The jury is still out on john chang?

[mewtwo]

Googled john chang and found this on a website called above top secret and there were discussing him in 2009

 

"I live in Indonesia and personally know Dr. Lawrence Blair and his producer. I have spoken to them at some length about this case. They did not personally fake this documentary. They went to great lengths to try and find the hoax if John Chang is such. They did not find a battery on his person or anywhere near. What they did find however, when they examined the footage frame by frame, was a thin hairlike wire making the dagger spin. They told me they are not sure whether John is fake or real. "The jury is still out" were their exact words.

 

Lawrences brother died after a motorbike accident in Bali. Nothing related to John.

 

My point to them is why fake a simple dagger trick if everything else is real?

 

My personal take on this is that John Chang is simply a good magician and that is all"

 

Dont know what this meens ef anything at all.

 

Please Please if your going to discuss this please dont resort to bickering and name calling and such.

 

Thanks

[sifusufi]

I was so excited when The Magus Of Java finally arrived.

 

Chang's life story seemed interesting, but I was looking for something tangible

besides all these levels and the 81 hours of meditation thing.

 

I believe if this dude was the real deal China would have snatched him up quicker than Tibet

[doc benway]

My questions about John Chang (and all other claims of those having supernatural powers) is:

WHO CARES?

What difference does it make to my life?

What's the point?

Isn't life magical enough without spending 40 years training to burn a piece of toilet paper with my mind?

:yawn:

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[Astral_Anima]

Wouldn't it be funny if he honestly believed he had powers but everyone around him was just making it seem like he did, lololol, like this.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqYRlUQi_ao

 

 

Haha, but in all seriousness...The Mo Pai system produces results, it may not lead to super powers(of course I don't known anything past level 2) but it certainly does help one develop energetically. I personally don't choose to beLIEve one way or another but it certainly seems worth exploring.

Re- Indonesian Kris, could it be possible that he fabricated that just to keep the tradition alive. Indonesian Krises don't really have anything to do with development, so maybe he did that just for the sake of tradition, to try to keep it alive or to keep a sense of "mysticism" which is so lost in the modern mindset. Who knows. I'd still say the system is worth exploring though. Or what you can learn of it anyways ;p

 

And if I were lazy i'd use a lighter, but if I wanted to "show my stuff" I'd rub two sticks together REALLLLY fast and make fire and be like, "HA! I can do it in an unnecessarily complicated and menial fasion. NOW WHAT SONNNNNNNNNN!!" lol

 

-Astral

[Sloppy Zhang]

My questions about John Chang (and all other claims of those having supernatural powers) is:

WHO CARES?

What difference does it make to my life?

What's the point?

Isn't life magical enough without spending 40 years training to burn a piece of toilet paper with my mind?

:yawn:

 

My question to the people who balk at "supernatural" powers:

 

Why WOULDN'T you care?

 

Do you just accept whatever you get at face value? Do you just say that life "is what it is" and go on with things, or do you investigate and look to change, explore, learn, and evolve?

 

Sure, okay. We've got lighters now so that we can light our toilet paper, houses, and people on fire. Wonderful. You can join the boy scouts and learn how to rub two sticks together to start a fire. Wonderful. So now we should stop, huh? Why learn to light fires with our minds when we can get a lighter or a couple of sticks to do it for us?

 

The logical implication of the "who cares, isn't life magical enough" argument is one of stagnation and lack of progress, discovery, and evolution. Modern medicine lets us live to our 70's, 80's, and 90's. Isn't life long enough without trying to live to 110, 120, 130? Couldn't we have made the argument that life was long enough when we only lived to our 40's or 50's?

 

We've already been to the moon, so who cares about other planets, other solar systems, black holes, and particle physics in other dimensions? Maybe we should just quit now, because who cares if we can use the Large Hadron Collider to figure out how the universe popped into being?

