. _/\_

[Josh Young]

I am neither a taoist nor not a taoist.

 

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the mentioned things as a generality, but in context I believe some and not others.

 

For this reason I will not vote in the poll.

[gitan]

Science Is Not a Belief System.

 

Chi and orgone are bioenergy, so subjects of scientific experimentation.

[solxyz]

Science Is Not a Belief System.

 

Chi and orgone are bioenergy, so subjects of scientific experimentation.

 

Science has an implicit ontology and epistemology which limits its range of understandings.

 

Qi is not just an energy, it is a higher-order, qualitative mode of experiencing and interacting with the body (it results from an interaction of mind and body), so it is highly resistant to quantification. Science cannot get much of a grasp on it.

[11:33]

Qi is life force energy.

 

Science doesn't need to get a grasp of it to understand it. We can't grasp gravity but we understand it. In fact we can't grasp much at all. Can't grasp heat, light, electricity or the mind, but we can study them with the scientific method.

[Aetherous]

I think qi and everything is very misunderstood...so I don't believe in it in the way people believe in it.

 

Way to be difficult, right?

[goldisheavy]

Science has an implicit ontology and epistemology which limits its range of understandings.

 

Qi is not just an energy, it is a higher-order, qualitative mode of experiencing and interacting with the body (it results from an interaction of mind and body), so it is highly resistant to quantification. Science cannot get much of a grasp on it.

 

Very well said! And yet qi gong is also supposed to be pragmatic. So it's odd indeed. It spans a range where some of its effects could be testable via science and some could not.

 

If we raise qi to the level of an ornamental phenomenon, then it goes completely outside the testable range (like love, sense of humor, etc.).

 

The need to test things stems from pragmatism, and pragmatism stems from fear. Fearless beings cannot understand how any phenomenon be anything other than ornamental, since they are not driven by the need to survive and thus feel no threat from anything.

 

Qi is life force energy.

 

Science doesn't need to get a grasp of it to understand it. We can't grasp gravity but we understand it. In fact we can't grasp much at all. Can't grasp heat, light, electricity or the mind, but we can study them with the scientific method.

 

I think we're studying the implications of our views and also we're studying whether or not views have any implications at all. I don't think we're actually studying any objects per se, although we may think we are.

Edited June 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[solxyz]

Qi is life force energy.

 

Science doesn't need to get a grasp of it to understand it. We can't grasp gravity but we understand it. In fact we can't grasp much at all. Can't grasp heat, light, electricity or the mind, but we can study them with the scientific method.

 

I think that interpreting qi as lifeforce energy is overly simplistic or reductive, either that or we dont know what we mean by lifeforce energy. Are we talking about ATP, which is what cells use for their energy? It turns out that healthier people actually use less energy for a given task than unhealthy people, so does that mean that they have less qi? Thats not the kind of energy we are talking about.

 

If we talk about qi as energy, what we mean is more like when we say someone's energy has a certain quality, as in "she's got a really fun energy." This is a qualitative phenomenon that requires a holistic experience to perceive and work with.

 

Im not saying that qi is absolutely without any correlates that science could use to track it, but if you really want to work with qi, one is much better off just doing qi gong.

[Ramon25]

Very well said! And yet qi gong is also supposed to be pragmatic. So it's odd indeed. It spans a range where some of its effects could be testable via science and some could not.

 

If we raise qi to the level of an ornamental phenomenon, then it goes completely outside the testable range (like love, sense of humor, etc.).

 

The need to test things stems from pragmatism, and pragmatism stems from fear. Fearless beings cannot understand how any phenomenon be anything other than ornamental, since they are not driven by the need to survive and thus feel no threat from anything.

I think we're studying the implications of our views and also we're studying whether or not views have any implications at all. I don't think we're actually studying any objects per se, although we may think we are.

 

 

Same to you, very well said! I agree, it is so the mind can feel safe and secure.

[11:33]

solxyz,

 

Is it overly simplistic to say an orange is a fruit, or a cat is a small furry animal? Ultimately you are gonna have to experience something to really know what it is. The words will never capture the reality of qi.

