Originally Posted by
cjurakpt
this is the fundamental problem underlying the perpetuation of ignorance surrounding the whole issue; it's this pervasive arrogance and looking down their collective noses on the part of so-called "internalists", who deride so-called "western" science as being fundamentally unable to encompass the totality of what Chinese "internal" arts encompass;
they fail to see that if you step back and really look at it, "internal" arts almost exclusively utilize descriptive metaphors to explain the various subjective processes experienced by practitioners, with vague terms like "opening" and "dissolving" abounding; now, in context, the use of these descriptors by the "founders" of these practices makes sense: without the technical apparatus available to directly observe the processes in question (e.g. - pelvic biomechanics at the level of connective tissue say, or the way in which the hypo-gastric plexus regulates the autonomic nervous system function of the abdominopelvic region to produce all kinds of interesting sensations and physiological events), they came up with culturally-dependent metaphors (the cauldron, blossoming lotus, coiling serpent, etc.) to create a framework by which the experiences in question could be alluded to; there was no rejection of "western" approach inherent in this either - it was simply what was available, end of story;
but what happens is that people who practice internal arts get all carried away by what they experience, and since they typically seem to fit a certain personality profile (iconoclastic, contrarian, anti-mainstream), they seize it as an opportunity to point out the great failing of "western" science to fit these experiences into its framework without destroying the essence of the art; in the certainty of their unassailable position, they totally miss the point, which is that contemporary anatomical / pyhsiological / biomechanical knowledge more then adequately describes all of these processes, but can do so in a way that maintains
the problem is that many "internalists" seek the extraordinary, the esoteric; to them, being able to talk about these things in a less cryptic manner spoils their illusion of extra-speciality; they get wrapped up in an elitist notion of the sacred and forget about the fact that what is the essence of true practice is that it is profoundly ordinary; and being as such, it ought to be able to described as such
of course, if "internal" practice can be described fully by the lingua franca, then what they do just ain't so special anymore, and one can't get away with tossing out terms like "qi" and "kwa" and appear to have some sort of secret, special knowledge that others don't; like talking about the "internal body" as if it were something "other" - total hogwash; what they are in essence saying is that "oh, yes, something really does change, but it's something that no amount of scientific testing will ever be able to detect"; well sorry, either something changes, or it doesn't; and if one aspect of the system changes, then all aspects change, and there would be some detectable evidence of that;
people need to stop creating golden ankle chains for themselves; in matters such as this, it is best to speak with clarity