 

Isn't one of the whole points of cultivation to cut through the illusion to the truth? Maybe the truth is that we can use our minds for infinitely more than we are currently using them. We might be able to use our minds to light fires, heal incurable illnesses, stop suffering, explore the universe, realize the reason for our existence, etc etc etc etc etc.

 

But if you just go "who cares", if you just take the shit you're given and believe them when they say "these are how things are, you should just accept them and live in the now or else you'll be in for a world of suffering", then... well... you'll be eating shit for the rest of your life not that you'd know any different. So maybe ignorance truly is bliss?

Edited September 25, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[NeiChuan]

Googled john chang and found this on a website called above top secret and there were discussing him in 2009

 

"I live in Indonesia and personally know Dr. Lawrence Blair and his producer. I have spoken to them at some length about this case. They did not personally fake this documentary. They went to great lengths to try and find the hoax if John Chang is such. They did not find a battery on his person or anywhere near. What they did find however, when they examined the footage frame by frame, was a thin hairlike wire making the dagger spin. They told me they are not sure whether John is fake or real. "The jury is still out" were their exact words.

 

Lawrences brother died after a motorbike accident in Bali. Nothing related to John.

 

My point to them is why fake a simple dagger trick if everything else is real?

 

My personal take on this is that John Chang is simply a good magician and that is all"

 

Dont know what this meens ef anything at all.

 

Please Please if your going to discuss this please dont resort to bickering and name calling and such.

 

Thanks

 

 

I doubt this guy knows Blair at all personally.. His brother dying is another matter, if that's of importance, could have easily been brought up in the follow up visit to john. I pretty much doubt the keris being tampered with a hairline string aswell.

 

The input could easily just be someone trying to establish their decision on the matter with some sort of false credibility.

Edited September 26, 2011 by NeiChuan

[Pub(EPiC)ic_bOb]

I know this that I will say is along the same line.

 

People deny it. People dont know.

 

The truth is, if you did learn abilities to burn things. If you learned how to do other things that people wished to have. Would you really WANT to?

 

You would not be "you" anymore. People I have met that have psychokinetic powers dont spend their time doing normal things. They spend 6 to 12 hours a day doing things that maintain their powers.

 

They DONT have strong opinions.

They DONT get involved in politics because it is beneath them.

They DONT want things. There is a difference between wanting and having.

They DONT have clear patterns of right and wrong because that is shallow.

They DONT care about the shiniest car, the most elaborate training program.

 

Most likely the things you value the most have nothing to do with supernatural abilities. You would have to give up wanting them to achieve it. In all practical wisdom you would have to destroy yourself and start over. That is why people dont achieve on that level. If you care about money then you need to rethink everything. The people who do have these powers only make enough to survive.

[Ish]

In John Chang's case I highly doubt he aimed to get the ability to light something on fire. In fact I would hardly call it an ability, he "just" has so much power that he can use it to effect the physical to that degree.

The implication of having this much energy goes far beyond just burning something.

 

I wonder about some meditators who have the "siddhi" of generating fire. I believe this is different to John Chang's feat in that the siddhi type is basically heavily weighted to the shen or mind level where as John Chang's ability is more weighted to the energy level.

So essentially the siddha is manipulating "reality" with their mind.

[konchog uma]

maybe the thin hairlike wire is a spiritual essence that showed up on film because it is tangible. It must be tangible to make a dagger stand on end, and who knows how knife spirits work. those are special daggers w spirits not just some buckknife from walmart

 

I am not convinced that cameras capture only the plane of atoms and molecules, light is something we don't understand well enough to say magus of java is fake because of one line captured on video.

[doc benway]

 

The logical implication of the "who cares, isn't life magical enough" argument is one of stagnation and lack of progress, discovery, and evolution.

Not at all - quite the opposite.

My point is more along the lines that the life we have has enormous (if not infinite) potential.

This life we have in front of is is ALL that we have so it is our opportunity to do everything we possibly can with it.

