Are you sure about the existance of Chi?

[Buddy]

Your dog looks bored...

[rain]

........................

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[VCraigP]

Maslow might play into it but not exclusively: spiritual development might not require physical ok-ness.

 

Spiritual development does NOT require physical OK-ness. This is not what I meant to say.

 

What I am trying to say is that traditionally it is a priority to take care of the body FIRST in order to have a better "receiver". Build up the body, the wiring, in order to be able to more easily train the more subtle layers.

"The deeper the roots, the higher you can grow"

 

Another way of saying it is to remove the distractions of the voices of the body. If your body is happy and without some parts crying for attention it is simpler to work on other layers.

 

Regarding Maslow's Hierarchy of need;

I don't think any of us would be very much focused on cultivation if we were subsistence farming and scratching for our next meal and a warm place to sleep!

 

Craig

[rain]

hierarchical thinking is fascist

[Taoist81]

----------------

 

i was showing you articles on science. not on clinic results.

these articles you can all easily get if u want. in english too. the ones that do want the information go for it.

this talk of transmission and who is on top or not of maslow really is disgusting.

 

But the little that is understandable (without translation) from what you posted appears to be studies on the efficacy of acupuncture (akupunktur), not on a verifiable way to detect and determine the existence of a lifeforce we can call qi. Perhaps reading the full translation will yield more information, but considering the vast majority of the studies out there, including those from china translated to english, it will likely only be another set of studies (possibly with dubious credibility) pointing to the efficacy of acupuncture, not the nature of qi.

[rain]

......................

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[Taoist81]

Hi Taoist 81. Yes, I am aware of what you are saying. Actually I read Derren Brown's book, which was fun and enlightening - up to a point! He will of course say that he uses NLP to implant and anchor suggestion and he is an absolute master at it. So what he does has no bearing on someone experiencing a chi transmission from someone who has no training in NLP.

 

You can paint a white dog with black spots but it doesnt make him a dalmation except to someone not looking very closely.

 

Almost all (if not all) psychics can be demonstrated to be doing nothing more than cold reading in the vast majority of their readings. This is often without any real training, just a natural talent for it that they then reinterpret as a psychic gift. They fully believe that they are psychic because their intiuition is so spot on. Taking that into account, most "masters" spend a great deal of time under their masters, who give them transmission going back to some unspecified person. It is often claimed that these lines go back to some deity or prophet or Buddha, but there is seldom anything other than anecdotal evidence linking it back so far. However, imagine for a moment, that someone in a not so distant past stumbled on a natural talent for a proto-NLP. Just like guys who are naturally good at pick up vs. guys who have to learn it, this individual would have had great success with his disciples. They would have over time learned to mimic his statements, movements even his subtle nigh undetectable ticks. This would have been passed down with mystical underpinnings and all those who participated would believe it fully. Afterall, they felt it, then they were able to do it.

This is, of course, nothing more than a hypothesis. No evidence either way. But it is worth thinking about. Meditating on even. It would explain why these types of things either closely relate to physiological functions (even if they are not yet fully understood) or fall apart entirely when placed in a controlled setting.

[rain]

...

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[Taoist81]

you equal qi to what you think is transmission?

 

well then...goodnight.

 

the life force "we" call qi...

 

you folks are lazy..I translate everything all the time here and I give you 3 translators.

 

You seem to be confusing posters. Where was the post that "equated" trasmission with qi? Certainly they can be seen as related phenomena, but then so is a pentacostal "anointing", psychologically. What are not "equal" are the "existence" of qi and the efficacy of treatment methods that claim to use qi. Until recently Chiropractic claimed that its methods were based on a "energy force". Now, it is just bone adjustments.

 

Laziness implies that there won't be a follow-up on your articles when work is done (posting is easy enough to do between responsibilities here). Who knows, coinicidence may have it that some of the studies you cite may help out with the research paper that is in process. Considering what is understandable though (again with a rudimentary knowledge of languages) it is not likely.

[rain]

.............

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[Taoist81]

i am not confusing any posts.

 

the posting here is jumping back and forth between qi and transmissions.

 

and there is substantial scientific work out there in your language.

 

not some chiro tests.

 

...Uh, yeah, there are plenty of studies and lots of research on the methods not on the "how" or on the nature of qi. In some of the posts about Darren Brown there was mention of transmissions, but when discussing healing it has stuck to qi. Which again, has not be proven to exist in any research that this practitioner has seen. That doesn't mean it (the research) doesn't exist. The only reason Chiro was brought up was to point out that some treatment methods began as methods that were thought to use some mysterious energy, and are now understood to be simply manipulating normal physiological functions. Chiropracters (no offence to any here) tend to dilute the field when they try to do acupuncture without proper training.

Again, there is certainly plenty of research on the efficacy of acupuncture, it wouldn't be this posters chosen field if it were not rather well established. The research on the nature of what we call qi is, on the other hand, lacking.

[rene]

hierarchical thinking is fascist

 

Here's my favorite hieracy:

 

Confucianism is for those who dont understand Taoism

Taoism is for those who dont understand Zen

Zen is for those who dont understand Tao

 

And those who do understand Tao? Forget it! For them there is no help at all!! No redemption!! Too late!!

