What is qi?

[guy b.]

give me a break, Hendrik. I've been reading your words since before many. You only point your view as before you. You don't own anything. You are an echo only.

He's taking the **** I'm afraid. Everything he says leads me to believe he is a charlatan and has never truly done it. It is a remarkably simple thing to do, to cultivate. You only need to stand, relax and use the mind. A theory of what it is jumps immediately to mind for those who have done this. It isn't an unmeasurable energy that science cannot see. Obviously the feeling is related to a physical change/process.

[Hendrik]

If so then what kind of energy is it? Can we measure it?


You have it develop you will know it.

[guy b.]

It is something that cannot be explained by our science, it is a type of energy sent from the mind, projected through the body and can be projected outside of the body.

IMHO

Ok, for you it is a religion. This is ok

[guy b.]

You have it develop you will know it.

I do know it. I am asking if you know it. You appear not to.

[guy b.]

What I have already said about it explains the basics of the process from the perspective of someone who has done it.

[Happy Tiger]

You have it develop you will know it.
bull****!!!

[Hendrik]

I do know it. I am asking if you know it. You appear not to.


Very good, Great!

[guy b.]

It is nothing to do with knowing the correct answers to cryptic questions, having the right master, or paying the correct dues. It is very very easy. Anyone can start to do it in 2 minutes. If they are gifted some people can already do it. Someone that talks about it as much as you do cannot really know what they are talking about.

Don't repeat ancient analogies, use someone else's words, or pretend that it is a mystery. Just say what you think it is

[Happy Tiger]

bull****!!!
I have developed it...to a very high degree. I know NOTHING about it. You can't even begin to describe it...in any language.

[Hendrik]

bull****!!!

Can you evoke zhen qi at any time? Can you store zhen qi and grow it? If not you don't have it. Sure it is bull**** when you cannot do it. What else can you say?

[guy b.]

Very good, Great!

Your passive aggression is extremely weak. Don't be so frightened, it is ok not to know something. I will explain to you if you like

[Happy Tiger]

I have developed it...to a very high degree. I know NOTHING about it. You can't even begin to describe it...in any language.
this whole thing is ****ing me off....

[Hendrik]

Your passive aggression is extremely weak. Don't be so frightened, it is ok not to know something. I will explain to you if you like

Think as you like.

[Hendrik]

this whole thing is ****ing me off....

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1176553&postcount=18

[guy b.]

I have developed it...to a very high degree. I know NOTHING about it. You can't even begin to describe it...in any language.

Use your imagination. Think. What could be the physical basis of what you are doing. Why are you relaxing? What is the physical purpose of your visualisation? What is the feeling? Why do you follow the steps that you do?

[guy b.]

Think as you like.

Pride is the most pathetic weakness Hendrick

[Happy Tiger]

with respect.> bows deeply<

[Happy Tiger]

Can you evoke zhen qi at any time? Can you store zhen qi and grow it? If not you don't have it. Sure it is bull**** when you cannot do it. What else can you say?
How do you think I learned it , Hendrik? I was taught. and brought along. and raised knowing all the little things that contribute to the understanding and relationship of hei gong. I can. And I do. I am tested often. I am umungst many far beyond my skill. They won't say any more than you.

[guy b.]

How do you think I learned it , Hendrik? I was taught. and brought along. and raised knowing all the little things that contribute to the understanding and relationship of hei gong. I can. And I do. I am tested often. I am umungst many far beyond my skill. They won't say any more than you.

This attitude of your seniors/teachers and the whole hierarchy thing is a cancer

[Robinhood]

Ok, for you it is a religion. This is ok


It is not a religion the way I said it, I don't know how you can make that assumption from my statement. I like Henrick's added word of phenomenon that happens when everything is right.

The mind can lead the chi, the mind does not make the chi.

And it is something you can build or store and use in the body (energy).

[Happy Tiger]

This attitude of your seniors/teachers and the whole hierarchy thing is a cancer
maybe so...

[guy b.]

It is not a religion the way I said it, I don't know how you can make that assumption from my statement. I like Henrick's added word of phenomenon that happens when everything is right.

The mind can lead the chi, the mind does not make the chi.

And it is something you can build or store and use in the body (energy).

If it cannot be understood via science (i.e. it is not a physical process) then it is instead a supernatural process and your belief is akin to religious belief

[guy b.]

maybe so...

It allows charlatans to hide, and simple truths to be spun out and distorted until they are hideous and bloated.

[Robinhood]

If it cannot be understood via science (i.e. it is not a physical process) then it is instead a supernatural process and your belief is akin to religious belief


No, What's the physical process of gravity ?, is it super natural ?

[guy b.]

No, What's the physical process of gravity ?, is it super natural ?

Are you denying that there are falsifiable theories of gravity?

[anerlich]

This link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcp6J1T60qc&amp;amp;feature=related

about which Paddington said:


Most things in life, Qi included, just cannot, IMO at least, be explained and investigated in a few lines or as bullet points. I don't find your analogy with a video designed for lay consumption of the higgs, comparable to a lecture designed for those researching cognitive and neurological functions.

Well, sport, I think you're talking out of your a$$ on this last point. If you can't summarise something, you can't teach it and probably shouldn't try to pretend you really know much about it.

The vid was a long dissertation on various hot topics in psychology.

Here's my bullet points. Choke on the heresy:


Mystical experiences, notably those related to hallucinogenic drugs, leading to otherwise rare or less profound changes in personality
The flow state, in detail
Intuition, recognition of complex patterns in a manner similar to the flow state, where trying to analyse or explain how it is done leads to failure
The importance of intuiting the more useful causal rather than correlational relationships
Zone of proximal learning
We seek complexity
Flow leads to affordances
Bidirectional modelling
Synesthesia
Modelling and meta-modelling
Cerebrum, cerebellum and their involvement in bidirectional modelling in the brain
Bidirectional modelling facilitating efficient interaction between the various parts of the brain and also a possible source of synesthesia
(Without explanation or justification) wrap all of that together, tie it in pretty bow and call it chi


Interesting talk and well worth a listen, though it has SFA to do with chi, unless chi stands for "flow state and all the really cool psychological sh*t I happen to like".

How does the (many) subjects of the vid relate to Hendrik's energy behind acupuncture and TCM (not that I see that as much of a definition or Hendrik having any verifiable claim to authority or expertise on the subject, unless you count the ability to produce tonnes of esoteric doggerel, and delude a few other airheads)?

In what way is any of it unique to TCM, and indeed why does TCM claim a franchise when it's arguably more accessible and prevalent in activities like surfing and skiing,and IMO easier to attain in BJJ than WC?

[anerlich]

Another good Higgs boson article, so hopefully the thread won't be a complete waste:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/still-confused-about-the-higgs-boson-read-this/259472/

[Hendrik]

If it cannot be understood via science (i.e. it is not a physical process) then it is instead a supernatural process and your belief is akin to religious belief

This is exactly sound like those old Chinese , expecting Shakespeare literature to be exactly catagorization into the Confusious moral code and Chinese term or else it is non sense, and refuse to accept Shakespeare.

[Hendrik]

How do you think I learned it , Hendrik?

I was taught. and brought along. and raised knowing all the little things that contribute to the understanding and relationship of hei gong. I can. And I do. I am tested often.

I am umungst many far beyond my skill.

They won't say any more than you.



Ok. If you say so,

then,

Let's get to some basic stuffs

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?


I am just a beginner , so, I am just asking basic questions here. The question open for everyone.

[taai gihk yahn]

Ok. If you say so,

then,

Let's get to some basic stuffs

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?


I am just a beginner , so, I am just asking basic questions here. The question open for everyone.

it's a good question; I'd be willing to answer it, as I know of at least 3 methods (one movement, one sort of a movement, one "visualization") but I'm a bit hesitant, as I am thinking it is just going to result in a "no, you are wrong" or "that's not zhen qi" sort of response; so if this is a dialogue, great; if it's a quiz, not interested;

how about u share first for once?

[guy b.]

Ok. If you say so,

then,

Let's get to some basic stuffs

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?


I am just a beginner , so, I am just asking basic questions here. The question open for everyone.

There is no need for any of this esoteric categorisation. This is qi for slow learners

[guy b.]

Serious question: why do you think that repeating superfluous dogma is proof of anything?

[Vajramusti]

Another good Higgs boson article, so hopefully the thread won't be a complete waste:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/still-confused-about-the-higgs-boson-read-this/259472/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew- I am out of the thread- but I thought you and others may like this essay
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/science/in-higgs-discovery-a-celebration-of-our-human-capacity.html?hpw
in the New York Times-
by an academician at my university:

[Hendrik]

it's a good question; I'd be willing to answer it, as I know of at least 3 methods (one movement, one sort of a movement, one "visualization") but I'm a bit hesitant, as I am thinking it is just going to result in a "no, you are wrong" or "that's not zhen qi" sort of response; so if this is a dialogue, great; if it's a quiz, not interested;

how about u share first for once?

If one has really done it. What to be fear on what others says? A millionaire will be careless if other say he is poor.

I ask two very basic element on zhen qi cultivation above and I expect anyone claim to know qigong to answer them clearly and accurately and confidently.

Will I say that is not zhen qi? Sure, if one doesn't have it. No if it is.

[Hendrik]

There is no need for any of this esoteric categorisation. This is qi for slow learners

What esoteric?
It is just the very basic of very basic.

[guy b.]

If one has really done it. What to be fear on what others says?

This applies to you more than anyone else on the forum. It is time for you to stop being a coward and venture an opinion

[Hendrik]

Serious question: why do you think that repeating superfluous dogma is proof of anything?

You are a guy who is hiding behind your words playing, even when Alan Orr and myself ask who you are, who are unable to answer honestly.

You love to play as upper hand on subject you don't know by disapproval others.

[guy b.]

What esoteric?
It is just the very basic of very basic.

It is basic traditional qigung/TCM theory such as one would learn in the first year of a TCM course, but that isn't at all relevant to the actual thing we are talking about. It is a dry and unnecessary conceptual abstraction, hence esoteric.

[Hendrik]

This applies to you more than anyone else on the forum. It is time for you to stop being a coward and venture an opinion

Sure, called me coward when you don't even be able to say your real name, your lineage in WCK, and who do you learn WCK from.

[Hendrik]

It is basic traditional qigung/TCM theory such as one would learn in the first year of a TCM course, but that isn't at all relevant to the actual thing we are talking about. It is a dry and unnecessary conceptual abstraction, hence esoteric.

Similar Alan Or, I would say you love to play with words.


You love to play with words on things you have no idea.

[guy b.]

You are a guy who is hiding behind your words playing, even when Alan Orr and myself ask who you are, who are unable to answer honestly.

You love to play as upper hand on subject you don't know by disapproval others.

I don't know who Alan Orr is or who you are. All I have to go on is what you post on this forum and what I hear from other people. Having the upper hand is merely a fact obvious to anyone observing your writhing attempts to avoid any and all direct questions. Feel free to finally answer

[guy b.]

Sure, called me coward when you don't even be able to say your real name, your lineage in WCK, and who do you learn WCK from.

I'm not aware that I know any of this information with respect to you or that it is even relevant to the question of your obviously fraudulent claims to knowledge

[guy b.]

Similar Alan Or, I would say you love to play with words.


You love to play with words on things you have no idea.

What does Alan Orr have to do with you? Speak for yourself please, and answer the question

[GlennR]

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?



Is your lounge room cold and you need help?

[Hendrik]

What does Alan Orr have to do with you? Speak for yourself please, and answer the question

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1175458&postcount=132

[YouKnowWho]

I can't believe a subject like this can last over 37 pages. Can we just talk about how to "land your fist on your opponent's face" instead? :D

[GlennR]

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1175458&postcount=132

Always looking for help aren't you

[guy b.]

Ok. If you say so,

then,

Let's get to some basic stuffs

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?


I am just a beginner , so, I am just asking basic questions here. The question open for everyone.

To elaborate: this is qi for the consumer. Qi for the idiot. It is superfluous and it doesn't correspond in even a vague way to physical reality. Regardless of whether the practice of TCM works or not for some conditions, the theory behind it is a terrible model of observable reality.

This is not the qi we are interested in when we stand, relax, and lead with the mind. What are we doing here? We aren't learning many different make believe types of qi, that is certain

[guy b.]

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1175458&postcount=132

Alan pretends there is deep meaning because his livelihood depends upon it. Why do you? Is it your ego that depends upon it? Your pride?

[xinyidizi]

It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn. Today's science is very limited and can not explain many things including qi so get over it and train with a proper teacher instead of playing with words and talking about things you don't know.

[taai gihk yahn]

It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn. Today's science is very limited and can not explain many things including qi so get over it and train with a proper teacher instead of playing with words and talking about things you don't know.

http://jiveturkey.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/pot-kettle.jpg

[guy b.]

It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn. Today's science is very limited and can not explain many things including qi so get over it and train with a proper teacher instead of playing with words and talking about things you don't know.

Classic way to protect a fragile belief system in the face of challenge. Weak though

[Happy Tiger]

Ok. If you say so,

then,

Let's get to some basic stuffs

please share how do you handle the temperature of zhen qi?
And why do one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi?


I am just a beginner , so, I am just asking basic questions here. The question open for everyone.
Since you are a beginner, do not concern yourself with such stuffs. Just relax and keep your reservoirs open.

[Hendrik]

This is not the qi we are interested in when we stand, relax, and lead with the mind.

What are we doing here? We aren't learning many different make believe types of qi, that is certain



sure sure,

stand, relax, and lead with the mind.

what a commercial slogan for cheating the general public.

[Hendrik]

Since you are a beginner, do not concern yourself with such stuffs. Just relax and keep your reservoirs open.


What is reservoirs? Where is the source? what good is a reservoirs without source? how to handle the source? how to handle the reservoirs? who says an open reservoirs will get anything?
unless these all solve, one cant even start.

just relax will get one into sleep and day dream, doing nothing.

[Happy Tiger]

[QUOTE=Happy Tiger;1178264]Since you are a beginner, do not concern yourself with such stuffs. Just relax and keep your reservoirs open.[/QUOTE
I'm sorry for insulting you, Hendrik, please don't patronise me. If you have a real question, ask it. But then again, you don't ask questions you don't already have your answer to.]

[Hendrik]

[QUOTE=Happy Tiger;1178264]Since you are a beginner, do not concern yourself with such stuffs. Just relax and keep your reservoirs open.[/QUOTE
I'm sorry for insulting you, Hendrik, please don't patronise me. If you have a real question, ask it. But then again, you don't ask questions you don't already have your answer to.]



I have two open questions for anyone who claim they know Qigong.

that simple.

[Happy Tiger]

[QUOTE=Happy Tiger;1178267]



I have two open questions for anyone who claim they know Qigong.

that simple.
Why do you not know these easy questions?

[Hendrik]

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1178268]
Why do you not know these easy questions?


do you know the answer?

[xinyidizi]

Classic way to protect a fragile belief system in the face of challenge. Weak though

Have a look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:080998_Universe_Content_240.jpg

It says that science only knows about 4.6% of what the universe is made of in terms of mass and energy. As a strong man of science please tell me how you expect such a limited science to be able to explain everything physical.

[Happy Tiger]

[QUOTE=Happy Tiger;1178269]


do you know the answer?
Of course. No need to fill a vessel already full past brimming
:)

[anerlich]

It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn.

If it's pointless, STFU and get off the forum.

[xinyidizi]

If it's pointless, STFU and get off the forum.

If "It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn." makes you angry then it means that you think it's referring to you, which means that you agree that "you were not trained properly and don't want to learn."

So if you were not trained properly and don't want to learn why do you come to these forums and waste your time on something you don't want to learn?

[GlennR]

If "It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn." makes you angry then it means that you think it's referring to you, which means that you agree that "you were not trained properly and don't want to learn."

So if you were not trained properly and don't want to learn why do you come to these forums and waste your time on something you don't want to learn?

My question would be, why do you lurk a WC forum?

[xinyidizi]

My question would be, why do you lurk a WC forum?

The topic is about qi not about WC and the OP didn't mention this discussion should be limited to any specific styles.

[GlennR]

The topic is about qi not about WC and the OP didn't mention this discussion should be limited to any specific styles.

Once again, why are you lurking a WC forum?

I understand Hendiks input as a WC guy (though i dont agree with him on lots of things and question his agenda) but why do you suddenly appear on a forum and expect everyone to believe what you say?

[anerlich]

If "It is pointless to discuss qi with people who were not trained properly and don't want to learn." makes you angry then it means that you think it's referring to you, which means that you agree that "you were not trained properly and don't want to learn."

So if you were not trained properly and don't want to learn why do you come to these forums and waste your time on something you don't want to learn?

It doesn't make me angry. You say discussion of the subject is pointless, yet you persist. Makes you appear a moron, by all evidence appropriately. Your pigheadedness is a problem for you, not me.


it means that you think it's referring to you

No it doesn't ...


which means that you agree that "you were not trained properly and don't want to learn."

You have a problem with comprehension and logic. How does me advising you to bugg@r off and stop wasting your own time mean I agree with any such thing?

[anerlich]

My question would be, why do you lurk a WC forum?

He's not lurking if he's posting. Lurking means he reads without posting, a strategy IMO he should follow since his foot is already in his mouth up to the knee.

[xinyidizi]

@Anerlich: Are you one the owners of this website? If yes, then I will respect your rights and won't write anymore but if not, then it's none of your business to tell people what or where they should write.

And exactly what do you want to prove by using swear words and offensive language? The fact that you are incapable of civilized discussion.

[anerlich]

@xinyidizi: cry me a river.

[GlennR]

He's not lurking if he's posting. Lurking means he reads without posting, a strategy IMO he should follow since his foot is already in his mouth up to the knee.