Why do we need a videotape of someone in Indonesia lighting a piece of paper on fire with his mind to motivate us? Particularly when his "powers" come from a rare and topic secret system he's practiced for decades that nearly none of us has a prayer of practicing? And if he's practiced that system for all of that time is that all he has to show for it?

 

We have a tendency to discount and de-value anything that is familiar and attainable, simply because it's familiar and attainable.

Why not be equally motivated by a brilliant musician, chess player, martial artist, or painter?

It's simple - the brain always wants something it can't have. We always are compelled to be something we are not.

On the one hand, it does lead to discovery and progress and that is a good thing, but the folks who make progress and discoveries are generally not after magical powers, they are generally ordinary folks slaving away at a skill or project who comes across something unexpected and new or have a sudden insight beyond the mundane.

On the other hand, it is the only thing preventing us from acceptance and contentment which are extremely valuable.

 

So you can chase a windmill, like John Chang, or you could be reasonably satisfied with being an ordinary human being.

And that doesn't mean to be stagnant at all unless you want it to.

The choice is yours...

Just my personal view.

 

PS - I guess I should also add that to the extent that the possibility of developing some magical or esoteric powers motivates someone in a positive fashion, that is a good thing and I don't mean to denigrate that. My idealistic view is that we learn to appreciate what exists within our grasp and make the most of that. To me, that's every bit as magical and possibly more valuable.

Edited September 26, 2011 by steve
Wanted to add...

[mYTHmAKER]

Not at all - quite the opposite.

My point is more along the lines that the life we have has enormous (if not infinite) potential.

This life we have in front of is is ALL that we have so it is our opportunity to do everything we possibly can with it.

Why do we need a videotape of someone in Indonesia lighting a piece of paper on fire with his mind to motivate us? Particularly when his "powers" come from a rare and topic secret system he's practiced for decades that nearly none of us has a prayer of practicing? And if he's practiced that system for all of that time is that all he has to show for it?

 

We have a tendency to discount and de-value anything that is familiar and attainable, simply because it's familiar and attainable.

Why not be equally motivated by a brilliant musician, chess player, martial artist, or painter?

It's simple - the brain always wants something it can't have. We always are compelled to be something we are not.

On the one hand, it does lead to discovery and progress and that is a good thing, but the folks who make progress and discoveries are generally not after magical powers, they are generally ordinary folks slaving away at a skill or project who comes across something unexpected and new or have a sudden insight beyond the mundane.

On the other hand, it is the only thing preventing us from acceptance and contentment which are extremely valuable.

 

So you can chase a windmill, like John Chang, or you could be reasonably satisfied with being an ordinary human being.

And that doesn't mean to be stagnant at all unless you want it to.

The choice is yours...

Just my personal view.

 

PS - I guess I should also add that to the extent that the possibility of developing some magical or esoteric powers motivates someone in a positive fashion, that is a good thing and I don't mean to denigrate that. My idealistic view is that we learn to appreciate what exists within our grasp and make the most of that. To me, that's every bit as magical and possibly more valuable.

 

:) :) excellent post

[Birch]

My take is if your reality isn't a bit weird then you're not fully in it. You're in a fake one. Which as a possibility itself is weird.

I happen to need matches or a magnifying glass to set things on fire but if you think of it, they're just props:-)

[doc benway]

My take is if your reality isn't a bit weird then you're not fully in it. You're in a fake one. Which as a possibility itself is weird.

I happen to need matches or a magnifying glass to set things on fire but if you think of it, they're just props:-)

Excellent point about the props!

In a similar way, we are just props as well, aren't we?

[Owledge]

Sidenote:

So you can chase a windmill, like John Chang, or you could be reasonably satisfied with being an ordinary human being.

Not an accurate metaphor. Chasing windmills is about a phantastically-delusional person fighting imagined enemies that are in fact harmless objects and thinking he's a hero.