[hagar]

...Uh, yeah, there are plenty of studies and lots of research on the methods not on the "how" or on the nature of qi. In some of the posts about Darren Brown there was mention of transmissions, but when discussing healing it has stuck to qi. Which again, has not be proven to exist in any research that this practitioner has seen. That doesn't mean it (the research) doesn't exist. The only reason Chiro was brought up was to point out that some treatment methods began as methods that were thought to use some mysterious energy, and are now understood to be simply manipulating normal physiological functions. Chiropracters (no offence to any here) tend to dilute the field when they try to do acupuncture without proper training.

Again, there is certainly plenty of research on the efficacy of acupuncture, it wouldn't be this posters chosen field if it were not rather well established. The research on the nature of what we call qi is, on the other hand, lacking.

 

Lets just clear one thing up:

 

I've had the dubious pleasure of studying scientific theory, and it has it's occupational hazards related to nerdiness. With it's basis in empirical research, wich means basically the systematic collection, interpretation and deduction of groups or series of empirical data, saying that scientific research "proves" the existence of chi is a questionable statement, to say the least. Very few main-stream scientists or philosophers of science would agree with you.

 

Chi is not "real" in any conventional scientific sense. There is no evidence of the nature of chi, only it's effects and function. Thus, chi can only be deduced as existing from the indicators of it from the data related to actual measurable tests of variables such as heat, blood circulation, neurological response to needles far away from neural pathways. The closest one has come to nailing "chi" is the speed of chi from one needle to another. Yet nowhere can you find empirical evidence of the existance of chi.

 

The reason:

 

1.Science is unfortunally still grounded in what we call "scientific realism". It boils down to the fact that all research done in the natural sciences cannot transcend the foundation it has in neutonian physics and biology. These sciences take it as given that there is an objective, measurable, mind-independent universe out there consisting of matter, in one degree or the other (electricity or sub-atomic particles are still matter). Chi is unsubstantial in nature, and thus does not conform to the norm of realism.

 

2. Testability, predictability and reproduciblity: The basis of all valid and recongnized scientific reserach.

Chi cannot be tested in the same way, measured with the same degree of accuracy, and you cannot predict the outcome of a test, and finally the test cannot be reproduced by other scientists in another lab around the world, thus it is unable to conform to the norms of scientific rigor, which gives "chi" tests the accountability of a political campain promise.

 

Sorry guys, but in many ways, Buddy's argument is right taken on its own terms.

 

He is of course lost, but we cannot prove he's wrong.

 

The only way to find out is to feel chi by own experience. I know a woman who didn't feel chi during her practice for the first decade, and many people never "feel" their chi. This is why, when you feel heat, tingling, vibration, sweat, cold, numbness or pain, you feel the body's reaction to chi, or better yet, the "friction" of chi towards the impure matter it is infusing.

 

h

[Guest winpro07]

Edited February 11, 2008 by winpro07

[Buddy]

Well, unfortunately saying it's so don't make it so. Simply putting one's attention on part of one's body can stimulate the circulatory and/or nervous systems. Thereby one call feel sensations caused by those systems.

 

And...

 

"He is of course lost, but we cannot prove he's wrong."

 

...once again, in what has come to be in typical fashion, you resort to passive/aggressive personal comment. Ah, to be a true believer.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Buddy

[hagar]

Well, unfortunately saying it's so don't make it so. Simply putting one's attention on part of one's body can stimulate the circulatory and/or nervous systems. Thereby one call feel sensations caused by those systems.

 

And...

 

"He is of course lost, but we cannot prove he's wrong."

 

...once again, in what has come to be in typical fashion, you resort to passive/aggressive personal comment. Ah, to be a true believer.

 

That last remark was in no way intended as an insult. It was all in all a self-critical remark, and I hope that was obvious

Edited January 31, 2008 by hagar

[Buddy]

When you suggest that I am "of course, lost", you don't see that as insulting?

[thelerner]

Buddy, look at Hagar's avatar. The birds, the flowers..is that the kind of viking who would hurt someone? No.

 

I was in Ki-Aikido for many years. I had trouble w/ the concept of ki. Its not neccessarily helpful, but the more you live out the metaphor the more real it becomes. We'd have a ki class each week. And believing or pretending to believe the metaphor made actions and balance much more powerful.

 

I don't think we'll ever have a ki-omatic machine, but the concepts of ki or Chi are beneficial to performance.

 

Michael

[hagar]

When you suggest that I am "of course, lost", you don't see that as insulting?

 

I am norwegian, and we have a different use of irony.

 

I think you prove some important points. They need to be taken seriously.

 

h

[rain]

............

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[doc benway]

Excellent post Hagar

[VeeCee]

I don't know about any of you but life is constantly reminding me that I don't know as much as I think I do.

 

Something we should all be reminded of on a regular basis.

[rain]

..............

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[xenolith]

In my experience Chia is right. Chi exists. And manipulation of it can do extraordinary things.

 

Other things may too. Just know what I know...and not to underestimate my ignorance.

 

Peace y'all.