My mistake, i meant loitering.

[taai gihk yahn]

It says that science only knows about 4.6% of what the universe is made of in terms of mass and energy.
which is about 4.6% more than what any other system of knowledge has delineated in a valid and reliable manner;



@xinyidizi: cry me a river.
he is...

http://drawception.com/pub/panels/2012/5-21/e2jFGyr58X-10.png

[Xian]

which is about 4.6% more than what any other system of knowledge has delineated in a valid and reliable manner;


You have left out this part of his sentence:

As a strong man of science please tell me how you expect such a limited science to be able to explain everything physical.


Kind regards,
Xian

[SimonM]

This feels to me like a situation where somebody doesn't understand either the science he is quoting or really the nature of science.

Is he proposing that Qi is dark matter? Dark energy? Because dark matter actually WAS observed for the first time the same week that the Boson popped up at CERN.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am gonna ask one simple question:
Is Qi part of the natural world we live in?

[xinyidizi]

This feels to me like a situation where somebody doesn't understand either the science he is quoting or really the nature of science.

Is he proposing that Qi is dark matter? Dark energy? Because dark matter actually WAS observed for the first time the same week that the Boson popped up at CERN.

Could you provide a link to the results of that observation? So far what I have read on NASA or CERN's official websites just say that there have been observations that suggest the existence of dark matter which is nothing new but as for what it is no one has any conclusive theories.

[SimonM]

This (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/dark-matter-filaments-gravitational-lensing_n_1650774.html) is one of several nearly identical stories. It is possible that the science journalists are getting ahead of themselves; it's happened before.

[xinyidizi]

I am gonna ask one simple question:
Is Qi part of the natural world we live in?

My observations suggest that it is. Most of them are subjective but I have also had some nearly objective experiments though I hope one day I can do them in a more scientific environment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My observations suggest that it is. Most of them are subjective but I have also had some nearly objective experiments though I hope one day I can do them in a more scientific environment.

If it is part o f the natural world it CAN be observed and if it CAN be observed, then science CAN comment on it.
So...

[Robinhood]

If it is part o f the natural world it CAN be observed and if it CAN be observed, then science CAN comment on it.
So...


Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.

Give it up on science explaining things, it is constantly changing its theory on most everything.

[xinyidizi]

If it is part o f the natural world it CAN be observed and if it CAN be observed, then science CAN comment on it.
So...

As I mentioned above today's science(as it claims) can only observe and comment on 4.6% of the mass and energy in the universe. It can't say much about the rest other than the high possibility of its existence. Even in case of the known territory of mass and energy there is still a lot of unknown factors that can not be fully explained.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.

Give it up on science explaining things, it is constantly changing its theory on most everything.

I'm sorry, what?
Science can't explain gravity ??

[Scott R. Brown]

Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.

Gravity can be measured, that makes it an objective phenomenon, qi cannot be measured. All of its effects are subjective, most, or all, of which can be explained using simple human physiology.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As I mentioned above today's science(as it claims) can only observe and comment on 4.6% of the mass and energy in the universe. It can't say much about the rest other than the high possibility of its existence. Even in case of the known territory of mass and energy there is still a lot of unknown factors that can not be fully explained.

We are not talking about the "mass and energy" of the universe, we are talking about QI, which you said is part of nature and can be observed ( I assume you say this because you have seen it).
Well then, if a human can observe it, certainly science can at least postulate on it.
That is what science does.

[Scott R. Brown]

As I mentioned above today's science(as it claims) can only observe and comment on 4.6% of the mass and energy in the universe. It can't say much about the rest other than the high possibility of its existence. Even in case of the known territory of mass and energy there is still a lot of unknown factors that can not be fully explained.

We can launch vehicles in to outer space and decide where we want them to go and when we want them to arrive. We can determine how, when and where they will return.

It matters little what other factors of the universe are not known at present. Gravity is measurable.

Qi is not! The effects of Qi are subjective and do not provide any significant benefit that supersedes simple meditation and exercise programs.

[xinyidizi]

We are not talking about the "mass and energy" of the universe, we are talking about QI, which you said is part of nature and can be observed ( I assume you say this because you have seen it).
Well then, if a human can observe it, certainly science can at least postulate on it.
That is what science does.

I agree. If a human can do it then certainly it can be at least partly studied using scientific methodology and that's what I have successfully tested a few times. However if by science you mean measuring and explaining it through the current scientific knowledge and instruments then (as science admits it) the 95.4% of unknown things that can not be properly detected and measured especially on a small scale for example around the body of a human being might be a huge obstacle.

[Hendrik]

Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.

Give it up on science explaining things, it is constantly changing its theory on most everything.

have anyone asked if there is ether or no ether, when they buy their cell phone?

If the engineers has to wait for that scientific Proof ether or no ether answer before they build the first radio then we are still have no color tv.

And even today, is there an either?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I agree. If a human can do it then certainly it can be at least partly studied using scientific methodology and that's what I have successfully tested a few times. However if by science you mean measuring and explaining it through the current scientific knowledge and instruments then (as science admits it) the 95.4% of unknown things that can not be properly detected and measured especially on a small scale for example around the body of a human being might be a huge obstacle.

You keep bring up that percentage and I don't think it means what you think it means...
In regards to the human body and how it works and such, science is very much "on the ball".
We mapped the Human Genome dude.

[Scott R. Brown]

have anyone asked if there is ether or no ether, when they buy their cell phone?

If the engineers has to wait for that scientific Proof ether or no ether answer before they build the first radio then we are still have no color tv.

And even today, is there an either?

You are presuming that radio waves propagate by means of the ether.

Has this been established?

If science cannot prove the existence of the ether, can we say that is what is occurring?

[Hendrik]

Scientifically as for today's scentific level the following is what you get

http://www.naturalhealingcenter.com/creative/jixingli.htm


Put in mind that your so called scientific is not a reference of god. It is similar to many other different philosophy , a modelling which is continous to improve but just a model the western post Newtonian people love. It has it's strength and weakness.

It's weakness is as weak as no drug can cure high blood pressure. But qigong has good successful rate to reverse it. May be the sciencetis want to explain why their model doesn't work even in a simple daily life?

[Scott R. Brown]

Scientifically as for today's scentific level the following is what you get

http://www.naturalhealingcenter.com/creative/jixingli.htm


Put in mind that your so called scientific is not a reference of god. It is as many different philosophy , a modelling which is continous to improve but just a model the western post Newtonian people love.

What science does is measure the physical world and make it's cause and effect system predictable to a reasonable certainty.

[Hendrik]

You are presuming that radio waves propagate by means of the ether.

Has this been established?

If science cannot prove the existence of the ether, can we say that is what is occurring?


The scientists screwing around for hundred of years back and forth. While the engineer build simple wireless communication and send human to the moon. Then, years ago NASA says yes. There is ether, it is only the previous scientist doesn't has the good enough instruments to observe.

[Hendrik]

What science does is measure the physical world and make it's cause and effect system predictable to a reasonable certainty.

Ask those scientist, I careless if their model works or not. Or how they want to model any phenomenon.

My qi developed in my body always there as I need, that is what count.

[xinyidizi]

In regards to the human body and how it works and such, science is very much "on the ball".
We mapped the Human Genome dude.

That map is based on the current knowledge of mass. What if the unknown particles were also part of the structure of the human body? So far science has no way of detecting or measuring them on this scale and therefore can't prove or rule out anything.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That map is based on the current knowledge of mass. What if the unknown particles were also part of the structure of the human body? So far science has no way of detecting or measuring them on this scale and therefore can't prove or rule out anything.

Ok then...
What a train wreck...

Lets keep this simple shall we?
If Qi can be observed in nature and you ( or anyone for that matter) as a subjective view about it, then science can make a "comment" on it, it's that simple.
Unless you are saying that your perception of Qi is outside nature, are you saying that?

[Scott R. Brown]

Ask those scientist, I careless if their model works or not. Or how they want to model any phenomenon.

My qi developed in my body always there as I need, that is what count.

So is mine, and everyone else, but I don't follow a contrived system designed to mislead students and followers in their conception of a non-demonstrable semi-substance.

[Hendrik]

Ok then...
What a train wreck...

Lets keep this simple shall we?
If Qi can be observed in nature and you ( or anyone for that matter) as a subjective view about it, then science can make a "comment" on it, it's that simple.
Unless you are saying that your perception of Qi is outside nature, are you saying that?


Isn't the above link shows what is the scientists comment on qi based on their present model?

What else one wants?

Or one is not satisfy because the scientist doesn't debunk the existance of qi? And looking for more science to disprove qi?

[Hendrik]

So is mine, and everyone else, but I don't follow a contrived system designed to mislead students and followers in their conception of a non-demonstrable semi-substance.


That is your issue of following those misleading stuffs.

There are business men and con men. You like to follow those con men is your choice. That doesn't mean the whole world is con men.


Also,

If one can't answer my previous two questions on


Why one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi, and how?


One doesn't know zhen qi and development.


So, forget about all the scientific and your qi my qi, one needs to answer the above two questions before proceed, otherwise one is talking about something one has no idea at all.

[Happy Tiger]

That is your issue of following those misleading stuffs.

There are business men and con men. You like to follow those con men is your choice. That doesn't mean the whole world is con men.


Also,

If one can't answer my previous two questions on


Why one needs to handle the temperature of zhen qi, and how?


One doesn't know zhen qi and development.


So, forget about all the scientific and your qi my qi, one needs to answer the above two questions before proceed, otherwise one is talking about something one has no idea at all.
I thought you were a 'beginner'.So that was a lie. A con

[Scott R. Brown]

That is your issue of following those misleading stuffs.

There are business men and con men. You like to follow those con men is your choice. That doesn't mean the whole world is con men.

Exactly what I have said about your own con-man teachers who may understand a contrived system designed to enmesh students and followers in an inaccurate, or incomplete, system of qigong, but he has/had an incomplete understanding of the processes of Tao!

A comprehensive understanding of Tao reveals all contrivances, not to be necessarily false, but incomplete!

A comprehensive understanding of Tao, takes all complicated systems and reduces them down to only the essential principles, making all accomplishments more easily attained.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Isn't the above link shows what is the scientists comment on qi based on their present model?

What else one wants?

Or one is not satisfy because the scientist doesn't debunk the existance of qi? And looking for more science to disprove qi?

Sorry Hendrick, in all this I must of missed your link, which one is it?

[Happy Tiger]

I thought you were a 'beginner'.So that was a lie. A con
Hendrik. We are not children. Even though you talk to us thus. Why do you think no one answers your childish beginner question? You are a lier. I just caught you in one. One of many no doubt. I know qi is true. but i sure don't believe u.You really don't think any one knows ???Are you really that arrogant???At least you have proved one thing to me. Internal development and high gong does nothing to develope ones character. Plainly.

[Happy Tiger]

I like people that have their soul on there sleave. That will succeed wonderfully or fail gloriously. You can do neither.You are just another 'master'. I never want to be a 'sifu'.

[Happy Tiger]

And as for any other who 'test' people by their answer to crap like 'how do you pronounce this or what's your bla for bla. To me this is a red flag of some one who knows nothing but their own little world. hoop.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hendrik. We are not children. Even though you talk to us thus. Why do you think no one answers your childish beginner question? You are a lier. I just caught you in one. One of many no doubt. I know qi is true. but i sure don't believe u.You really don't think any one knows ???Are you really that arrogant???At least you have proved one thing to me. Internal development and high gong does nothing to develope ones character. Plainly.

A very astute observation, not just Hendrik, but something to carry throughout life!

A man's measure is his maturity, not his knowledge!


I like people that have their soul on there sleave. That will succeed wonderfully or fail gloriously. You can do neither.You are just another 'master'. I never want to be a 'sifu'.

To want to be either is to create a contrived idea of what they entail, which then binds you to a false concept. Then the concept controls you as you seek to conform your experience and knowledge to the false idea.

This realization is the first step to independent learning and achieving what cannot be achieved!

[Scott R. Brown]

And as for any other who 'test' people by their answer to crap like 'how do you pronounce this or what's your bla for bla. To me this is a red flag of some one who knows nothing but their own little world. hoop.

Touche!!;)

[SimonM]

The link to a self-promotional website for a Qigong instructor who made a bunch of pseudo-scientific claims you mean?

I mean the flaws with the experimental design reported were drive-a-truck-through-it sized holes.

If this is the best you can do for "sciencey" Qigong documentation then I'm sorry, but you haven't provided anything evenly science-like.

[Scott R. Brown]

The link to a self-promotional website for a Qigong instructor who made a bunch of pseudo-scientific claims you mean?

I mean the flaws with the experimental design reported were drive-a-truck-through-it sized holes.

If this is the best you can do for "sciencey" Qigong documentation then I'm sorry, but you haven't provided anything evenly science-like.

When you are going for sciency, science-like is not important!:eek:

[SimonM]

The first experiment proposed on the Qigong website Hendrik linked to was so far from good science it was almost scientological. <ducks>

[Hendrik]

Sorry Hendrick, in all this I must of missed your link, which one is it?

http://www.naturalhealingcenter.com/creative/jixingli.htm

[Hendrik]

The first experiment proposed on the Qigong website Hendrik linked to was so far from good science it was almost scientological. <ducks>

Called

2007 Distance Healing Experiment with
Pennsylvania State University Medical School

Time: Starts on November 2nd 2007
Place: Laboratory of Pennsylvania State University Medical School
Host: Professor John E. Neely MD, pediatrics and oncology specialist



Or called
Called Boston university, U C. L A. For qi experiments results. That simple.

[SimonM]

Yeah, an experiment which wasn't properly blinded and which didn't have a clear idea of what it was testing.

Junk.

Plain and simple.

[Scott R. Brown]

The first experiment proposed on the Qigong website Hendrik linked to was so far from good science it was almost scientological. <ducks>

I think that makes the site host a scientologolist! <ducks too>

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.naturalhealingcenter.com/creative/jixingli.htm

Hmmm, where any of those experiments repeated under scientific conditions?
(Independently reviewed and double blind, etc..)

By the way, I have seen the difference in body heat with thermal-imaging due to hypnosis ( self induced and induced on others), that is hardly scientific proof of anything other than being able to auto-regulate your body heat or that of others through suggestion.

[Hendrik]

I thought you were a 'beginner'.So that was a lie. A con

i am a begineer, and if you cant answer that two questions , hahaha, you are just a con man with smart words. hahaha

come on open your cards.

[Hendrik]

Yeah, an experiment which wasn't properly blinded and which didn't have a clear idea of what it was testing.

Junk.

Plain and simple.




go back to be you author of fictions. this is the real world. your tactic or using dissaproval to gain upper hand doesnt work here. hahaha

[Hendrik]

Hmmm, where any of those experiments repeated under scientific conditions?
(Independently reviewed and double blind, etc..)

By the way, I have seen the difference in body heat with thermal-imaging due to hypnosis ( self induced and induced on others), that is hardly scientific proof of anything other than being able to auto-regulate your body heat or that of others through suggestion.



as I said, called U Pen, ULCA, Boston U.

[Happy Tiger]

i am a begineer, and if you cant answer that two questions , hahaha, you are just a con man with smart words. hahaha

come on open your cards.
>Cough<...

[Hendrik]

these are a strange group of people,

1, no Qi experience and dont know what is Qi.

2, request Scientific proof from scientists, but when the University research report shown , doubt about it.


So, these above is only says one thing. this people is anti Qi. hahaha. and will use anything and everything to debunk Qi disregards of what. that is the true color. so called scientific is just an alibi to support them. Got nothing to do with any real life investigation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

as I said, called U Pen, ULCA, Boston U.

K, will do.
Thanks for the info.

[Happy Tiger]

these are a strange group of people,

1, no Qi experience and dont know what is Qi.

2, request Scientific proof from scientists, but when the University research report shown , doubt about it.


So, these above is only says one thing. this people is anti Qi. hahaha. and will use anything and everything to debunk Qi disregards of what. that is the true color.
Firstly, I have never attempted to debunk qi. Secondly as to your question. You have actually answered it in the past (yahoo) When you were playing this game with some one else. So, with out even being taught I could just regurgitate your own reply. Don't you even remember your own sheoit? If you really don't know, beginner, better ask your sifu.

[Happy Tiger]

Firstly, I have never attempted to debunk qi. Secondly as to your question. You have actually answered it in the past (yahoo) When you were playing this game with some one else. So, with out even being taught I could just regurgitate your own reply. Don't you even remember your own sheoit? If you really don't know, beginner better ask your sifu.
I have definitely wasted enough time on you.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hmmm, where any of those experiments repeated under scientific conditions?
(Independently reviewed and double blind, etc..)

By the way, I have seen the difference in body heat with thermal-imaging due to hypnosis ( self induced and induced on others), that is hardly scientific proof of anything other than being able to auto-regulate your body heat or that of others through suggestion.

I have been able to do this for over 30 years without using any Qigong magic.


i am a begineer, and if you cant answer that two questions , hahaha, you are just a con man with smart words. hahaha

come on open your cards.

Yes you are a beginner teaching the innocent incomplete Qigong and either do not know it or cannot admit it, and when it is pointed out to you, you bury your head in the ground like an ostrich.

Who is the con man here?


go back to be you author of fictions. this is the real world. your tactic or using dissaproval to gain upper hand doesnt work here. hahaha

I see, but insulting another person demonstrates you Qigong ability and understanding?


these are a strange group of people,

1, no Qi experience and dont know what is Qi.

2, request Scientific proof from scientists, but when the University research report shown , doubt about it.


So, these above is only says one thing. this people is anti Qi. hahaha. and will use anything and everything to debunk Qi disregards of what. that is the true color. so called scientific is just an alibi to support them. Got nothing to do with any real life investigation.