[doc benway]

Sidenote:

 

Not an accurate metaphor. Chasing windmills is about a phantastically-delusional person fighting imagined enemies that are in fact harmless objects and thinking he's a hero.

True - thanks for the clarification

[Informer]

I happen to need matches or a magnifying glass to set things on fire but if you think of it, they're just props:-)

 

That's awesome!

[Sloppy Zhang]

Not at all - quite the opposite.

My point is more along the lines that the life we have has enormous (if not infinite) potential.

 

...

 

We have a tendency to discount and de-value anything that is familiar and attainable, simply because it's familiar and attainable.

Why not be equally motivated by a brilliant musician, chess player, martial artist, or painter?

It's simple - the brain always wants something it can't have. We always are compelled to be something we are not.

 

...

 

So you can chase a windmill, like John Chang, or you could be reasonably satisfied with being an ordinary human being.

 

I highlighted these parts because it reflects the contradictions in your reasoning.

 

You are basically saying the same thing that current societal institutions say-

 

"Be innovative, be what you want, do what you want, go where you want.... just as long as it is in our pre-approved list of things which are okay for you to do."

 

So we should strive to be the "best that we can be", like a chess player, a martial artist, musician, a painter, any number of things that dozens, if not hundreds, of people have done before us. But we shouldn't waste our time chasing after things that we obviously aren't, like people who can start fires with our minds because.... because we obviously aren't that if there haven't been huge sections of society dedicated to that craft? What?

 

You realize that thinking is the OPPOSITE of your proposed "enormous if not infinite potential", right???

 

Let us go back a couple of hundred years. Say.... before brilliant musicians were paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the most "genius" musicians were no name minstrels who had to beg to get by. And someone came into a public group saying "hey, I want to learn how to play the lyre, because I heard someone play it and it was totally awesome".

 

I bet there was someone there saying "hey, why would you waste your time chasing some stupid idea that you obviously are not? It's much better to train your body to become a soldier, then you can go on a crusade and serve the Church, and bring back untold riches from the Holy Land so you can donate and get into heaven. The world is filled with amazing things already, you should do what other people are doing and not be scared by things that are familiar and equally attainable, rather than reaching for something that nobody does, because going by the odds, it's a waste of time."

 

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah. Uh...... no thanks.

 

I'm hoping this makes sense. The line of thought presented by steve just lends itself to reproducing social norms while under guise of doing something "new". If you're passionate about something, why the hell would you try to divert that into something mainstream? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of telling people to be passionate about something? If you tell them they have infinite potential, doesn't it defeat all that by then saying "so do the things which we already know we can do, and don't waste your time with things that we obviously can't do because not many (nobody?) has done it in the past".

 

If people actually followed that line of reasoning, we'd still be living in caves trying to rub two sticks together trying to start a fire before we die. And no, that's not a strawman. That's the logical conclusion of "don't waste your time chasing "windmills", and instead direct your unlimited potential to things that are familiar and things that we know work, because they are magical enough without having to try and invent airplanes and computers".

Edited September 26, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[doc benway]

"Be innovative, be what you want, do what you want, go where you want.... just as long as it is in our pre-approved list of things which are okay for you to do."

Nope - I have no interest in telling you what you should or should not do. I fully support any endeavor you choose to invest yourself in. I do think that hanging your hat on a display of "power" like lighting a piece of paper on fire with your mind is foolish because it's distracting and shallow. Real power is different. Real power does not put on youtube demonstrations and flaunt itself. Every great tradition that teaches us to develop personal power also admonishes us against petty displays like that. This is why I don't buy it. Not because it is outside the norm. You're speaking to someone who has spent the last 8 years practicing Daoist cultivation daily, not to mention a litany of other things I'd prefer not to mention on a public forum, I'm not swayed by what my society tells me is approved or not approved.

 

So we should strive to be the "best that we can be", like a chess player, a martial artist, musician, a painter, any number of things that dozens, if not hundreds, of people have done before us. But we shouldn't waste our time chasing after things that we obviously aren't, like people who can start fires with our minds because.... because we obviously aren't that if there haven't been huge sections of society dedicated to that craft? What?