 

However, I notice a lot of people seem to have not experienced qi. If you experience it then you know from personal experience that it is energy that flows through you, like electricity through a wire.

[Teddy]

This is a very badly worded question. Do I BELIEVE in holistic medicine???? ...I know of the existance of homeopathy, qigong, alexander technique, ayurveda, reflexology, acupuncture, shiatsu, nutritional therapy, rolfing, osteopathy, crystal healing and many more. I have wildly DIFFERENT opinions about all of them. If you are asking do I believe in the EFFICACY of holistic medicine as a whole, you need to be more specific. Do I believe in chi, or do I believe in orgone? there IS a difference. Asking if somebody believes in chi is similar to asking "Do you believe in life?" or "Do you believe in energy?". Here's my question. What do you mean by 'metaphorical chi'? What is that??

[nac]

All: Thanks for indulging my curiosity. The last two options are there for the sake of completeness. I'm mostly interested in a poll of those members who characterize themselves, or whom others would probably describe as Taoist.

 

Teddy: "Yes."

[WhiteTiger]

Well I held back my question for enough time to find out the following

All: Thanks for indulging my curiosity. The last two options are there for the sake of completeness. I'm mostly interested in a poll of those members who characterize themselves, or whom others would probably describe as Taoist.

 

What I immediately identified when i first looked at this thread and I'm sure many others noticed was the two pole questions that say "Yes. I'm Taoist." and "No. I'm Taoist."

 

I'm wondering nac what is your definition of a Taoist?

 

Peace,

wt

Edited June 24, 2009 by WhiteTiger

[Ramon25]

Definition? LOL Jk white tiger

alot of people who classify themselves as daoist are not. I think they misunder stand it.

 

Taoism is an ancient, continuously evolving group of practices that are not well known and are difficult to define. Taoism doesn't have a single founder the way Buddhism does. It is a discipline of collected wisdom from many sources over several thousand years. The essence of Taoism is a way of discovering yourself and the entire world. Towler (1997) describes it as " a deeply spiritual but decidedly non-religious way of life."

~ Ron Catabia, SunDo Associate Master

"Lower Tancheon Psychotherapy,"

The Empty Vessel, 2007

PRACTICES, Attitude, a deep awe and contemplation of mystery and a grey (not black and white) undertanding of things is what i consider a taoist.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Ramon25

[WhiteTiger]

Definition? LOL Jk white tiger

alot of people who classify themselves as daoist are not. I think they misunder stand it.

 

Taoism is an ancient, continuously evolving group of practices that are not well known and are difficult to define. Taoism doesn't have a single founder the way Buddhism does. It is a discipline of collected wisdom from many sources over several thousand years. The essence of Taoism is a way of discovering yourself and the entire world. Towler (1997) describes it as " a deeply spiritual but decidedly non-religious way of life."

~ Ron Catabia, SunDo Associate Master

"Lower Tancheon Psychotherapy,"

The Empty Vessel, 2007

PRACTICES, Attitude, a deep awe and contemplation of mystery and a grey (not black and white) undertanding of things is what i consider a taoist.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Ramon25 are you claiming that to be a Taoist you basically have to do a few or a bunch of different classified Taoist practices. I could easily call myself a Taoist then right?

 

Although I still interested in hearing nac's definition of what a Taoist is.

[Ramon25]

Thanks for your answer.

 

Ramon25 are you claiming that to be a Taoist you basically have to do a few or a bunch of different classified Taoist practices. I could easily call myself a Taoist then right?

 

Although I still interested in hearing nac's definition of what a Taoist is.

 

Traditionally Taoist do some kind of practice. Not for the sake of practice but for what it does to you. Transformation, union, understanding ect.Taoist have a million techniques for a million things becuase so many different daoist have developed different practices for Health and longgevity and for the spirit. so it would seem that a daoist is more than simply reading the dao de jing. But is is also that. I daoist is someone who is a daoist.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Ramon25

[nac]

The need to test things stems from pragmatism, and pragmatism stems from fear. Fearless beings cannot understand how any phenomenon be anything other than ornamental, since they are not driven by the need to survive and thus feel no threat from anything.

 

May I ask where this view comes from? Is this your personal philosophy or did you get it from somewhere else?