It is unnecessary to debunk something that cannot be demonstrated to have any reality. Presenting poorly designed science is not a proof, it is a diversion from having to demonstrate it yourself.

[SimonM]

go back to be you author of fictions. this is the real world. your tactic or using dissaproval to gain upper hand doesnt work here. hahaha

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha

<gasp>

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Hendrik]

Firstly, I have never attempted to debunk qi. Secondly as to your question. You have actually answered it in the past (yahoo) When you were playing this game with some one else. So, with out even being taught I could just regurgitate your own reply. Don't you even remember your own sheoit? If you really don't know, beginner, better ask your sifu.


I thought you were a friend , then you start to insult me, and now this.
So, i know your true color isnt it?

[Scott R. Brown]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha

<gasp>

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

And good laugh is more healthy than good Qigong.

[Happy Tiger]

I have definitely wasted enough time on you.
I can't believe th Cho family left their legacy to you. Are u the saint, or the layman?

[Happy Tiger]

And good laugh is more healthy than good Qigong.
Mercy!! :)

[Hendrik]

I can't believe th Cho family left their legacy to you. Are u the saint, or the layman?

this shows even more about your true color.

[Scott R. Brown]

I thought you were a friend , then you start to insult me, and now this.
So, i know your true color isnt it?

Have you learned nothing from my example?

How many times have you insulted me and I always treat you like my little brother, and patiently wait for you to let go of your self-importance and wake up from your delusion.

Being a good teacher often involves the practice of long-suffering!

Please try to pay closer attention to my most excellent example, it will behoove you! ;):)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Spoke to Penn state and they told me to send and email to their Penn State Hershey group where Dr. Neely is.
To the Penn State Hershey Clinical Trials Office.

[Happy Tiger]

this shows even more about your true color.
That was harsh, and I'm sorry. Yes, we have all revealed our true colour, Hendrik

[Happy Tiger]

That was harsh, and I'm sorry. Yes, we have all revealed our true colour, Hendrik
After all my *****ing about decorum on this board I went face first into the worst. I guess I'm part of the family. >Bows deeply<

[taai gihk yahn]

You have left out this part of his sentence:

you are correct, i did leave it out; I did first because because it wasn't what I was speaking to, and second, frankly it was just such a sh1t-silly statement that it didn't even warrant acknowledgement / comment

but thanks fer pointin' that out there... :rolleyes:

[Scott R. Brown]

After all my *****ing about decorum on this board I went face first into the worst. I guess I'm part of the family. >Bows deeply<

Don't sweat it!

Decorum is a false contrivance. It serves a useful purpose, but it isn't an absolute and inviolable standard.

Some situations call for a lack of decorum. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://bit.ly/PRclk8

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/4/20/3c3126d5-0924-4974-9acc-be075330fc2f.jpg

[Wayfaring]

After all my *****ing about decorum on this board I went face first into the worst. I guess I'm part of the family. >Bows deeply<

That's OK. Post up some eye candy and very few will even remember any snarky comments. :D

[taai gihk yahn]

these are a strange group of people,

1, no Qi experience and dont know what is Qi.

2, request Scientific proof from scientists, but when the University research report shown , doubt about it.


So, these above is only says one thing. this people is anti Qi. hahaha. and will use anything and everything to debunk Qi disregards of what. that is the true color. so called scientific is just an alibi to support them. Got nothing to do with any real life investigation.

Hendrick,

Very respectfully, the two studies that you cited really cannot be taken as proof of anything, for numerous reasons.
1) there are no authors listed - I know that Neely is listed as the host, but that doesn't mean he authored the paper. In a valid scientific paper, there is an accepted format for listing authors, their affiliations, and how to contact them; the fact that this monograph doesn't have this standard format already makes it suspect. (the points below r in no particular order, just as they popped into my head)
2) The grammar is poor. This suggests both a lack of editing as well as peer review
3) There is no indication of peer review - this is a major concern
4) The overall format of the paper is not according to typical research format.
5) The methodology section is vague and incomplete. For example, it doesn't state what specifically Mr. Li did.
6) the results are vague - it's very unclear as to what was determined
7) There was no null hypothesis - if you don't have one, you can't really do research
8) there was no statistical analysis; it was purely observational, and it doesn't state who did the observing
9) so far as I can tell, this was never published, so again, no peer review (or IRB oversight, it seems, another problem)

I could go on and on - you may not take the above seriously, but as a trained researcher (I have a Master of Science from Columbia University, and research methodology was part of what I studied in order to design, conduct and write a research thesis), these are the sorts of things that have to be present in research to make it valid and reliable;

The fact is simple: while this was an attempt to utilize scientific method to ascertain effects of qi practice, it is a failed attempt - you can't say anything about scientific method per se, because this research does not adhere to the accepted conventions of proper research;

this has nothing to do with my opinion on qi per se - i am just looking at the paper in terms of methodological aspects;

[taai gihk yahn]

Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.
what on earth are u talking about? what do you mean by "cannot explain how it works"? have u actually studied the topic in a physics class? "science" has a pretty good grasp of how gravity works - so I don't get how u can make this assertion;


Give it up on science explaining things, it is constantly changing its theory on most everything.
you realize that you have just tried to utilize the single greatest strength of scientific method as a rationale for dismissing it, right? meaning that, the reason the theories change is because, as new and improved evidence comes to light, the theories adapt; the reason new evidence comes to light is because scientific method never presumes to be "done" with a given line of inquiry - the drive to continually refine and expand knowledge is what underlies the approach, and that is why theories change (unlike millennia old ideas about "qi", which we are supposed to accept de facto, and never challenge at baseline)

amazing...

[Hendrik]

Hendrick,

Very respectfully, the two studies that you cited really cannot be taken as proof of anything, for numerous reasons.
1) there are no authors listed - I know that Neely is listed as the host, but that doesn't mean he authored the paper. In a valid scientific paper, there is an accepted format for listing authors, their affiliations, and how to contact them; the fact that this monograph doesn't have this standard format already makes it suspect. (the points below r in no particular order, just as they popped into my head)
2) The grammar is poor. This suggests both a lack of editing as well as peer review
3) There is no indication of peer review - this is a major concern
4) The overall format of the paper is not according to typical research format.
5) The methodology section is vague and incomplete. For example, it doesn't state what specifically Mr. Li did.
6) the results are vague - it's very unclear as to what was determined
7) There was no null hypothesis - if you don't have one, you can't really do research
8) there was no statistical analysis; it was purely observational, and it doesn't state who did the observing
9) so far as I can tell, this was never published, so again, no peer review (or IRB oversight, it seems, another problem)

I could go on and on - you may not take the above seriously, but as a trained researcher (I have a Master of Science from Columbia University, and research methodology was part of what I studied in order to design, conduct and write a research thesis), these are the sorts of things that have to be present in research to make it valid and reliable;

The fact is simple: while this was an attempt to utilize scientific method to ascertain effects of qi practice, it is a failed attempt - you can't say anything about scientific method per se, because this research does not adhere to the accepted conventions of proper research;

this has nothing to do with my opinion on qi per se - i am just looking at the paper in terms of methodological aspects;


It is not my issue on proving anything. That is those scientific researchers job. Contact and ask them.

[SimonM]

It is not my issue on proving anything. That is those scientific researchers job.

When you put forward something as an "example of scientific proof," which you did, and when you then deride critics for doubting your "scientific proof," which you did, you can't just fob off criticism by then blaming your personally-selected "scientific researchers" as having full responsibility to prove your point for you.

Sorry Hendrik but it's silly things like that which led me to have so little respect for you.

And adding to the critique of your study with some specifics:

The experimental design did not appear to be adequately blinded.
Even assuming the experimental design included blinding not mentioned in the methodology it still could do no more than demonstrate correlation between the psychic-cancer-killing-energy and the death of the leukemia cultures.
Even assuming that the experiment could demonstrate causality rather than correlation all it's demonstrated is the ability of one person to kill cultured leukemia cells by thinking really hard at them - that's not the same as proving there is a mystical energy called Qi which can not be detected or measured by any technology but which can be intuited by people.

[taai gihk yahn]

I thought you were a 'beginner'.So that was a lie. A con

it wasn't a lie or a con, but it is a typical conceit on Hendrik's part - it's sort of a disingenuous "false modesty" tactic that he uses to try to appear open-minded when in fact he has a very fixed perspective that he will never deviate from; it's the same mindset as robin hood and xiyindi (or whatever), which dictates that any deviation from the orthodoxy of 'classical" qigong practice is indicative of only one thing: incomplete study / understanding thereof;

that's the saddest part, really - the idea that the only explanation for not adhering to the party-line vis a vis qigong is due to improper training / practice; they will never get it into their heads that there are people out there who are classically trained to a high level, have had the same experiences, but have come away from it with a very different set of beliefs / opinions - their ONLY answer is that these people obviously did it wrong / never actually experienced the "real" thing;

they think that there is only one accepted way of talking about it; they also think that contemporary scientific method of examining / describing phenomena is intrinsically inadequate to the task of analyzing what goes on in the body during / as a result of qigong practice; they think that you can only describe the process in "classical" taoist terms; they could never believe that current knowledge of anatomy /physiology could do so; the funniest part is that they dismiss contemporary anatomy/physiology knowledge base as applied to qigong without ever having studied it! so when I come along, having had in depth classical qigong training as well as Master degree level training in anatomy / phys, plus 15 years of successfully using "holistic" manual therapy approach and therapeutic qigong with actual real patients, what can they say? all they can say is that I've been doing it wrong all of these years - there is no discussion, no debate, just that I have no idea what I am talking about - simply because I do not agree with their perspective;

amazing...

[taai gihk yahn]

It is not my issue on proving anything. That is those scientific researchers job. Contact and ask them.

you made reference to their work as evidence to support your perspective; so you obviously felt that they were valid;

now I am telling you that they r poorly designed studies and therefore you cannot use them to support anything;

you brought these studies to people's attention here, and now when i point out how they r poorly designed, u say it's not ur issue to prove anything? are u really that obtuse?

[taai gihk yahn]

When you put forward something as an "example of scientific proof," which you did, and when you then deride critics for doubting your "scientific proof," which you did, you can't just fob off criticism by then blaming your personally-selected "scientific researchers" as having full responsibility to prove your point for you.

Sorry Hendrik but it's silly things like that which led me to have so little respect for you.
it's absurd - the guy is supposedly an engineer in the tech industry, right? how can he b so clueless about this sort of thing?


And adding to the critique of your study with some specifics:

The experimental design did not appear to be adequately blinded.
Even assuming the experimental design included blinding not mentioned in the methodology it still could do no more than demonstrate correlation between the psychic-cancer-killing-energy and the death of the leukemia cultures.
Even assuming that the experiment could demonstrate causality rather than correlation all it's demonstrated is the ability of one person to kill cultured leukemia cells by thinking really hard at them - that's not the same as proving there is a mystical energy called Qi which can not be detected or measured by any technology but which can be intuited by people.
in a nutshell, it's a cluster-fu*k; if anyone ever submitted something like that to a legitimate peer reviewed journal, it wud b sent back to them so fast it wud make their head spin; if I had done research like that in school, they wud had flunked me;

[SimonM]

you realize that you have just tried to utilize the single greatest strength of scientific method as a rationale for dismissing it, right?

One of the most constant threats to the advancement of understanding is the apparent fear of change that many people seem to feel. I suspect the idea of impermanence bothers people and so they'd rather believe persistent superstitions than throw themselves into the maelstrom of ever-changing ideas that is scientific discourse.

[taai gihk yahn]

One of the most constant threats to the advancement of understanding is the apparent fear of change that many people seem to feel. I suspect the idea of impermanence bothers people and so they'd rather believe persistent superstitions than throw themselves into the maelstrom of ever-changing ideas that is scientific discourse.

which is even more ironic, since two of the cornerstones of that segment of belief are Taoism and Buddhism, fundamental archetypes of change and impermanence!

[SimonM]

which is even more ironic, since two of the cornerstones of that segment of belief are Taoism and Buddhism, fundamental archetypes of change and impermanence!

LOL True.

And I totally agree with you regarding the closed-mindedness of some people in the Qigong thing.

I learned Qigong from a rationalist who was more interested in the physiological and meditative benefits of the practice than magical healing magic or any such thing involving "meridians".

I practice diligently - part of my daily exercise routine being the Iron Thread.

I certainly never claimed to be a sifu of any description but I'm not a slouch; I'm also a rational skeptic with a hobby-fascination with quantum physics, so when I see people mis-applying physics in order to try and support their beliefs it irritates me...

Like when they claim that the fact that Astronomers were (prior to the possible observation of dark matter) only able to observe 4.5% of the matter and energy that cosmologists calculate should be in the universe as some sort of proof of either:

A) the inadequacy of the scientific method or
B) the existence of magical magic.

[Vajramusti]

647 posts on this thread. Wow!!

[sihing]

647 posts on this thread. Wow!!

Crazy eh, just another example of the ego nature of the forum.

Really, whatever one person believes what does it matter, how does it effect your life in reality?? It doesn't. One can believe in chi blasts all they want, it doesn't effect my life in anyway, except when I identify with a belief that is against another belief, then the ego gets in the way and volia, a 647 post thread on nothingness...

gotta lol...:eek:

James

[Hendrik]

When you put forward something as an "example of scientific proof," which you did, and when you then deride critics for doubting your "scientific proof," which you did, you can't just fob off criticism by then blaming your personally-selected "scientific researchers" as having full responsibility to prove your point for you.

Sorry Hendrik but it's silly things like that which led me to have so little respect for you.

And adding to the critique of your study with some specifics:

The experimental design did not appear to be adequately blinded.
Even assuming the experimental design included blinding not mentioned in the methodology it still could do no more than demonstrate correlation between the psychic-cancer-killing-energy and the death of the leukemia cultures.
Even assuming that the experiment could demonstrate causality rather than correlation all it's demonstrated is the ability of one person to kill cultured leukemia cells by thinking really hard at them - that's not the same as proving there is a mystical energy called Qi which can not be detected or measured by any technology but which can be intuited by people.


did I blame anyone?

or

I just present them as it is and let those who is proffesional in this area do their job and explain their work?

You like scientific, there is true scientific research there why dont you contact them ?

I have no interest in persue you at all.

[Robinhood]

what on earth are u talking about? what do you mean by "cannot explain how it works"? have u actually studied the topic in a physics class? "science" has a pretty good grasp of how gravity works - so I don't get how u can make this assertion;


you realize that you have just tried to utilize the single greatest strength of scientific method as a rationale for dismissing it, right? meaning that, the reason the theories change is because, as new and improved evidence comes to light, the theories adapt; the reason new evidence comes to light is because scientific method never presumes to be "done" with a given line of inquiry - the drive to continually refine and expand knowledge is what underlies the approach, and that is why theories change (unlike millennia old ideas about "qi", which we are supposed to accept de facto, and never challenge at baseline)

amazing...


Here is some links you can read on a little of what is

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

So enjoy

[Hendrik]

it wasn't a lie or a con, but it is a typical conceit on Hendrik's part - it's sort of a disingenuous "false modesty" tactic that he uses to try to appear open-minded when in fact he has a very fixed perspective that he will never deviate from; it's the same mindset as robin hood and xiyindi (or whatever), which dictates that any deviation from the orthodoxy of 'classical" qigong practice is indicative of only one thing: incomplete study / understanding thereof;

that's the saddest part, really - the idea that the only explanation for not adhering to the party-line vis a vis qigong is due to improper training / practice; they will never get it into their heads that there are people out there who are classically trained to a high level, have had the same experiences, but have come away from it with a very different set of beliefs / opinions - their ONLY answer is that these people obviously did it wrong / never actually experienced the "real" thing;

they think that there is only one accepted way of talking about it; they also think that contemporary scientific method of examining / describing phenomena is intrinsically inadequate to the task of analyzing what goes on in the body during / as a result of qigong practice; they think that you can only describe the process in "classical" taoist terms; they could never believe that current knowledge of anatomy /physiology could do so; the funniest part is that they dismiss contemporary anatomy/physiology knowledge base as applied to qigong without ever having studied it! so when I come along, having had in depth classical qigong training as well as Master degree level training in anatomy / phys, plus 15 years of successfully using "holistic" manual therapy approach and therapeutic qigong with actual real patients, what can they say? all they can say is that I've been doing it wrong all of these years - there is no discussion, no debate, just that I have no idea what I am talking about - simply because I do not agree with their perspective;

amazing...


say anything you like,

I am indeed a beginner by the Qi mastering standard.

and there is no such thing as Open minded in Qigong basic, either one knows it or one doesnt.


either one accept these facts or not they are facts in Qigong training.

Qigong is not philosophy speculation which is can be anything.

[taai gihk yahn]

You like scientific, there is true scientific research there
no; what u linked to is NOT "true scientific research"; it's bad research that violates principles of "true scientific" method;


why dont you contact them ?
why? it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand; it's not any of our job to inform them that their research is poor; what would contacting them yield?


I have no interest in persue you at all.
which is ur typical response when someone provides a reasoned counter argument to something you post (that and "I accept everything you say" or "believe what u like" or "hahahahaha"); it's astounding how a grown, educated man defaults to acting in such a childish manner when confronted in a rationale manner...

[Hendrik]

which is even more ironic, since two of the cornerstones of that segment of belief are Taoism and Buddhism, fundamental archetypes of change and impermanence!


does not mean one take every nonsense and agree with it.