 

You realize that thinking is the OPPOSITE of your proposed "enormous if not infinite potential", right???

 

Let us go back a couple of hundred years. Say.... before brilliant musicians were paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the most "genius" musicians were no name minstrels who had to beg to get by. And someone came into a public group saying "hey, I want to learn how to play the lyre, because I heard someone play it and it was totally awesome".

 

I bet there was someone there saying "hey, why would you waste your time chasing some stupid idea that you obviously are not? It's much better to train your body to become a soldier, then you can go on a crusade and serve the Church, and bring back untold riches from the Holy Land so you can donate and get into heaven. The world is filled with amazing things already, you should do what other people are doing and not be scared by things that are familiar and equally attainable, rather than reaching for something that nobody does, because going by the odds, it's a waste of time."

 

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah. Uh...... no thanks.

 

I'm hoping this makes sense. The line of thought presented by steve just lends itself to reproducing social norms while under guise of doing something "new". If you're passionate about something, why the hell would you try to divert that into something mainstream? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of telling people to be passionate about something? If you tell them they have infinite potential, doesn't it defeat all that by then saying "so do the things which we already know we can do, and don't waste your time with things that we obviously can't do because not many (nobody?) has done it in the past".

 

If people actually followed that line of reasoning, we'd still be living in caves trying to rub two sticks together trying to start a fire before we die. And no, that's not a strawman. That's the logical conclusion of "don't waste your time chasing "windmills", and instead direct your unlimited potential to things that are familiar and things that we know work, because they are magical enough without having to try and invent airplanes and computers".

I do understand your point and I agree with much of what you're saying. I don't think I'm expressing myself very well and it's also possible that I'm just flat out wrong - wouldn't be the first time.

 

For me, it's not about learning to do a parlor trick like igniting a piece of paper, knocking people over with a Qi ball, videotaping that, and so forth. For me, it's more about putting in the time and effort to work on the program or the project without being too concerned about the outcome or proving anything to others. It is the process that's important and if at the end of 40 years of practice, I can burn paper with a thought - cool.

 

Am I going to videotape that? Does it matter if I can do that? Does putting that on tape validate what I'm doing or turn it into a sideshow? Why is he not doing this in a controlled lab if his genuine motivation is to study and measure this "power"? Is John Chang training dozens or hundreds of people (or even one) in how to develop healing powers? Wouldn't that be a better use of his time?

 

Too many of us are suffering because we always feel that we're not good enough, so we chase our tails for some imaginary goal while ignoring the simple beauty and magic of our lives. That's really all I'm saying. I don't get excited by watching a video of one person on earth who claims he can ignite paper with his mind. Maybe he can, maybe he can't - what's the difference?

How does that help any of us or change our lives? If he can do it, I will practice my Daoist cultivation, if he is a phony, I will continue to practice. It is not about the prize, it's about the process. If he can heal people, that is wonderful. If he is healing hundreds of people, he should be training others to do it as well and what's the point of igniting a piece of paper on film?

 

I have no interest in telling you or anyone else what you can or can't do. I have no bias against John Chang's training and healing practice, whatsoever. I'm just not impressed by the parlor tricks. I guess what I am saying is, whatever you decide to do, do it well, do it fully, do it with passion, and relish it, because that is what we have the opportunity to do here in this life. If at the end of it you have some special power, do good work with it rather than show it off.

[Sloppy Zhang]

I'm just not impressed by the parlor tricks.

 

It's funny how often people call this stuff "parlor tricks".

 

When we think like that...

 

Doing 1000 pushups is also a parlor trick.

 

Putting a ball in a hoop is also a parlor trick.

 

Being able to cause some strings to resonate in a long sequence is a parlor trick.

 

Being able to create the illusion of depth on a piece of paper is a parlor trick.