[Hendrik]

no; what u linked to is NOT "true scientific research"; it's bad research that violates principles of "true scientific" method;


why? it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand; it's not any of our job to inform them that their research is poor; what would contacting them yield?


which is ur typical response when someone provides a reasoned counter argument to something you post (that and "I accept everything you say" or "believe what u like" or "hahahahaha"); it's astounding how a grown, educated man defaults to acting in such a childish manner when confronted in a rationale manner...




between you and U of Penn researchers, I go with the U of Penn.

for the discussion: i present my part from the trackable U of Penn researchers and the basic two questions for real Qigong practitioners. one can choose any direction they like to go with or not going with.

you can take thing as you like and believe anything you like, I am ok with it.

[anerlich]

Science observes gravity everywhere and cannot explain how it works.

You're an arts major, I assume. :rolleyes: Unless they are conferring degrees in ignorance these days.

Gravity is well enough understood for just about all interactions at the human level. Newtonian physics is more than adequate for the vast majority of real world applications.

There are some aspects of it that are still a mystery and not well explained by existing theories, such as its relationship to the other fundamental forces.

But as far as anything to do with human movement or martial arts is concerned, gravity is well understood.

If you decide to stop out of a 20th floor window, science can predict very well how long it will take you to hit the ground, your velocity when you do so, and predict what will happen to your body upon impact. It can't make absolute predictions on what goes on at the subatomic level, but that probably won't be one of your major concerns.


Here is some links you can read on a little of what is

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...uestion232.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

So enjoy

Did you read these articles? IMO they negate rather strengthen your assertions.

Kind of ironic that the anti-science lobby on here are only able to b*tch about it thanks to a medium which only exists because of scientific discoveries.

[Paddington]

taai gihk yahn, I share your frustrations. This is why when I have some money I will go travel and chi sau with them to check their claims. I think I have enough wing chun experience now, to know what to feel and look for.

[taai gihk yahn]

say anything you like,
I will; thank you


I am indeed a beginner
then u really shouldn't be on here talking about it like you know anything, should you?
and you certainly shouldn't be teaching students or putting up instructional videos, should you?
and if after so many decades of practice you are still a beginner, maybe it's because you are doing it all wrong?


by the Qi mastering standard.
and what / who's "standard" is that? your particular lineage's? the PRC? who sets the standard?


and there is no such thing as Open minded in Qigong basic, either one knows it or one doesnt.
believe what you like (hey - that works pretty nicely, actually; hmmm...)


either one accept these facts or not they are facts in Qigong training.
that is your believes (wow; did it again; this is pretty addictive...)


Qigong is not philosophy speculation which is can be anything.
it's certainly not speculation; however, it's not as exclusive as you may like to think it is either;

[anerlich]

between you and U of Penn researchers, I go with the U of Penn.

Between you and TGY, I'm going with him.


does not mean one take every nonsense and agree with it.

Yep, I'm rejecting your nonsense.

[Hendrik]

then u really shouldn't be on here talking about it like you know anything, should you?
and you certainly shouldn't be teaching students or putting up instructional videos, should you?
and if after so many decades of practice you are still a beginner, maybe it's because you are doing it all wrong? -------------------


Any beginner can present the principle, and those who follow the principle will progress. it is about the principle.




and what / who's "standard" is that? your particular lineage's? the PRC? who sets the standard?-------------


go nothing to do with PRC or whose lineage, it got to do with the Qi phenomenon.

So , do one needs to handle the Zhen Qi temperature or not?
Yes? why and how?
No ? why?






believe what you like (hey - that works pretty nicely, actually; hmmm...)

that is your believes (wow; did it again; this is pretty addictive...)

it's certainly not speculation; however, it's not as exclusive as you may like to think it is either; --------------------


everyone is free to choose their believe.

[Robinhood]

Here is a simple link for people who have a problem understanding long articles

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_gravity_work


Enjoy

[taai gihk yahn]

does not mean one take every nonsense and agree with it.
like the "research" you cite


between you and U of Penn researchers,
what "U Penn researchers"? there r no names on the study, except that they were "hosted" by a Dr. Neeley (who does not claim authorship)


I go with the U of Penn.
sure, because is convenient for you; in the face of a point by point dissection (and not even an exhaustive one) of the methodological flaws inherent in that "research", u just bury ur head in the sand and go with anonymous authors, just because...
you like to talk about the immutable "fact" oif qi mastery standard - how about the standard of acceptable scientific method research? how do u choose to ignore this easily verifiable standard?


for the discussion: i present my part from the trackable U of Penn researchers and the basic two questions for real Qigong practitioners. one can choose any direction they like to go with or not going with.

you can take thing as you like and believe anything you like, I am ok with it.

yes, we know that u r ok with it, etc., etc., etc.; doesn't change the fact that it's badly written research;

[taai gihk yahn]

Between you and TGY, I'm going with him.



Yep, I'm rejecting your nonsense.

everyone is free to believe as they like (just saving Hendrik the trouble ;) )

[taai gihk yahn]

Here is some links you can read on a little of what is

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

So enjoy



Did you read these articles? IMO they negate rather strengthen your assertions.

Kind of ironic that the anti-science lobby on here are only able to b*tch about it thanks to a medium which only exists because of scientific discoveries.

seriously - what exactly is his point in linking to them? to demonstrate that there is in fact a large body of evidence supporting the various theories in question? weird...

[Robinhood]

You're an arts major, I assume. :rolleyes: Unless they are conferring degrees in ignorance these days.

Gravity is well enough understood for just about all interactions at the human level. Newtonian physics is more than adequate for the vast majority of real world applications.

There are some aspects of it that are still a mystery and not well explained by existing theories, such as its relationship to the other fundamental forces.

But as far as anything to do with human movement or martial arts is concerned, gravity is well understood.

If you decide to stop out of a 20th floor window, science can predict very well how long it will take you to hit the ground, your velocity when you do so, and predict what will happen to your body upon impact. It can't make absolute predictions on what goes on at the subatomic level, but that probably won't be one of your major concerns.



Did you read these articles? IMO they negate rather strengthen your assertions.

Kind of ironic that the anti-science lobby on here are only able to b*tch about it thanks to a medium which only exists because of scientific discoveries.

We are talking about the medium for gravity, and being able to measure it. They don't know what it is and can't measure it.

Medium........., m e d I u m , not measure gravity.

[Hendrik]

like the "research" you cite


what "U Penn researchers"? there r no names on the study, except that they were "hosted" by a Dr. Neeley (who does not claim authorship)


sure, because is convenient for you; in the face of a point by point dissection (and not even an exhaustive one) of the methodological flaws inherent in that "research", u just bury ur head in the sand and go with anonymous authors, just because...
you like to talk about the immutable "fact" oif qi mastery standard - how about the standard of acceptable scientific method research? how do u choose to ignore this easily verifiable standard?



yes, we know that u r ok with it, etc., etc., etc.; doesn't change the fact that it's badly written research;


The fact is

http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1178446&postcount=631

[Paddington]

I think you guys need to start taking these debates to PMs. The signal to noise ratio is getting a wee bit unbalanced in this thread.

[Hendrik]

so, which Qigong expert like TGY like to precisely and accurately answer these basic questions on What is Qi?


and what / who's "standard" is that? your particular lineage's? the PRC? who sets the standard?-------------


go nothing to do with PRC or whose lineage, it got to do with the Qi phenomenon.

So , do one needs to handle the Zhen Qi temperature or not?
Yes? why and how?
No ? why?

[Hendrik]

I think you guys need to start taking these debates to PMs. The signal to noise ratio is getting a wee bit unbalanced in this thread.

that is true.

[taai gihk yahn]

The fact is

http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1178446&postcount=631

again, why? ur continually telling people to contact the 'researchers" has no bearing on the fact that the research is clearly of poor quality (as presented) and does not support your, or anyone else's position;

[taai gihk yahn]

I think you guys need to start taking these debates to PMs. The signal to noise ratio is getting a wee bit unbalanced in this thread.
why? this is the whole point of this thread - to debate "qi";


so, which Qigong expert like TGY like to precisely and accurately answer these basic questions on What is Qi?
I have made my views very clear on this thread as to what I think "qi" is; if u really care about my opinion, go back and read them yourself


So , do one needs to handle the Zhen Qi temperature or not?
Yes? why and how?
No ? why?[/B]
see, again, you ask these questions not to stimulate discussion, but so that, if someone answers in a manner differently from what you believe is correct, u can use it as justification for ur perspective; that said, here's one from ur playbook: if you already know, why bother to ask?


that is true.
sure, because it saves you from being hauled out to the shed in public;

[Hendrik]

see, again, you ask these questions not to stimulate discussion, but so that, if someone answers in a manner differently from what you believe is correct, u can use it as justification for ur perspective; that said, here's one from ur playbook: if you already know, why bother to ask?



if one knows the phenomenon of Qi, one will not think as above.

[taai gihk yahn]

if one knows the phenomenon of Qi, one will not think as above.

I know the phenomenon of "qi" and I do think as above; prove me wrong;

[Xian]

you are correct, i did leave it out; I did first because because it wasn't what I was speaking to, and second, frankly it was just such a sh1t-silly statement that it didn't even warrant acknowledgement / comment

but thanks fer pointin' that out there... :rolleyes:

To be honest I have to disagree. Lets take molecules for example. You cannot see them, lets take atoms for example you cannot see them, lets take quarks and neutrons for example. You cannot see them,even with a microscop you cannot see them. We even cant be sure how the really look like but we have found a way to know that they exist.

I think this is your point, even If we cant see them we somehow can dectect them, I would say you are true,but I also say Qi is "only " a form of matter which we arent able to detect right now through science. This can make you to come to the conclusion the Qi may not excist but for me this is would be your personal belief.

To maybe further strengthen my opinion look at CERN and what is needed to detect different kinds of other particles and matters. Its very difficult, so how can we say we can are able to detect everything at our current point. Science made a great deal improving the life of many people but it definitely does not reach that point that it knows all. And that is no contradiction to, say that science is not good or my belief is bigger than yours (you know what I mean;) )


Best regards,
Xian

[Scott R. Brown]

Crazy eh, just another example of the ego nature of the forum.

Really, whatever one person believes what does it matter, how does it effect your life in reality?? It doesn't. One can believe in chi blasts all they want, it doesn't effect my life in anyway, except when I identify with a belief that is against another belief, then the ego gets in the way and volia, a 647 post thread on nothingness...

gotta lol...:eek:

James

Not all disagreement is motivated by ego, often times it is based upon principle, and sometimes it is to pass the time, and to have fun.

Your comment could be taken to be motivated by your own ego, so it might be wise to use caution when speculating about the motivations of others.

The purpose of debate is to stimulate thought and broaden ones present system of beliefs. Debate is not for everyone; conflict makes some people uncomfortable. But life is an ongoing interplay between opposing forces often referred to as Yin and Yang.

While conflict is often uncomfortable, it is the vitalizing force of life. It is necessary for change and growth to occur.

The superior attitude some people affect when criticizing the dynamic interplay of opposing ideas is a reflection of their own misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of the most basic principle of Tao.

[taai gihk yahn]

Not all disagreement is motivated by ego, often times it is based upon principle, and sometimes it is to pass the time, and to have fun.

Your comment could be taken to be motivated by your own ego, so it might be wise to use caution when speculating about the motivations of others.

The purpose of debate is to stimulate thought and broaden ones present system of beliefs. Debate is not for everyone; conflict makes some people uncomfortable. But life is an ongoing interplay between opposing forces often referred to as Yin and Yang.

While conflict is often uncomfortable, it is the vitalizing force of life. It is necessary for change and growth to occur.

The superior attitude some people affect when criticizing the dynamic interplay of opposing ideas is a reflection of their own misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of the most basic principle of Tao.

Oh, shut up

(I only say this in order to vitalize you through conflict)

[Scott R. Brown]

if one knows the phenomenon of Qi, one will not think as above.

This comment demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the phenomenon known as qi and is why you are still a beginner. You have not been taught, and have not realized on your own, the most basic principles of Tao.

Without an understanding of the most basic principles of Tao it will be unlikely you will ever progress beyond the beginners stage.

While I applaud your desire to help others learn and grow, until you realize your own lack of understanding you do more harm than good while attempting to assist others.

It is like a bicycle rider trying to help another person learn how to drive a car. The two have a cursory relationship, and but the one is not the other and well intentioned help can actually do more harm than good.

[Scott R. Brown]

Oh, shut up

(I only say this in order to vitalize you through conflict)

I appreciate your vitalizing actions, however, I know your motivation to be purely selfish. I know how much you enjoy evading .50 cal rounds. :p

[taai gihk yahn]

To be honest I have to disagree. Lets take molecules for example. You cannot see them, lets take atoms for example you cannot see them, lets take quarks and neutrons for example. You cannot see them,even with a microscop you cannot see them. We even cant be sure how the really look like but we have found a way to know that they exist.

I think this is your point, even If we cant see them we somehow can dectect them, I would say you are true,but I also say Qi is "only " a form of matter which we arent able to detect right now through science. This can make you to come to the conclusion the Qi may not excist but for me this is would be your personal belief.

To maybe further strengthen my opinion look at CERN and what is needed to detect different kinds of other particles and matters. Its very difficult, so how can we say we can are able to detect everything at our current point. Science made a great deal improving the life of many people but it definitely does not reach that point that it knows all. And that is no contradiction to, say that science is not good or my belief is bigger than yours (you know what I mean;) )


Best regards,
Xian

I'm not even sure what your point here is, as you are kind of all over the place with your post;

you seem to be attempting a rather circuitous justification for the perspective of "just because "science" can't find it, doesn't mean that "qi" doesn't exist";

first off, I don't think it's useful to make comparisons to current research in sub-atomic physics to the idea of "qi", as they are really coming out of completely different paradigms (no matter what Fritjoff Kapra would like to think); fundamentally, the idea of "qi" arose in a cultural context wherein the idea had utility - it was a means of describing various functional principles at work in the human body and the world, based on synthesis of macro-observation; if we r talking about alchemical cultivation, it was used as a means of qualifying the various body-based experiences people had as the result of meditation /qigong, in the absence of knowledge regarding things like the physiology of the autonomic nervous system; meaning that, the experience preceded the concept: if I look at anything from weather patterns to sick people, if I want to be able to make a descriptive or predictive statement in order to be able to interact with a given system in a way that is beneficial to me (predicting weather, stopping a disease process, etc.), I need a platform for that information to be synthesized and discussed amongst others; talking about the "qi" of a weather system or a person's body allows me to organize and communicate information - so in a way, "qi" is a heuristic of sorts; the "real" part are the various phenomena I might look at: in the case of a person, things like pulse, tongue color, etc. are all "real" - the pattern I come up with as a result, for example, "kidney yin deficiency", is not a real thing in the sense that a bacterial infection of the kidney is, but it's a useful means of working with that system; so I think it's a bit more complex than just saying "qi" is a "force" or "thing" - for example, u can talk about the "qi" in someone's hands, in their voice, in their eyes, in their general demeanor; these are all very different things: what u feel in my hands is heat and possibly some form of electromagnetism; what u hear in my voice is sound waves; what u see in my eyes is light waves - ALL these natural phenomena contribute to assessment /experience of "qi"; same with cooking: people talk about "wok qi" - well, u didn't add a specific ingredient called "qi" to ur cooking, but the combination of elements: ingredients, technique, timing, attitude of the chef during preparation - these all combine to make up a given dish's "wok qi"; could u run an experiment on that dish to find that ineffable thing u r calling "qi"? no; but it still "exists" as a functional descriptor;

I'm not trying to dismiss "qi", I'm trying to qualify it in a way that makes it meaningful, and take it OUTSIDE of the realm of objective research in a way that preserves its utility; those people who keep barking about "qi" is "x" r the ones who r shooting themselves in the foot, because they are trying to reify something that doesn't need to be reified - it stands on its own as such

[Scott R. Brown]

It is way too hard to read a well reasoned and thoughtful post on qi.

Tripe is so much easier to understand.

[Paddington]

why? this is the whole point of this thread - to debate "qi";


I was referring to diversionary rhetorical tactics such as 'gravity' etc.

[anerlich]

We are talking about the medium for gravity, and being able to measure it. They don't know what it is and can't measure it.

Medium........., m e d I u m , not measure gravity.

Actually, we are talking about qi, in spite of your attempts to derail the conversation when you are losing the argument, by making inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about irrelevant subjects.

[anerlich]

Tripe is so much easier to understand.

And, manifestly, to produce. :cool:

[anerlich]

I think this is your point, even If we cant see them we somehow can dectect them, I would say you are true,but I also say Qi is "only " a form of matter which we arent able to detect right now through science.

IMO this type of thinking was debunked by Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument.

"Because we can't detect it, we can't detect its absence, therefore we can't say it doesn't exist. Therefore, it exists."

$DING$! No sale.

[anerlich]

it doesn't effect my life in anyway

It got you posting on the forum.

[Scott R. Brown]

In other words, it exists because I say it exists. Which also means it doesn't exist because I say it doesn't.

Therefore it doesn't exist because I say so........ and frankly neither do any of you exist, unless I decide you do......... which I am willing to do for a small gratuity from each and every one of you.

[anerlich]

And that is no contradiction to, say that science is not good or my belief is bigger than yours (you know what I mean )

Actually, I doubt anyone has a clue WTF you are on about.

[k gledhill]

Are we there yet ...?

[Scott R. Brown]

Are we there yet ...?

Well never left!

[Matthew]

Interesting Discussion everyone

Wanted to comment on the word 'science' being used with some very.. interesting context.

I'd say science is a process and not an end goal instead of people here implying otherwise.

I think applying it to Qi could be great.. And so when we criticize the current research that is out on Qi, (as I often criticize the lack of research on a lot of things), maybe we should consider

1) Science is a process, that has to start somewhere (and is not an end in and of itself).

Whether or not a study was double blind, properly randomized, sample sized correctly, accounted for everything... is relevant, but does not mean it is not science.

Let's be humbled to remember that Chemistry started as medieval alchemy in people thinking they were wizards mixing potions! I'll put my money that it was repeated observation, trial, and recording results (process!) that brought it to where it is today, and not swearing, name calling, and temper tantrums.

2) That process is dependent on funding, and usually possible return on investment from funding (Through state/federal research grants, results through new medicines/breakthroughs that are sellable, etc)

It's no wonder there is not extensive research being done. (Yes there are some organizations funding research, and if you think their standards could be raised, why not contact and reach out to them to talk with them. They're probably human too)

3) Qi is not a profitable research industry, and thus has attracted little interest in the west thus-far (let's compare to the most common researched medical things, pharmaceutical/medical treatment equipment, etc)

It is easy to spend time criticizing quality of others research without considering their constraints.

[Matthew]

Does anyone have contacts they know or has anyone contacted the researchers who have already began preliminary Qi research? ( instead of complaining they didn't do enough with their research? )

What did they Say? It might benefit this thread!

Do we know what kind of funding/time/manpower restraints they were under?

Are there constructive criticisms we can posit instead of "they didn't do this, that, the other thing?


I don't think many people are able to make a living in Qi research, beyond those actively teaching the methods for cultivating it instead of arguing on the internet whether it exists or not.

Maybe that is why all of our current knowledge on Qi is through more "clinical" approach of thousands of years of cultivators instead of the funded/backed industry that scientific process largely is/requires.

[Hendrik]

This comment demonstrates your basic misunderstanding of the phenomenon known as qi and is why you are still a beginner. You have not been taught, and have not realized on your own, the most basic principles of Tao.

Without an understanding of the most basic principles of Tao it will be unlikely you will ever progress beyond the beginners stage.

While I applaud your desire to help others learn and grow, until you realize your own lack of understanding you do more harm than good while attempting to assist others.

It is like a bicycle rider trying to help another person learn how to drive a car. The two have a cursory relationship, and but the one is not the other and well intentioned help can actually do more harm than good.



Scott,

your view is based on philosophy which seems right but it is not that way.


What happen is the Qigong has three process,
1, turn Jin into Qi
2, Turn Qi into Shen
3, Return Shen to emptiness

So, the first step is a Chemistry step which is dealling with matter. if one cannot get passed this step then all the philosphy are just wishfull thinking book learning. it is not about understanding Tao or Lao Tzu, it is does one has the process to do the transformation.


they will not be able to go into Turn Qi into Shen, and never will be able to attain the Dao in the Emptiness state. all the book reading knowledge is just a wish. in the real life when one get into the Emptiness state, that is the real Dao, that dimension is inconcievable via book reading imagination.

Thus, any one who claim to practice Qigong, must go through the physical transformation process which how Zhen Qi is develop and grow.

only after the Qi level is up to some high energy state level the next state can occur.




For healing, and martial art, the minimum, one needs to be able to handle the first state or the turn Jin into Qi level. not able to do so doesnt really know Qigong.

That is a very beginer state.

Those who claim to stand, relax, lead by mind without knowing the turn Jin into Qi process are just BSing others.

Those who have gone through the turn Jin into Qi state will be able to go to any University Research Lab to let the research examine their development, it has not mysterious at all.


I ask the two questions purposly to tell the western friends, dont buy in to BS where everyone called Qi and also do not be ignoranced by just studying some relaxation or mantra chanting or deep breathing or Dao or Zen to thinking one knows what it is.

The bottom line is, only if one goes through the transform jin into Qi process one has handling on Qi basic, and the two questions are a must , similar to those who is in the chemistry lab for chemical reaction.

Thus, for the phenomenon called Qi, the reality is not philosphy or understanding but chemical reaction handle by basic human functions.



there is no point to talk about Zhen Qi when one doesnt have it . there is no point to critic on scientific research when one is not those university researchers who has seen the real thing.

[sihing]

Not all disagreement is motivated by ego, often times it is based upon principle, and sometimes it is to pass the time, and to have fun.
Scott, you bring up a good point, and I agree, not all disagreement is based on ego, but more about maybe learning about another's perpective, and yes to pass sometime and have fun:) Good points..it is just that by this point in the discussion, some 640+post later if one's point of discussion isn't understood by now, and one continues to discuss is it really about relaying their ideas to another, or is it about trying to change someone's mind to concurr with what they are saying?

Your comment could be taken to be motivated by your own ego, so it might be wise to use caution when speculating about the motivations of others.
I agree again. We all have ego, it's a social thing, and to function in a society you need ego, as it is sort of like a mask or role playing, we all act a bit differently in different social situations. The key thing in my experience is, are you aware of the different masks one wears? And if so, can you not identify with that mask once that social requirement is over?

The purpose of debate is to stimulate thought and broaden ones present system of beliefs. Debate is not for everyone; conflict makes some people uncomfortable. But life is an ongoing interplay between opposing forces often referred to as Yin and Yang.
I agree with you again for the most part, debate definetly stimulates thought on certain matters, but until you can feel what I feel (and visa versa) we will never really know what the other is experientially, and when it comes to subjects like "Chi/Qi" debating it in the written form is only a intellectual endeavour, intellec is only one form of life and realization.

While conflict is often uncomfortable, it is the vitalizing force of life. It is necessary for change and growth to occur.
Thru conflict one can change, or change others, this is just one way. One can also just understand life thru their observation of it within themselves and the reality of it thru their own experience, with no need to share it or hypothesis about it.

The superior attitude some people affect when criticizing the dynamic interplay of opposing ideas is a reflection of their own misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of the most basic principle of Tao.
Nothing superior about making an observation based on ones own experiences, some of us just say it how we see it, no descernment on whether their own way is superior or not superior, just stating an observation


Sorry still not adapt at the multi quote function:)

J

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott:

While conflict is often uncomfortable, it is the vitalizing force of life. It is necessary for change and growth to occur.


sihing:

Thru conflict one can change, or change others, this is just one way. One can also just understand life thru their observation of it within themselves and the reality of it thru their own experience, with no need to share it or hypothesis about it.


You misunderstand my meaning. One way of viewing the interplay of Yin-Yang is conflict. The interaction of Yin-Yang is not merely a conflict between two people; it is also conflict between any two principles. I describe it as, The principle of "Equilibrium and Disequilibrium"!

When a condition is in Equilibrium there is no motivation to change, this is because Equilibrium is a pleasant condition. But, when Disequilibrium is the present condition there is a motivation to change. This is because Disequilibrium is unpleasant. When the present condition is in a state of Disequilibrium, the motivation is to return to Equilibrium and this motivates change in order to return to Equilibrium. Equilibrium is not a permanent condition of being; there is always a dynamic interplay between Equilibrium and Disequilibrium, Yin and Yang. Equilibrium eventually becomes Disequilibrium which motivates change and a thus a return to Equilibrium, it is an eternal and unchanging cycle.

It is immaterial whether the interplay/conflict is between two people or the person and their own introspective interactions. The principle applies to all circumstances of change/conflict without variation and is one of the core principles of Tao.

__________________________________________________ _______________


Scott:

The superior attitude some people affect when criticizing the dynamic interplay of opposing ideas is a reflection of their own misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of the most basic principle of Tao.


sihing:

Nothing superior about making an observation based on ones own experiences, some of us just say it how we see it, no descernment on whether their own way is superior or not superior, just stating an observation.


If this were the case, there would be no need to mention it in the first place and has no bearing on whether one understands the underlying principles of Tao or not.

__________________________________________________ ________________


Scott:

Not all disagreement is motivated by ego, often times it is based upon principle, and sometimes it is to pass the time, and to have fun.



sihing:

....it is just that by this point in the discussion, some 640+post later if one's point of discussion isn't understood by now, and one continues to discuss is it really about relaying their ideas to another, or is it about trying to change someone's mind to concurr with what they are saying?

In which case we enter the realm of discussion for the enjoyment of the interaction, right? People tend to continue actions they get something out of; as long as they are getting something out of a specific action, it is likely the action will continue.

Counting posts is immaterial and a waste of time. I have been on the BB for over 10 years, this discussion has occurred many, many times, 10, 20, 30 who knows how many times. I still find the discussion interesting and compelling. Hendrik and I alone have said the same things to each other for years now, but we still enjoy the interaction or we would not engage in it.

It is also immaterial whether any consensus is ever reached. Consensus leads to boredom. It is conflict that is the vitalizing principle, Disequilibrium, not Equilibrium. Equilibrium is for rest and recuperation. Disequilibrium is where the action occurs.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,

your view is based on philosophy which seems right but it is not that way.


What happen is the Qigong has three process,
1, turn Jin into Qi
2, Turn Qi into Shen
3, Return Shen to emptiness

So, the first step is a Chemistry step which is dealling with matter. if one cannot get passed this step then all the philosphy are just wishfull thinking book learning. it is not about understanding Tao or Lao Tzu, it is does one has the process to do the transformation.

This is your fundamental error. There is a cause and effect process here, the cause and effect process follows the principles of Tao. Tao is not simply a philosophy; it is an identification and description of the principles and processes of life/existence/the objective and subjective worlds. When one understands the underlying principles one has the keys to the all things that spring from Tao, which is all things.

Assuming the existence of Qi, it is a phenomenon that is a function of Tao. It has its own principles and complies with the law of cause and effect.

If Tao is the root, which it is of all things, Qi would a branch, or perhaps a leaf. One of the underlying principles of Tao is, "Understand The Root And You Understand The Entire Tree!"

Qi is merely a phenomenon that follows the principles of Tao. If one understands the principles of Tao, one understands Qi.

The principles of Qi are specific, just as are the principles of gravity, water, weather, etc.

One of the principles of Qi is that it may be intentionally manipulated to produce specific effects. However, just because it may be intentionally manipulated does not mean it SHOULD be intentionally manipulated. That is, just because we can do it does not mean it is in our best interest to do so.

Just as the atom may be manipulated to bring useful energy, so it may be manipulated to bring horrific destruction. But even when we manipulate the atom to bring useful energy, there is always a undesirable consequence that attends this use. This is the principle of Tao referred to as, "The Attending of Undesirable Consequences". All causes intended to provide a positive/beneficial effect will have unintended and negative/detrimental effects that attend it as well.

The principle of, "The Attending of Undesirable Consequences" thus applies to the cultivation of Qi. And it is these undesirable consequences that generally go unrecognized by teachers and students. (I am not speaking here of Qi Gong Psychosis which is generally recognized as an attending undesirable consequence by many teachers and practitioners.)

So, concerning Qi:

The fact is, Qi will naturally balance itself whenever interference is absent. The only useful purpose of Qi Gong, then, is to help one learn to stop interfering with the flow of Qi.

However, most systems of Qi Gong intend to artificially increase the collection and flow of Qi and this is abnormal to the natural process; so with it comes unintended and undesirable consequences. The problem is these consequences are, more often than not, unrecognized by the student and most teachers because many teachers only understand the cause and effect relationship between the collection, storage and manipulation of Qi and not the underlying principles of Qi. It is important to understand the underlying principles of Tao that govern the natural processes of Qi.

The artificial collection and circulation of Qi tends to create a greater imbalance of Qi by interfering with Qi's natural process. The proper role of Qi Gong, then is to help the student learn to avoid actions and attitudes that create interference to Qi's natural flow. Aside from attending to injury, both psychological and physical, and illness, there is nothing to do but get out of Qi's way, so to speak.

If one eats generally healthy food, breathes as fresh of air as possible, engages in moderate exercise, and learns to decrease the level of emotional tension within their mind, Qi will be abundant and available whenever it is necessary.

If one seeks to artificially manipulate Qi, they will also artificially interfere with its natural flow causing greater imbalance and achieve less of their desired purpose.

When one collects, stores and artificially releases water from dams, they create an imbalance in the natural flow of the environment. The benefits of the imbalance this creates is sometimes worth the undesirable consequences. The same may apply to Qi development.

It is like steroid use, there are benefits and detriments to using them. The benefits are frequently short term and the detriments, frequently come along sometime in the future, but are rarely worth their use from the start.

[Scott R. Brown]

they will not be able to go into Turn Qi into Shen, and never will be able to attain the Dao in the Emptiness state. all the book reading knowledge is just a wish. in the real life when one get into the Emptiness state, that is the real Dao, that dimension is inconcievable via book reading imagination.

Thus, any one who claim to practice Qigong, must go through the physical transformation process which how Zhen Qi is develop and grow.

only after the Qi level is up to some high energy state level the next state can occur.




For healing, and martial art, the minimum, one needs to be able to handle the first state or the turn Jin into Qi level. not able to do so doesnt really know Qigong.

That is a very beginer state.

Those who claim to stand, relax, lead by mind without knowing the turn Jin into Qi process are just BSing others.

Those who have gone through the turn Jin into Qi state will be able to go to any University Research Lab to let the research examine their development, it has not mysterious at all.


I ask the two questions purposly to tell the western friends, dont buy in to BS where everyone called Qi and also do not be ignoranced by just studying some relaxation or mantra chanting or deep breathing or Dao or Zen to thinking one knows what it is.

The bottom line is, only if one goes through the transform jin into Qi process one has handling on Qi basic, and the two questions are a must , similar to those who is in the chemistry lab for chemical reaction.

Thus, for the phenomenon called Qi, the reality is not philosphy or understanding but chemical reaction handle by basic human functions.



there is no point to talk about Zhen Qi when one doesnt have it . there is no point to critic on scientific research when one is not those university researchers who has seen the real thing.

This entire process is convoluted and unnecessary.

It leads a student to further bondage which must eventually be let go of in order to reach any true realization.

Therefore, why create greater bondage to an artificial system, why study an artificially created tree and root system, when one may simply attend to the Original Root from the beginning. This is the same thing as attending to the finger pointing towards the moon instead of attending to the moon from the start.

If one finds the process enjoyable, good for them, but it is the long way around the block as well. Some people enjoy complicating their lives, they get something out of it. but the jewel is already on the headband upon your forehead, there is no reason to search the whole world for something you inherently possess from the start!;)

[Paddington]

Therefore, why create greater bondage to an artificial system, why study an artificially created tree and root system, when one may simply attend to the Original Root from the beginning.


Because one can unshackle the student for a dollar?

[Hendrik]

Assuming the existence of Qi, it is a phenomenon that is a function of Tao. It has its own principles and complies with the law of cause and effect.

If Tao is the root, which it is of all things, Qi would a branch, or perhaps a leaf. One of ..........

If one finds the process enjoyable, good for them, but it is the long way around the block as well. Some people enjoy complicating their lives, they get something out of it. but the jewel is already on the headband upon your forehead, there is no reason to search the whole world for something you inherently possess from the start!






Scott,



You are Re defining Chinese Qi gong and practice in your own way.

That is not Chinese Qigong but what you think qigong is.

Similar to the following

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




That is exactly one of the major problem in this western part of the world.
Lots of people read some philosophy books and thinking they master the qigong , in fact that is thier own definition but Not what is qigong and what is zhen qi as the Chinese has been practiced for thousand of years.

These are lots of wishful thinking and joy which i think it is great, but it is not what the chinese qigong and cannot Be cash out in the scientific research lab or applicable in health development or martial arts as the chinese qigong suppose to. That is a big part of the root of the Qi confusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,



You are Re defining Chinese Qi gong and practice in your own way.

That is not Chinese Qigong but what you think qigong is.

Similar to the following

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




That is exactly one of the major problem in this western part of the world.
Lots of people read some philosophy books and thinking they master the qigong , in fact that is thier own definition but Not what is qigong and what is zhen qi as the Chinese has been practiced for thousand of years.

These are lots of wishful thinking and joy which i think it is great, but it is not what the chinese qigong and cannot Be cash out in the scientific research lab or applicable in health development or martial arts as the chinese qigong suppose to. That is a big part of the root of the Qi confusion.

I understand it may appear that way to someone who does not have enough a comprehensive understanding of the principles of Tao. However, one cannot redefine a direct description of reality. Well, they could, but it would not be an accurate description then.

I have previously stated that qigong systems are generally not wrong, they are just in complete. They create an unnecessary artificial system. They generally accomplish something, but that something is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of qi and the underlying principles of Tao.

Nothing in creation is able to violate the underlying principles of Tao, but these principles may be in completely understood or in correctly understood and therefore misapplied.

What I am saying is that most qigong systems are incomplete.

When one comes to understand the underlying principles of Tao, it cannot be denied.

When one learns a specific system of any kind and finds satisfaction with the results they have obtained it is difficult to question the system. There is a time investment of sometimes years as well as an emotional investment. It is not unusual to be resistant to a conflicting point of view no matter how well reasoned the demonstration of proof may be.

My intention is merely to present an alternate view. Then individuals can make a more informed decision.

[Hendrik]

I understand it may appear that way to someone who does not have enough a comprehensive understanding of the principles of Tao. However, one cannot redefine a direct description of reality. Well, they could, but it would not be an accurate description then.

I have previously stated that qigong systems are generally not wrong, they are just in complete. They create an unnecessary artificial system. They generally accomplish something, but that something is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of qi and the underlying principles of Tao.

Nothing in creation is able to violate the underlying principles of Tao, but these principles may be in completely understood or in correctly understood and therefore misapplied.

What I am saying is that most qigong systems are incomplete.

When one comes to understand the underlying principles of Tao, it cannot be denied.

When one learns a specific system of any kind and finds satisfaction with the results they have obtained it is difficult to question the system. There is a time investment of sometimes years as well as an emotional investment. It is not unusual to be resistant to a conflicting point of view no matter how well reasoned the demonstration of proof may be.