 

I daresay that most of the "magic" in peoples' lives is little more than a "parlor trick", the sight/sound/feeling/taste/smell of which temporarily pleases the mind, but then subsides over time. Beyond that momentary and fleeting sense of pleasure, there is no lasting value.

 

It's funny, odd, and kind of disheartening to hear you say that people should do what they want, do it fully, and then you turn around and devalue their passion (if their passion is one such as seeking supernatural powers) to parlor tricks, while elevating other parlor tricks as magical aspects of life.

 

So when you present a list of things which are line with conventionally accepted modes of spending time, not to mention things which are supported by conventional, mainstream, belief about what is and is not possible, I'm really not that convinced when you say that you aren't swayed by what society says is approved or not approved....

Edited September 26, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[doc benway]

It's funny how often people call this stuff "parlor tricks".

 

When we think like that...

 

Doing 1000 pushups is also a parlor trick.

 

Putting a ball in a hoop is also a parlor trick.

 

Being able to cause some strings to resonate in a long sequence is a parlor trick.

 

Being able to create the illusion of depth on a piece of paper is a parlor trick.

 

I daresay that most of the "magic" in peoples' lives is little more than a "parlor trick", the sight/sound/feeling/taste/smell of which temporarily pleases the mind, but then subsides over time. Beyond that momentary and fleeting sense of pleasure, there is no lasting value.

 

It's funny, odd, and kind of disheartening to hear you say that people should do what they want, do it fully, and then you turn around and devalue their passion (if their passion is one such as seeking supernatural powers) to parlor tricks, while elevating other parlor tricks as magical aspects of life.

 

So when you present a list of things which are line with conventionally accepted modes of spending time, not to mention things which are supported by conventional, mainstream, belief about what is and is not possible, I'm really not that convinced when you say that you aren't swayed by what society says is approved or not approved....

Most of what you describe above is a demonstration of skill - physical strength, B-ball accuracy, skillful drawing.

These things take practice and work over time (Gong Fu).

I'm not convinced what Chang is doing is a demonstration of skill, I think it's a parlor trick.

I may be completely wrong and stand corrected if I am.

 

If you or anyone else is passionate about developing supernatural powers - go for it!!

I sincerely wish you great success. I would love to see new things that are exciting and valuable and unexpected.

I have developed great insights and even some interesting skills from my own cultivation.

And when you have succeeded, I hope that you use them to help others and, if you choose to demonstrate them publicly, do it in such a way that it can help to elevate everyone's awareness as to what the possibilities of humanity are.

I don't think Chang is doing that with these video clips.

 

What I see going on with videos like this is people wanting to believe.

So if Chang can ignite paper does that mean that you will be motivated to cultivate?

And if it turns out he cannot, will you get discouraged and quit?

The point is - what does it matter?

The way to know whether cultivation can produce meaningful results is to DO IT.

When you have practiced long and hard enough you will know what the possibilities are.

To argue them on paper is not a productive investigation, IMO.

To let a John Chang video sway you one way or another is not something I see as useful.

I have tried hard to get that message across to my students.

They need to do the work, not worry about a youtube video or a demonstration or Qi power.

But now I just feel like I'm flogging the proverbial dead horse so I'll wrap it up.

 

The reason that you're not convinced about my opinion relative to society is that you don't know me.

And I will admit that I err on the side of doubt rather than belief, it is my nature and my preference.

If we ever have the opportunity to get to know each other better, we will be able to draw much more accurate conclusions.

Hopefully, that will happen some day.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Most of what you describe above is a demonstration of skill - physical strength, B-ball accuracy, skillful drawing.

These things take practice and work over time (Gong Fu).

I'm not convinced what Chang is doing is a demonstration of skill, I think it's a parlor trick.

I may be completely wrong and stand corrected if I am.

 

When you say "parlor trick", do you mean "sleight of hand"? As in, you don't think he's actually using qi or a refined skill, but he's using something else, and passing it off as such?