My intention is merely to present an alternate view. Then individuals can make a more informed decision.


Even a baby needs to be feed properly or else it will die. Tao as many learn from books are good philosophy but cannot replace baby feeding. So, feeding and tao from reading which is the true Tao?


All philosophy is great. But feeding is always feeding, always needs to be learn and follow properly.


Qigong is a different type of baby feeding.

[sihing]

You misunderstand my meaning. One way of viewing the interplay of Yin-Yang is conflict. The interaction of Yin-Yang is not merely a conflict between two people; it is also conflict between any two principles. I describe it as, The principle of "Equilibrium and Disequilibrium"!

When a condition is in Equilibrium there is no motivation to change, this is because Equilibrium is a pleasant condition. But, when Disequilibrium is the present condition there is a motivation to change. This is because Disequilibrium is unpleasant. When the present condition is in a state of Disequilibrium, the motivation is to return to Equilibrium and this motivates change in order to return to Equilibrium. Equilibrium is not a permanent condition of being; there is always a dynamic interplay between Equilibrium and Disequilibrium, Yin and Yang. Equilibrium eventually becomes Disequilibrium which motivates change and a thus a return to Equilibrium, it is an eternal and unchanging cycle.

It is immaterial whether the interplay/conflict is between two people or the person and their own introspective interactions. The principle applies to all circumstances of change/conflict without variation and is one of the core principles of Tao.

__________________________________________________ _______________





If this were the case, there would be no need to mention it in the first place and has no bearing on whether one understands the underlying principles of Tao or not.

__________________________________________________ ________________





In which case we enter the realm of discussion for the enjoyment of the interaction, right? People tend to continue actions they get something out of; as long as they are getting something out of a specific action, it is likely the action will continue.

Counting posts is immaterial and a waste of time. I have been on the BB for over 10 years, this discussion has occurred many, many times, 10, 20, 30 who knows how many times. I still find the discussion interesting and compelling. Hendrik and I alone have said the same things to each other for years now, but we still enjoy the interaction or we would not engage in it.

It is also immaterial whether any consensus is ever reached. Consensus leads to boredom. It is conflict that is the vitalizing principle, Disequilibrium, not Equilibrium. Equilibrium is for rest and recuperation. Disequilibrium is where the action occurs.

Thanks for explaining this in more detail, I understand better now what you were stating.

If Equilibrium is pleasant, being pleasant is the ultimate goal right, or is being unpleasant the ultimate goal of living? For me being pleasant is the ultimate goal, sustainable/natural pleasantness (pleasantness that requires no outside stimuli that lasts on it's own). So for myself why would I want to bring about an unpleasant state? I can still challenge myself to learn lessons (change persay in whatever way) while in a pleasant state can't I, I know I can.

There's a point in discussions where the information being transmitted btwn the ppl discussing is no longer informative but more authorative. For sure there's lots of good information on this thread, lots of opinions and links to other info sources which is good, but from my perspective its gone to the point of ppl trying to convince other ppl that their perspective is the right one, that's when the discussion for me is pointless. Discussions are fine, arguements degrade the worth of the disscussion and the exchange of ideas and perspectives IMO.

James

[SimonM]

There's a point in discussions where the information being transmitted btwn the ppl discussing is no longer informative but more authorative

Don't forget good ol' honest trolling. :p :D

(I don't know why but I can never resist trolling a Qi thread at least a little bit.)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've been in correspondence with Penn state and so far, no info other than what was on Hendrick's original link.
I am trying to contact Dr.Neely perosnally because no one else seems to know anything about this study.
They did send me this link though, where the info was published, but liek I said, there is nothing new there:
http://u-energy.org/Energy/Energyindex_En.html

[SimonM]

The only name on that website is Li Jixing. It seems we've just been walking in more circles than a bagua practitioner.

http://www.manta.com/c/mw277n6/the-universal-energy-foundation

[Hendrik]

I've been in correspondence with Penn state and so far, no info other than what was on Hendrick's original link.
I am trying to contact Dr.Neely perosnally because no one else seems to know anything about this study.
They did send me this link though, where the info was published, but liek I said, there is nothing new there:
http://u-energy.org/Energy/Energyindex_En.html

Another interesting one with name from university

Conclusions:
"Subjects with chronic pain who received external qigong experienced reduction in pain intensity following each qigong treatment. This is especially impressive given the long duration of pain (>5 years) in the most of the participants," writes lead author Ann Vincent, MD, MBBS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

The "External Qigong for Chronic Pain" study* by researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic is published in the American Journal of Chinese Medicine, Vol. 38, No. 4, 695-703. Read the study abstract on the AJCM website. © 2010 World Scientific Publishing Company Institute for Advanced Research in Asian Science and Medicine

http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies



Just take the qi phenomenon as it is. How to classify it..ect. For me, that is similar to ether debate hundred of years ago.

[SimonM]

At least read the abstract to the study BEFORE you post it man.


At week 8, these differences in overall decreased pain intensity persisted but were not statistically significant. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20626055)

I won't assume you know what that means - it means by 8 weeks the people with the Qigong treatment didn't even PERCEIVE their treatment as really being any more effective than the people without it.

Just because the qigong company cherry-picks quotes doesn't mean the Mayo Clinic actually got the results they hoped for.

In fact the qigong people (who don't link to the abstract off their website) even say
The research findings should not be construed as an endorsement of external qigong or Spring Forest Qigong by the University of Minnesota or the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic does not make such endorsements. The research findings speak for themselves.



So sorry, better luck next time.

[Scott R. Brown]

Thanks for explaining this in more detail, I understand better now what you were stating.

If Equilibrium is pleasant, being pleasant is the ultimate goal right, or is being unpleasant the ultimate goal of living? For me being pleasant is the ultimate goal, sustainable/natural pleasantness (pleasantness that requires no outside stimuli that lasts on it's own). So for myself why would I want to bring about an unpleasant state? I can still challenge myself to learn lessons (change persay in whatever way) while in a pleasant state can't I, I know I can.

James

Well my comment is more a description of a naturally occurring process and not a value judgment. But sustaining pleasantness is impossible, which is why we constantly make changes in order to return to pleasant Equilibrium.

The natural tendency of individuals is towards pleasing circumstances, however there are circumstances that give the appearance this is not the case, when it actually is the case.

Here is an example:

My ex-wife was severely abused as a child. She grew up in an unpredictable and chaotic environment. One behavior she has developed as a consequence is to create chaos in her life. Now, chaos is generally unpleasant, however for her it is a normal, meaning common, state to be in. As a child the anticipation of impending chaos was worse than the chaos when it finally occurred, and so as an adult she tends to create chaos because when you MAKE it happen you avoid the stress of the anticipation of when it will finally occur and you have some measure of control over it because you MADE it happen. This provides her with a seeming measure of control. It is still unpleasant, but it is less unpleasant than the alternative, thus it becomes relatively pleasant.

So what appears to be a choice towards unpleasantness to you or I is actually a choice to relative pleasantness for her.

Concerning the dynamic interplay between Equilibrium and Disequilibrium, the alternation from one to the other is a natural process that occurs on its own.

For example: anytime one chooses to change anything it may be traced to a sense of Disequilibrium. Even something simple like having pancakes for breakfast instead of oatmeal. If you eat oatmeal long enough, you will eventually get tired of it. This is Disequilibrium, so for a change you choose pancakes. If this change is experienced as pleasant you may chose to continue eating pancakes until you tire of them. And eventually you will tire of them, and this is a natural process which will motivate you to once again make another change.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The only name on that website is Li Jixing. It seems we've just been walking in more circles than a bagua practitioner.

http://www.manta.com/c/mw277n6/the-universal-energy-foundation

I am trying to contact Dr.Neely and get his view on it.

[SimonM]

I am trying to contact Dr.Neely and get his view on it.

I respect your dedication; to be honest, I couldn't really be bothered to try. :)

[sihing]

Scott,
First sorry to hear about your ex wife's abuse.

As for whether pleasantness is sustainable or not sustainable. Clinical Depression is on the books as a disease right? What makes someone depressed? Various factors are at play, this event or that event in one's life, how they perceive that event and their reaction to it may cause a depression. On a chemistry level, the body has a chemistry that brings about a feeling of depression, whatever they are called(dopamene, serotonin, etc..) they are at a lower level which maintains in the person a feeling of depression. Well if a that is a sustainable state, why can't one attain a state of happiness or pleasantness thru similar circumstances? Why can't I relate to life differently, perceive in a way where I don't react to things but respond to them, where the stresses of life are not there or not effecting me in anyway (it's all about how you perceive life), can this not bring about a chemistry in my body that makes me feel pleasant? It can and does happen.

Anthony Robbins said something years ago, he said life is about "Gaining of pleasure, Avoidance of Pain", on the surface this looks like a pretty easy thing to understand and apply in ones life. But it is sort like a mathmatical equation and the example of how your ex wife dealt with things if the perfect example, her way of gaining pleasure (control) would for the most of us be an unpleasant way of doing things. Basically your ex is in the state of trying to survive, she struggled with the abuse she experienced, so on a psycological level she was at a survival level of functioning, when that is the case then whatever she needs to do to survive is justified. Not all of us are functioning on that level pyscologically, so our needs are different. As humans when survival requirements are achieved, we want more, we want to expand and experience more than what we are. If you look for this on the outside of yourself, it will always be a case of impermence or sustainability as you cannot do that thing you love to do 24/7. If its from the inside you can, thru your clarity in thought and action, the chemistry in your body will change to produce the effect of happiness naturally.

Sorry to derail the thread. Chi is alive and well in all of us, I just can't prove it to you:)

James

[Robinhood]

This is your fundamental error. There is a cause and effect process here, the cause and effect process follows the principles of Tao. Tao is not simply a philosophy; it is an identification and description of the principles and processes of life/existence/the objective and subjective worlds. When one understands the underlying principles one has the keys to the all things that spring from Tao, which is all things.

Assuming the existence of Qi, it is a phenomenon that is a function of Tao. It has its own principles and complies with the law of cause and effect.

If Tao is the root, which it is of all things, Qi would a branch, or perhaps a leaf. One of the underlying principles of Tao is, "Understand The Root And You Understand The Entire Tree!"

Qi is merely a phenomenon that follows the principles of Tao. If one understands the principles of Tao, one understands Qi.

The principles of Qi are specific, just as are the principles of gravnity, water, weather, etc.

One of the principles of Qi is that it may be intentionally manipulated to produce specific effects. However, just because it may be intentionally manipulated does not mean it SHOULD be intentionally manipulated. That is, just because we can do it does not mean it is in our best interest to do so.

Just as the atom may be manipulated to bring useful energy, so it may be manipulated to bring horrific destruction. But even when we manipulate the atom to bring useful energy, there is always a undesirable consequence that attends this use. This is the principle of Tao referred to as, "The Attending of Undesirable Consequences". All causes intended to provide a positive/beneficial effect will have unintended and negative/detrimental effects that attend it as well.

The principle of, "The Attending of Undesirable Consequences" thus applies to the cultivation of Qi. And it is these undesirable consequences that generally go unrecognized by teachers and students. (I am not speaking here of Qi Gong Psychosis which is generally recognized as an attending undesirable consequence by many teachers and practitioners.)

So, concerning Qi:

The fact is, Qi will naturally balance itself whenever interference is absent. The only useful purpose of Qi Gong, then, is to help one learn to stop interfering with the flow of Qi.

However, most systems of Qi Gong intend to artificially increase the collection and flow of Qi and this is abnormal to the natural process; so with it comes unintended and undesirable consequences. The problem is these consequences are, more often than not, unrecognized by the student and most teachers because many teachers only understand the cause and effect relationship between the collection, storage and manipulation of Qi and not the underlying principles of Qi. It is important to understand the underlying principles of Tao that govern the natural processes of Qi.

The artificial collection and circulation of Qi tends to create a greater imbalance of Qi by interfering with Qi's natural process. The proper role of Qi Gong, then is to help the student learn to avoid actions and attitudes that create interference to Qi's natural flow. Aside from attending to injury, both psychological and physical, and illness, there is nothing to do but get outiu of Qi's way, so to speak.

If one eats generally healthy food, breathes as fresh of air as possible, engages in moderate exercise, and learns to decrease the level of emotional tension within their mind, Qi will be abundant and available whenever it is necessary.

If one seeks to artificially manipulate Qi, they will also artificially interfere with its natural flow causing greater imbalance and achieve less of their desired purpose.

When one collects, stores and artificially releases water from dams, they create an imbalance in the natural flow of the environment. The benefits of the imbalance this creates is sometimes worth the undesirable consequences. The same may apply to Qi development.

It is like steroid use, there are benefits and detriments to using them. The benefits are frequently short term and the detriments, frequently come along sometime in the future, but are rarely worth their use from the start.



Scott, it sounds more like you are just talking about religious Qi, not Qi used for MA purpose.

Without doing the first step you will never find body equalibrium , you are just talking about trying to get mind equalibrium .(religion)

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott, it sounds more like you are just talking about religious Qi, not Qi used for MA purpose.

Without doing the first step you will never find body equalibreame , you are just talking about trying to get mind equalibreame .(religion)

This is not the case and again it is a reflection of a basic misunderstanding of the underlying principles of Tao. All things conform to the underlying principles of Tao because all things spring from Tao.

Therefore qi for martial arts purposes and qi for alchemical transformation purposes both follow the underlying principles of Tao, as does water, gravity, electricity, psychology and all other phenomena.

[xinyidizi]

Even a baby needs to be feed properly or else it will die. Tao as many learn from books are good philosophy but cannot replace baby feeding. So, feeding and tao from reading which is the true Tao?


All philosophy is great. But feeding is always feeding, always needs to be learn and follow properly.


Qigong is a different type of baby feeding.

I agree. Daodejing is a very pragmatic book for practicing inner cultivation not just some beautiful abstract ideas. The problem is that without a good knowledge of classical Chinese and learning the true interpretation from a legitimate teacher it all becomes something like a bunch of hippie songs. For example this one:
孔德之容，唯道是從。道之為物，唯恍唯惚。忽兮恍兮，其中有象；恍兮忽兮，其中有物。窈兮冥兮，其中有精； 其精甚真，其中有信。自古及今，其名不去，以閱衆甫。吾何以知衆甫之狀哉？以此。
A person who has practiced inner cultivation would have a very different idea about this chapter comparing to someone who hasn't.

And finally 上士聞道，勤而行之；中士聞道，若存若亡；下士聞道，大笑之。
I think in this thread those who had experienced it spoke about what they knew and those who wanted to laugh at it laughed their heads off.
As far as the current scientific articles go, I haven't seen anything conclusive about the nature of qi so inner cultivation still remains the only way to experience it. That's why my suggestion to those who haven't experienced it yet and want to learn more is that they shouldn't waste their time on some inconclusive scientific information and should find an authentic teacher so that they can experience it by themselves. Just let the university guys do the research. When the time is right they will tell us more about qi's scientific nature.

[Robinhood]

This is not the case and again it is a reflection of a basic misunderstanding of the underlying principles of Tao. All things conform to the underlying principles of Tao because all things spring from Tao.

Therefore qi for martial arts purposes and qi for alchemical transformation purposes both follow the underlying principles of Tao, as does water, gravity, electricity, psychology and all other phenomena.


You are talking religion still, which is just a belief .

So no, it is not the same.

[SimonM]

As far as the current scientific articles go, I haven't seen anything conclusive about the nature of qi so inner cultivation still remains the only way to experience it.


If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

I've heard this chestnut before. Kierkegaard said it more poetically over a century ago.

I didn't agree with his view on the matter either.

Enjoy your religion. I'm better off without it.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,
First sorry to hear about your ex wife's abuse.

As for whether pleasantness is sustainable or not sustainable. Clinical Depression is on the books as a disease right? What makes someone depressed? Various factors are at play, this event or that event in one's life, how they perceive that event and their reaction to it may cause a depression. On a chemistry level, the body has a chemistry that brings about a feeling of depression, whatever they are called(dopamene, serotonin, etc..) they are at a lower level which maintains in the person a feeling of depression. Well if a that is a sustainable state, why can't one attain a state of happiness or pleasantness thru similar circumstances? Why can't I relate to life differently, perceive in a way where I don't react to things but respond to them, where the stresses of life are not there or not effecting me in anyway (it's all about how you perceive life), can this not bring about a chemistry in my body that makes me feel pleasant? It can and does happen.

Anthony Robbins said something years ago, he said life is about "Gaining of pleasure, Avoidance of Pain", on the surface this looks like a pretty easy thing to understand and apply in ones life. But it is sort like a mathmatical equation and the example of how your ex wife dealt with things if the perfect example, her way of gaining pleasure (control) would for the most of us be an unpleasant way of doing things. Basically your ex is in the state of trying to survive, she struggled with the abuse she experienced, so on a psycological level she was at a survival level of functioning, when that is the case then whatever she needs to do to survive is justified. Not all of us are functioning on that level pyscologically, so our needs are different. As humans when survival requirements are achieved, we want more, we want to expand and experience more than what we are. If you look for this on the outside of yourself, it will always be a case of impermence or sustainability as you cannot do that thing you love to do 24/7. If its from the inside you can, thru your clarity in thought and action, the chemistry in your body will change to produce the effect of happiness naturally.

Sorry to derail the thread. Chi is alive and well in all of us, I just can't prove it to you:)

James

It is important to remember that pleasant is only pleasant because it is contrasted with what is not-pleasant. If not-pleasant is absent from your experience you cannot experience pleasant. This is a fundamental law of Tao in which there can be no deviation.

All existence is predicated upon the contrasting of phenomena, and this is symbolized by Yin-Yang.

A persistent state of pleasantness is unnatural and would eventually lead to a feeling of unpleasantness. Eat nothing but your favorite food long enough and you will wish for something else. This wish for something else is the Disequilibrium that motivates you to search for something else to eat, for a change.

[Scott R. Brown]

You are talking religion still, which is just a belief .

So no, it is not the same.

No it is not religion. It has nothing to do nothing religion.

The study of Tao is the pursuit of an understanding of the underlying principles that govern all aspects of existence. It is a form of study separate from the acceptance of unproven belief. It is not a belief, it is knowledge, similar to the understanding that water is wet or fire is hot. You only believe these when you accept another's report, it is knowledge when the phenomenon is directly experienced.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've heard this chestnut before. Kierkegaard said it more poetically over a century ago.

I didn't agree with his view on the matter either.

Enjoy your religion. I'm better off without it.

Sure, a fine definition for God is that which no greater thing can be conceived and to state that IF one can understand God then it isn't God MAY have its logic, BUT that is because God is outside nature.
Qi is supposedly OF nature, a part of nature and can even be observed.
As such, if those things are correct, then like anything else in/of nature, it can be studied and commented on.
And it has but it seems that whenever science does comment on it, whatever "it" is, it is not qi for someone.

[Robinhood]

No it is not religion. It has nothing to do nothing religion.

The study of Tao is the pursuit of an understanding of the underlying principles that govern all aspects of existence. It is a form of study separate from the acceptance of unproven belief. It is not a belief, it is knowledge, similar to the understanding that water is wet or fire is hot. You only believe these when you accept another's report, it is knowledge when the phenomenon is directly experienced.


Understanding and transforming are two different things, people read and understand the bible, they are still same person, just might have new belief, no physical transformation , you just believe the Tao, you have not done the work to transform, just religious belief of how things work.

[xinyidizi]

I've heard this chestnut before. Kierkegaard said it more poetically over a century ago.

I didn't agree with his view on the matter either.

Enjoy your religion. I'm better off without it.

Perhaps Kierkegaard didn't know about qigong, that's why he used the word "believe" instead of "know". Qigong gives us the ability to explore the unknown by ourselves as opposed to reading about it in religious books or by listening to the stories of a priest.

[SimonM]

You reject the questions of systemic knowledge, arguing instead for an understanding that is both experiential and defies rational systematization. That's precisely what the most religious of the early existentialists said about faith. You may not understand it, but you are speaking out of his tradition.

[sihing]

It is important to remember that pleasant is only pleasant because it is contrasted with what is not-pleasant. If not-pleasant is absent from your experience you cannot experience pleasant. This is a fundamental law of Tao in which there can be no deviation.

All existence is predicated upon the contrasting of phenomena, and this is symbolized by Yin-Yang.

A persistent state of pleasantness is unnatural and would eventually lead to a feeling of unpleasantness. Eat nothing but your favorite food long enough and you will wish for something else. This wish for something else is the Disequilibrium that motivates you to search for something else to eat, for a change.

Yes I agree, with the contrasting unpleasantness there would be no realization of pleasantness (I know getting to philosophical). That being so, I'd rather be pleasant than unpleasant:)

Scott, have you ever experienced a consistent state of pleasantness over a long period of time? If so was the result your inner feeling turning to an unpleasant feeling?

Now is pleasantness unnatural? Are we born, then as children in unpleasant states naturally? I was quite pleasant as a kid, someone had to "make" me unpleasant, and I thoroughly am aware of the differences btwn how I was feeling then as a normal state of feeling compared to most of my adult life, an inconsistent feeling of pleasantness more based on things outside of myself (achievements, relationships, status, materialism, etc...). I see children everyday at work, and in my private life, most all of them are skipping around, gazing at the environment, smiles on their faces and look to me to be in pleasant states. Only if they are sick, or in very negative environments are they looking down and unpleasant. Of course just generalizing, not talking about kids with pyscological disorders and such.

I do agree that the intensity of the feeling of pleasantness may subside and level out. But in this state, wouldn't one become more introspective and maybe want to learn more about things, creation things and explore more about what life is all about? That's possible, as well as the feeling to help others achieve this state as well, as the world would certainly be a better place with more pleasant ppl around:)

Again, if you r looking for things outside of yourself (e.g. looking for something different to eat is looking outside of yourself for pleasure), then you will always be this way, something may hold your searching for awhile but then that feeling comes back, that feeling of incompleteness, and the search begins again. Achieveing it naturally as a state of being in my book is a much better way to live. That doesn't mean I don't want to experience things and do different things, it is just I have a choice and am not attached to these things as ways to make me happy.

Regulated chi in the body, like an car engine with all the fluids at correct levels and running smoothly thru the engine, for us that makes the body work better, more efficiently and may increase your mood to a more pleasant state.

James

[Scott R. Brown]

Yes I agree, with the contrasting unpleasantness there would be no realization of pleasantness (I know getting to philosophical). That being so, I'd rather be pleasant than unpleasant:)

Yes, people tend towards the pleasant and avoidance of the unpleasant. Movement towards the pleasant is generally a movement towards Equilibrium.


Scott, have you ever experienced a consistent state of pleasantness over a long period of time? If so was the result your inner feeling turning to an unpleasant feeling?

Yes, I have. But what you end up with eventually is gradations/variations of pleasantness!

It is important to remember that contrasting principles are not necessarily opposites. This is one of the most common misunderstandings concerning Yin-Yang. Yin-Yang is commonly described as, “mutually complementary opposites”, but this is merely a simple explanation for the masses, so to speak. It is simplified in order to shorten a discussion about it.

However, what it truly symbolizes is closer to something like, Yin-not Yin, or Yang-not Yang. Thus you don’t necessarily have “Good and Evil”, you have Good-not Good, or even more accurately Good/Not-As-Good.

I explain it using an example of three bowls of water. The first bowl has water that is 60* F, the second 80* F, the third 100* F.

In the second bowl, the 80* F one, the water is considered Yin or Yang depending upon which other bowl it is contrasted with. When contrasted with the 60* F bowl it is Yang, when contrasted with the 100* F water it is Yin.

Yin-Yang merely describes relationships between two or more phenomenon; it is not a description of the absolute condition of being of any particular phenomenon. So, it is not true that the Sun, for example, is inherently Yang because Yang is merely a description of a relationship between the Sun and anything else that is not-the-Sun. When compared to the Moon, the sun is Yang. In fact the Sun is probably the most Yang phenomenon in our solar system. However, the Sun is Yin compared to another star of greater magnitude.

This is one of the misunderstandings when it comes to alchemical qigong and acupuncture and other such physiological traditions. The parts of the body are not absolutely Yin or Yang; the kidneys are not necessarily Yin by their inherent nature. They are Yin only in contrast to other organs that they are measured against.

So, always keep in mind that Yin-Yang describes a “relationship” between two phenomenon and not the absolute conditions of being of those phenomenon.

This is important to understand because it helps to understand how one can have PLEASANT and NOT-AS-PLEASANT, while avoiding UNPLEASANT. So, in life you can have gradations of pleasant, so to speak, and not have anything necessarily unpleasant. The terms pleasant and unpleasant are merely used for convenience of discussion and are no more absolute states of being of any particular phenomenon that are GOOD or BAD.


Now is pleasantness unnatural? Are we born, then as children in unpleasant states naturally? I was quite pleasant as a kid, someone had to "make" me unpleasant, and I thoroughly am aware of the differences btwn how I was feeling then as a normal state of feeling compared to most of my adult life, an inconsistent feeling of pleasantness more based on things outside of myself (achievements, relationships, status, materialism, etc...). I see children everyday at work, and in my private life, most all of them are skipping around, gazing at the environment, smiles on their faces and look to me to be in pleasant states. Only if they are sick, or in very negative environments are they looking down and unpleasant. Of course just generalizing, not talking about kids with pyscological disorders and such.

Remember it is a contrast between two or more experiences that allows us to have the feeling of pleasant or unpleasant.

My daughter is 4 years old. When she is on an outing she has fun. But when it is time to go home she gets upset. An outing is pleasant, going home is not. She wants the pleasantness to continue, but does not yet accept that pleasant comes to an end and then returns at another time. She wants her pleasant experience to continue. So, her reaction to the end of her pleasant experience is exaggerated disappointment. As she grows and matures her repeated experiences of pleasant and an-end-to-pleasant will provide her with a broader perspective and her disappoint will be expressed in a less exaggerated manner.

It is not about whether pleasant or unpleasant are natural or not natural. They merely describe/contrast experiences in relation to each other.

Pleasant and Unpleasant are merely terms we are using for convenience to distinguish between to contrasting experiences. They are tools, not absolute states of being.

If I said I would give you a million dollars, you would likely be happy, if I changed my mind and said I would give you a billion dollars you would likely be happier, but it is not really about happy and happier it is about happy and something else we are calling happier. What is important is not whether we call it happy or unhappy, it is about a distinction between two different experiences and we merely use words to express these different experiences.

It is important not to get too hung up with the words we are using and focus upon the underlying principles they are meant to describe.


I do agree that the intensity of the feeling of pleasantness may subside and level out. But in this state, wouldn't one become more introspective and maybe want to learn more about things, creation things and explore more about what life is all about? That's possible, as well as the feeling to help others achieve this state as well, as the world would certainly be a better place with more pleasant ppl around:)

This "leveling out" is what is providing the difference in experiences, the contrast, that motivates you towards introspection. Your condition of pleasantness has turned to Disequilibrium and that motivates you towards introspection, which has the purpose of returning you to pleasantness/Equilibrium.

What is important is to understand what makes an experience pleasant or unpleasant. While some experiences appear to be inherently pleasant or unpleasant, essentially it is a perspective, a frame of mind, a decision, that determines the quality of an experience. Cool water is a pleasant experience when in the desert, it is not so pleasant when swimming in the cold north sea!

Helping others to understand this is generally a benefit I believe. But internal states of being, introspective states are also governed by this principle. Introspection is pursued because we perceive a benefit from it. It provides pleasant results.


Again, if you r looking for things outside of yourself (e.g. looking for something different to eat is looking outside of yourself for pleasure), then you will always be this way, something may hold your searching for awhile but then that feeling comes back, that feeling of incompleteness, and the search begins again. Achieveing it naturally as a state of being in my book is a much better way to live. That doesn't mean I don't want to experience things and do different things, it is just I have a choice and am not attached to these things as ways to make me happy.

Regulated chi in the body, like an car engine with all the fluids at correct levels and running smoothly thru the engine, for us that makes the body work better, more efficiently and may increase your mood to a more pleasant state.

James

Generally speaking, it is taught that pursuing experiences in the objective world provides one with transient pleasure, while pursuing internal experience/understanding provides one with a more permanent or perhaps less transient pleasure.

To me the error of perspective, or attitude, here is the desire for a permanent state of pleasantness. It reflects a misunderstanding of the underlying principles of Tao/Life/Experiences. All experiences must have something to contrast with that is different or we could not have any experience at all. It is irrelevant whether the experience occurs in the physical world or within the mind.

[Scott R. Brown]

Regulated chi in the body, like an car engine with all the fluids at correct levels and running smoothly thru the engine, for us that makes the body work better, more efficiently and may increase your mood to a more pleasant state.

So do any number of other things that do not involve the artificial and contrive method of manipulation of Chi.

Healthy Food, Clean Air, Moderate Exercise and some level of mental self-control provides the same benefits without having to practice a contrived system.

[xinyidizi]

You reject the questions of systemic knowledge, arguing instead for an understanding that is both experiential and defies rational systematization. That's precisely what the most religious of the early existentialists said about faith. You may not understand it, but you are speaking out of his tradition.

It's not because I don't want science to explain it. It's because science is not there yet however it can still be partly tested by scientific methodology. Validation experiments for what I can physically "see" are difficult but I have had several objective validations so far. Enough to prove it to me and those who helped me in those experiments that it is not just subjective experiences.

[Hendrik]

So do any number of other things that do not involve the artificial and contrive method of manipulation of Chi.

Healthy Food, Clean Air, Moderate Exercise and some level of mental self-control provides the same benefits without having to practice a contrived system.



the aging body , sickness, and daily life cause stagnation, qigong is for restore the natural flow.
Without the qigong lots of flow will never get restored.



Healthy food, clean air, moderate exercise , and some level of mental self control do not restore the natural flow. In fact self control is problem. Self control is artificial.


Qigong is get things restore and let go the self control . Let's not guessing and speculate what is qigong before know what it is.

[Scott R. Brown]

the aging body , sickness, and daily life cause stagnation, qigong is for restore the natural flow.
Without the qigong lots of flow will never get restored.



Healthy food, clean air, moderate exercise , and some level of mental self control do not restore the natural flow. In fact self control is problem. Self control is artificial.


Qigong is get things restore and let go the self control . Let's not guessing and speculate what is qigong before know what it is.

If any of this were true it would be significantly demonstrable and EVERYONE would be practicing qigong because most everyone was to live forever, or at least very long.

However it is not significantly demonstrable to be more effective than healthy food, clean air moderate exercise and some level of mental self control.

[Hendrik]

If any of this were true it would be significantly demonstrable and EVERYONE would be practicing qigong because most everyone was to live forever, or at least very long.

However it is not significantly demonstrable to be more effective than healthy food, clean air moderate exercise and some level of mental self control.


No one can live forever but qigong can help one to have a better life.

Qigong is doing what healthy food, clean air, moderate exercise, and some level of mental self control cannot do. And that is restore the natural qi storage and qi medirians flow.

And the golden rule of qigong are loose, silence, and natural. Nothing artificial.

[Scott R. Brown]

Understanding and transforming are two different things, people read and understand the bible, they are still same person, just might have new belief, no physical transformation , you just believe the Tao, you have not done the work to transform, just religious belief of how things work.

It is interesting how you keep trying to tell me about myself and a topic you apparently know very little about.

You have no idea what I have done and know very little about what I know. You don't know that I have been where you and the others here have been and have gained a greater perspective that includes yet exceeds the narrow perspective generally taught by systems of qigong.

When a person accepts a specific system their experiences will always appear to support that system due to selective filtering. Systems of Qigong define a series of expected experiences and the individual will produce those effects and interpret them according to their accepted system never considering there may be alternate ways of interpreting and describing those experiences.

The system tends to force compliance to itself through social pressure. This does not apply only to Qigong systems, but to all systems.

It isn't about physical transformation it is about mental and emotional transformation. A healthy body is helpful but not necessary.

The transformation of qi is a metaphor for internal mental/emotional transformation, This has been known for hundreds if not over a thousand years by certain students of Tao.

To cling to a false understanding only complicates the process. It is irrelevant whether some specific progress is made. The overall progress will be diminished as long as one clings to a contrived system, not realizing it is contrived and incomplete. If an individual understands the system is a contrivance and does not allow themselves to be forced to conform to a false interpretation of their experiences then the contrived system merely becomes a tool to be discarded when it no longer serves our purpose.

[xinyidizi]

Does anyone have contacts they know or has anyone contacted the researchers who have already began preliminary Qi research? ( instead of complaining they didn't do enough with their research? )

What did they Say? It might benefit this thread!

Do we know what kind of funding/time/manpower restraints they were under?

Are there constructive criticisms we can posit instead of "they didn't do this, that, the other thing?


I don't think many people are able to make a living in Qi research, beyond those actively teaching the methods for cultivating it instead of arguing on the internet whether it exists or not.

Maybe that is why all of our current knowledge on Qi is through more "clinical" approach of thousands of years of cultivators instead of the funded/backed industry that scientific process largely is/requires.

Probably the interaction of qi with what we know so far of the physical reality mostly in terms of electromagnetism is the first clue in uncovering the truth about what can be sensed and seen through meditation and inner cultivation. There have been some scientists who have had some preliminary findings in this area. Search for Kirlian photography and Harry Oldfield on google and youtube. There is some interesting but still inconclusive information in these works：

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W45AkDHnsQ&list=PL7AABF420109E78C4

[Scott R. Brown]

No one can live forever but qigong can help one to have a better life.

Qigong is doing what healthy food, clean air, moderate exercise, and some level of mental self control cannot do. And that is restore the natural qi storage and qi medirians flow.

And the golden rule of qigong are loose, silence, and natural. Nothing artificial.

Except that all qigong systems are artificial from the start. I agree with the loose silence and natural. I do not agree with blind adherence to a contrived system without understanding it is a contrivance.

This leads to the foolish and uninformed comments many are making here. Qigong is beneficial in many ways, and but it is only a tool and tools only work up to certain point. When one adheres to the tool beyond its usefulness then harm results.

And it is clear harm has already occurred to many here as is made evident by many of the comments made here, and many of these comments are yours.

[Hendrik]

Except that all qigong systems are artificial from the start. I agree with the loose silence and natural. I do not agree with blind adherence to a contrived system without understanding it is a contrivance.

This leads to the foolish and uninformed comments many are making here. Qigong is beneficial in many ways, and but it is only a tool and tools only work up to certain point. When one adheres to the tool beyond its usefulness then harm results.

And it is clear harm has already occurred to many here as is made evident by many of the comments made here, and many of these comments are yours.

The facts are:


proper qigong system follow the natural from the first second of development. To correct the unnatural habitual daily living practice.

Proper qigong transform the practice into natural . Advance qigong is let go let god be. Thus, there is no such concern on adheres to the tools.


You are an intelligent person, so, no need to speculate on qigong which you have not learn , right?

[wenshu]

Search for Kirlian photography and Harry Oldfield

That was debunked almost immediately after it was discovered. It's actually a rather pedestrian explanation. http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

Look, if there is anything in the field of physics that comes close to some concept of qi it is free energy or negentropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy). And even then it's a rather abstract leap from the consequences of living organisms and the second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) ( As in how does a living organism maintain homeostasis when all energy in the observable universe tends towards disorder, a.k.a entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)?) to a quaint, vague, culturally inscrutable notion like qi.