 

Because when I think "parlor trick", I think of it as a "useless skill apart from cheap entertainment as you wait in the parlor for someone to break out the wine".

 

Juggling, for one, is a parlor trick. You need some skill to pull it off.... but it's just cheap entertainment.

 

Musicianship is a glorified parlor trick. So you can cause some strings to resonate together? Wonderfully useless.

 

 

Basketball, along with most other sports, are just as useless.

 

Acting? Same boat.

 

In no way does this detract from the time or skill that it took for the masters to master their craft. But what does it do? Frightfully little. Luckily our society right now pays a premium for entertainment. So you're free to pursue a variety of lucrative parlor tricks. But parlor tricks they remain.

 

Unless your definition of "parlor trick" is not the same as mine. But hey, semantics.

 

To let a John Chang video sway you one way or another is not something I see as useful.

 

I disagree. Getting input from other people helps you see things you might otherwise not have seen. Maybe seeing someone do something inspires you to change your life, and provides the piece you needed to get your life rolling in a much better direction.

 

And I will admit that I err on the side of doubt rather than belief, it is my nature and my preference.

 

As do I. But I don't let skepticism close my mind to possibility.

 

If someone wants to pursue a path of lighting fires with their mind, GREAT. The odds are not in their favor. But who cares? Innovators are ALWAYS against the odds. That's part of the risk, and also part of the reward.

 

Betting money may be on the violin over the mental fire. But that doesn't mean that you can't get far trying to train to a point where you can light fires with your mind, your chi, or something else.

 

And hell, if you want to learn sleight of hand to the point where you can make people think you're using your mind... well, hey, that's your thing.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[doc benway]

When you say "parlor trick", do you mean "sleight of hand"? As in, you don't think he's actually using qi or a refined skill, but he's using something else, and passing it off as such?

 

Because when I think "parlor trick", I think of it as a "useless skill apart from cheap entertainment as you wait in the parlor for someone to break out the wine".

 

Juggling, for one, is a parlor trick. You need some skill to pull it off.... but it's just cheap entertainment.

 

Musicianship is a glorified parlor trick. So you can cause some strings to resonate together? Wonderfully useless.

 

 

Basketball, along with most other sports, are just as useless.

 

Acting? Same boat.

 

In no way does this detract from the time or skill that it took for the masters to master their craft. But what does it do? Frightfully little. Luckily our society right now pays a premium for entertainment. So you're free to pursue a variety of lucrative parlor tricks. But parlor tricks they remain.

 

Unless your definition of "parlor trick" is not the same as mine. But hey, semantics.

 

Correct, I do not think that he is giving us a demonstration of the refinement of Qi but rather, something else and passing it off as such. I am open to the possibility that it could exist but I don't think he is demonstrating it.

 

I am defining parlor trick as having us believe one thing but doing something else.

 

The other things you list, IMO, are skills regardless of whether we judge them useful or not.

The skill of sleight of hand requires practice, passing it off as magic is the trick.

Basketball, skill in sports, acting, juggling, musicianship - all skills requiring time and effort.

Worthless? Valuable? We're free to pass our own judgements about that.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Correct, I do not think that he is giving us a demonstration of the refinement of Qi but rather, something else and passing it off as such. I am open to the possibility that it could exist but I don't think he is demonstrating it.

 

I am defining parlor trick as having us believe one thing but doing something else.

 

The other things you list, IMO, are skills regardless of whether we judge them useful or not.

The skill of sleight of hand requires practice, passing it off as magic is the trick.

Basketball, skill in sports, acting, juggling, musicianship - all skills requiring time and effort.

Worthless? Valuable? We're free to pass our own judgements about that.

 

Well the rest just has to do with our differing definitions of "parlor trick".

 

When I hear "parlor trick", I hear "useless", "frivolous", "cheap entertainment", etc etc etc.

 

So anyone reading my above posts should keep that definition in mind.