What Is Life by Erwin Schrodinger (http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf)


What is the characteristic feature of life? When
is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it
goes on 'doing something', moving, exchanging
material with its environment, and so forth, and
that for a much longer period than we would
expect of an inanimate piece of matter to 'keep
going' under similar circumstances. When a
system that is not alive is isolated or placed in a
uniform environment, all motion usually comes
to a standstill very soon as a result of various
kinds of friction; differences of electric or
chemical potential are equalized, substances
which tend to form a chemical compound do so,
temperature becomes uniform by heat
conduction. After that the whole system fades
away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A
permanent state is reached, in which no
observable events occur. The physicist calls this
the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of
‘maximum entropy'. Practically, a state of this
kind is usually reached very rapidly.

IT FEEDS ON 'NEGATIVE ENTROPY'
It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert
state of 'equilibrium' that an organism appears so
enigmatic; so much so, that from the earliest
times of human thought some special
non-physical or supernatural force (vis viva,
entelechy) was claimed to be operative in the
organism, and in some quarters is still claimed.
How does the living organism avoid decay?

The technical term is metabolism. The Greek word ()
means change or exchange. Exchange of what?
Originally the underlying idea is, no doubt,
exchange of material. (E.g. the German for
metabolism is Stoffwechsel.) That the exchange
of material should be the essential thing is
absurd. Any atom of nitrogen, oxygen, sulphur,
etc., is as good as any other of its kind; what
could be gained by exchanging them? For a
while in the past our curiosity was silenced by
being told that we feed upon energy.

Every process, event, happening -call
it what you will; in a word, everything that is
going on in Nature means an increase of the
entropy of the part of the world where it is going
on. Thus a living organism continually increases
its entropy -or, as you may say, produces
positive entropy -and thus tends to approach the
dangerous state of maximum entropy, which
is of death. It can only keep aloof from it, i.e.
alive, by continually drawing from its
environment negative entropy -which is
something very positive as we shall immediately
see. What an organism feeds upon is negative
entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the
essential thing in metabolism is that the
organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the
entropy it cannot help producing while alive.

You're not going to reify an antiquated notion like qi with the weak nuclear force or up quarks and string theory or whatever other opaque technical notion you can pull out of a hat that has no observable effect on the world around us.

Having said all that, the true skeptic in me would like to point out that real skepticism, not psuedo skepticism which is the popular brand these days on these here intertubes and serves only to trade one dogma for another, true skeptcism is open ended. As in you consider all possibilities. Such as the possibility that there are laws of nature and forces thus far unknown.


From Delbruck's general picture of the hereditary
subustance it emerges that living matter, while
not eluding the 'laws of physics' as established
up to date, is likely to involve 'other laws of
physics' hitherto unknown, which, however, once
they have been revealed, will form just as
integral a part of this science as the former.

[xinyidizi]

That was debunked almost immediately after it was discovered. It's actually a rather pedestrian explanation. http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html

Look, if there is anything in the field of physics that comes close to some concept of qi it is free energy or negentropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy). And even then it's a rather abstract leap from the consequences of living organisms and the second law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) ( As in how does a living organism maintain homeostasis when all energy in the observable universe tends towards disorder, a.k.a entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)?) to a quaint, vague, culturally inscrutable notion like qi.

What Is Life by Erwin Schrodinger (http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf)


You're not going to reify an antiquated notion like qi with the weak nuclear force or up quarks and string theory or whatever other opaque technical notion you can pull out of a hat that has no observable effect on the world around us.

Having said all that, the true skeptic in me would like to point out that real skepticism, not psuedo skepticism which is the popular brand these days on these here intertubes and serves only to trade one dogma for another, true skeptcism is open ended. As in you consider all possibilities. Such as the possibility that there are laws of nature and forces thus far unknown.

I didn't say that kirlian photography was directly about qi and I insisted that those results were preliminary attempts and inconclusive. However research on phenomena like that is going on for their potentials in diagnosing ailments. What I am suggesting is that these attempts might bring us closer to knowing how qi affects the known physical events.

Qi is not an abstract idea and is something that can be sensed and seen usually by a few months to a few years of training depending on the person. First of all there should be a collaboration between scientists and high level qigong practitioners so that they can design proper tests to show that what they see is not a subjective or imaginary experience( as I said before I have successfully done this part). After that they can start investigating what exactly it is that these people see and how it can affect the known physical world.

[Scott R. Brown]

The facts are:


proper qigong system follow the natural from the first second of development. To correct the unnatural habitual daily living practice.

Proper qigong transform the practice into natural . Advance qigong is let go let god be. Thus, there is no such concern on adheres to the tools.


You are an intelligent person, so, no need to speculate on qigong which you have not learn , right?

If Qigong followed natural form it would not seek to collect, store and manipulate the movement of qi through the body. This is what makes it a contrived system.

When we breathe, oxygen is transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more oxygen to specific areas of the body because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

When we eat, the nutrients are transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more nutrients to certain muscles because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

When we drink water, it is transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more fluid to certain areas of the body because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

The same applies to qi. It is unnecessary to move qi where ever we decide it needs to be. It moves where it is needed most as a natural process. To intentionally interfere with this process creates the imbalance one intends to avoid.

All that is necessary, for some individuals only, specifically most Qigong practitioners, is to learn avoid interfering with its natural flow. Qigong does just the opposite, it interferes with the natural process that already occurs of itself, naturally!

This process is obvious to anyone with a thinking mind. How so? If there was a huge problem with an imbalance of Qi, there would be much more illness that could not be cured or ameliorated through allopathic interventions.

All that is necessary for the natural flow of qi through the body is physical health, and some level of mental self control to avoid excessive stress, the same things that are necessary for the natural perfusion of food, water and oxygen throughout the body. All these follow their own natural processes. So does qi!

[Happy Tiger]

What do y'all feel about the theories regarding extra dimensions and the possibilities for understanding singularities of our reality by this potential?
I know it sounds crazy. But I can't help feeling that these ideas may some how figure into what qi is and why we cannot seem to just up and see it. The universe of the mind is still such a mystery possible connection with the tendency to exist of our reality and observer/observed strange rules that describe some of the truths we know of the forces but still can't explain.
I know it's sci fi (I'm an artist, not a scientist) but crazy ideas like the holographic universe and such are facinating.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070896/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/physicists-probe-fifth-dimension/
Although the rules must be firm for our universe to exist, it's not such a crazy idea that our reality may to some degree interact with others for mutual benifit and growth and that qi may be involve there. OK, I guess it is a little crazy...:)

[xinyidizi]

If Qigong followed natural form it would not seek to collect, store and manipulate the movement of qi through the body. This is what makes it a contrived system.

When we breathe, oxygen is transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more oxygen to specific areas of the body because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

When we eat, the nutrients are transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more nutrients to certain muscles because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

When we drink water, it is transported throughout the body naturally because it is a natural process. We do not intentionally send more fluid to certain areas of the body because we want it there. It moves where it is needed the most, naturally, because it is a natural process.

The same applies to qi. It is unnecessary to move qi where ever we decide it needs to be. It moves where it is needed most as a natural process. To intentionally interfere with this process creates the imbalance one intends to avoid.

All that is necessary, for some individuals only, specifically most Qigong practitioners, is to learn avoid interfering with its natural flow. Qigong does just the opposite, it interferes with the natural process that already occurs of itself, naturally!

This process is obvious to anyone with a thinking mind. How so? If there was a huge problem with an imbalance of Qi, there would be much more illness that could not be cured or ameliorated through allopathic interventions.

All that is necessary for the natural flow of qi through the body is physical health, and some level of mental self control to avoid excessive stress, the same things that are necessary for the natural perfusion of food, water and oxygen throughout the body. All these follow their own natural processes. So does qi!

The balance in nature is not about stillness, it is about the interaction between stillness and movement or in other words yin and yang. If you do nothing you won't grow and if you don't rest you will destroy your growth. That's why I normally do things like zhoutian in the morning to move the energy and open up my body for the day and at night I just do zhanzhuang without trying to do or think about anything so that I can ground my energy. Learning qigong is a natural process and ability for our bodies if it is done correctly.

[SimonM]

What do y'all feel about the theories reguarding extra dimensions and the possibilities for understanding singularities of our reality by this potential?
I know it sounds crazy. But I can't help feeling that these ideas may some how figure into what qi is and why we cannot seem to just up and see it. The the universe of the mind is still such a mystery.The possible conection with the tendancy to exist of our reality and observer/observed strange rules that describe some of the truths we know of the forces but still can't explain.
I know it's sci fi (I'm an artist, not a scientist) but crazy ideas like the holographic universe and such are facinating.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070896/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/physicists-probe-fifth-dimension/
Although the rules must be firm for our universe to exist, it's not such a crazy idea that our reality may to some degree interact with others for mutual benifit and growth.

I am skeptical of 5+ dimensional models as being non-parsimonious but the jury is still very much out. If it turns out that the boson CERN found is the Higgs it may move towards falsifying a lot of those theories; a lot of those come out of String Theory which was one of the models proposed to do away with the need for the elusive Higgs Boson.

[Robinhood]

It is interesting how you keep trying to tell me about myself and a topic you apparently know very little about.

You have no idea what I have done and know very little about what I know. You don't know that I have been where you and the others here have been and have gained a greater perspective that includes yet exceeds the narrow perspective generally taught by systems of qigong.

When a person accepts a specific system their experiences will always appear to support that system due to selective filtering. Systems of Qigong define a series of expected experiences and the individual will produce those effects and interpret them according to their accepted system never considering there may be alternate ways of interpreting and describing those experiences.

The system tends to force compliance to itself through social pressure. This does not apply only to Qigong systems, but to all systems.

It isn't about physical transformation it is about mental and emotional transformation. A healthy body is helpful but not necessary.

The transformation of qi is a metaphor for internal mental/emotional transformation, This has been known for hundreds if not over a thousand years by certain students of Tao.

To cling to a false understanding only complicates the process. It is irrelevant whether some specific progress is made. The overall progress will be diminished as long as one clings to a contrived system, not realizing it is contrived and incomplete. If an individual understands the system is a contrivance and does not allow themselves to be forced to conform to a false interpretation of their experiences then the contrived system merely becomes a tool to be discarded when it no longer serves our purpose.


Well I can tell what you have done by the things you say, if you had transformed you would not talk the way you do. Transforming has nothing to do with what someone is thinking . Transforming is a process of removing blockages in the body, which lets chi flow unobstructed , and can be see by others that are aware of chi flow.


I can see the progress in people that are transforming and tell them where their chi is still blocked, nothing to do with what they think, it is what is happening in their body.

Most everybody except children have many blockages and bad chi flow, without the transforming of removing blockages , chi will not flow naturally.

If you had natural chi flow you would know these things, all your theories and talk will not remove blockages in your body, you need to put in the time of step 1.

You tell me you know, but you don't seem to know about what happens to the body in step one, that just tells me you have not done it.

Sorry, but thinking it is all in the mind is just religion.

You say a lot of things that are right, but can be learned by reading, some things need to be learned by doing.

[Scott R. Brown]

The balance in nature is not about stillness, it is about the interaction between stillness and movement or in other words yin and yang. If you do nothing you won't grow and if you don't rest you will destroy your growth. That's why I normally do things like zhoutian in the morning to move the energy and open up my body for the day and at night I just do zhanzhuang without trying to do or think about anything so that I can ground my energy.

I believe I haven't said anything definite about stillness in quite awhile on this BB, but now is a good opportunity:

Balance/stillness/silence is the NOT lack of movement or lack of sound. Balance is the rhythmic alternation between different states or conditions. The best way to demonstrate this for yourself is to stand on one foot and pay close attention to the the slight movement of your ankle. You will find your ankle moves slightly back and forth. The stronger the muscles and more experienced you are in maintaining one-footed balance the more slight the movement, but it is still there.

This is how balance, whether physical or otherwise, occurs and is perfectly symbolized by Yin-Yang!

Silence is NOT quiet or absence of thought, it is allowing thoughts that occur naturally and of themselves to flow on by without attachment, but also not being attached to non-attachment of thoughts. Further, the thoughts that occur are in their natural/fundamental condition of undifferentiation. That is, words do not attach to the thoughts, but thoughts occur non-the-less.

The mind IS thought so-to-speak, that is its function. Its substance and function are identical. You cannot have a mind that does not think, if it does not think, it is not a mind.

Therefore, thought CANNOT be stopped, it may appear to be stopped because a still mind is contrasted with a busy mind, so it may APPEAR that thoughts have stopped, but thoughts do not cease.;)

[Scott R. Brown]

Well I can tell what you have done by the things you say, if you had transformed you would not talk the way you do. Transforming has nothing to do with what someone is thinking . Transforming is a process of removing blockages in the body, which lets chi flow unobstructed , and can be see by others that are aware of chi flow.


I can see the progress in people that are transforming and tell them where their chi is still blocked, nothing to do with what they think, it is what is happening in their body.

Most everybody except children have many blockages and bad chi flow, without the transforming of removing blockages , chi will not flow naturally.

If you had natural chi flow you would know these things, all your theories and talk will not remove blockages in your body, you need to put in the time of step 1.

You tell me you know, but you don't seem to know about what happens to the body in step one, that just tells me you have not done it.

Sorry, but thinking it is all in the mind is just religion.

You say a lot of things that are right, but can be learned by reading, some things need to be learned by doing.

No it is not about breaking up blockages in the body, it is about breaking up blockages in the mind. the breaking up of the blockages in the body are only a method for leading the student towards breaking up the blockages in the mind. It is merely a tool to be used and discarded.

If your concept were true then only Qigong practitioners would have mystical/spiritual experiences, but they are not the only ones. These individuals span history and cultures!

If you had a proper understanding of the alchemical process you would understand this. And I am not the only person to editorialize upon this topic. Other students of Tao have said somewhat the same thing for hundreds if not thousands of years.

You have been robbed of a proper education on the matter. It would behoove you to find a proper teacher.

It being all in the mind is NOT religion, it is a statement of fact! If you progress far enough along the path you will come to understand this for yourself....eventually and hopefully!!;)

[Robinhood]

No it is not about breaking up blockages in the body, it is about breaking up blockages in the mind. the breaking up of the blockages in the body are only a method for leading the student towards breaking up the blockages in the mind. It is merely a tool to be used and discarded.

If your concept were true then only Qigong practitioners would have mystical/spiritual experiences, but they are not the only ones. These individuals span history and cultures!

If you had a proper understanding of the alchemical process you would understand this. And I am not the only person to editorialize upon this topic. Other students of Tao have said somewhat the same thing for hundreds if not thousands of years.

You have been robbed of a proper education on the matter. It would behoove you to find a proper teacher.

It being all in the mind is NOT religion, it is a statement of fact! If you progress far enough along the path you will come to understand this for yourself....eventually and hopefully!!;)


Well, if I wanted to be a monk, I would look for a church, but I a using this in a MA context, so I guess using your mind religion theory , who needs to learn any art.

So Any religious guy has great chi and can fight good.

[Scott R. Brown]

Well, if I wanted to be a monk, I would look for a church, but I a using this in a MA context, so I guess using your mind religion theory , who needs to learn any art.

So Any religious guy has great chi and can fight good.

It would be important to distinguish between the martial aspect and the alchemical perspective. I was under the impression that you were speaking from the alchemical perspective.

At any rate, the behavior of qi is identical, just used for different goals.

Body blockages occur due to three major causes, illness, injury and mental/emotional imbalance.

Forcing a blockage to open through the manipulation of qi does not resolve the mental/emotional cause and the blockage will continue to return until it is resolved.

And....No....what I am saying is that qi is not important to have alchemical change, that is, spiritual/mystical experience, and the gaining of fundamental insight. Neither is great qi important to being a great fighter. Both of these are repeated demonstrated in the real world, throughout history, amongst mystics and REAL fighters.

BTW: No mystic would consider themselves a religious person. Mystical experience commonly transcends the worldly conventions and narrow perspectives of religion.

[Robinhood]

It would be important to distinguish between the martial aspect and the alchemical perspective. I was under the impression that you were speaking from the alchemical perspective.

At any rate, the behavior of qi is identical, just used for different goals.

Body blockages occur due to three major causes, illness, injury and mental/emotional imbalance.

Forcing a blockage to open through the manipulation of qi does not resolve the mental/emotional cause and the blockage will continue to return until it is resolved.

And....No....what I am saying is that qi is not important to have alchemical change, that is, spiritual/mystical experience, and the gaining of fundamental insight. Neither is great qi important to being a great fighter. Both of these are repeated demonstrated in the real world, throughout history, amongst mystics and REAL fighters.

BTW: No mystic would consider themselves a religious person. Mystical experience commonly transcends the worldly conventions and narrow perspectives of religion.


It is not a manipulation of Qi that opens up blockages, it is done naturally.

[Happy Tiger]

What does block qi? Faciea??. So are we saying that density of faciea( ie: the belief that big muscles block\restrict qi visa the viceri ?)I must admit, my belief is ,it's the mind that blocks the qi, not vicera,

[SimonM]

You know who came up with the idea that big muscles block qi?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..

..
.
.
.
.
.
.

Some scrawny guy with no muscles.

:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Simon has ass tapped the correct

[SimonM]

Darn, and here I was trying to contribute nothing of any value to this thread while the length stretched on and on and on and on. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

How would one use Qi to get out of this?
http://www.iviewtube.com/uploads/thumbs/d53srQTksYWWhsoYEDxY.jpg