Chen style teacher "Chi does not exist"

[Repulsive Monkey]

Well if he had studied directly under Xioa Wang he know by now that his beliefs in Qi and of primary importance and he would of let him know it as he did once when I met him. The literauture he has produced in articles over the years will testify to where he stands and I do not feel he would bother that much with a student who was so obviously against the idea and practice of Qi in a martial situation.

By the way Acpuncture does not work on the release of endorphins scenario. That idea was booted out years ago. Needles are certainly NOT inserted into nerves as it blimmimg well hurts to do such a thing, as anyone who has accidentally hand that done to them will testify for. Hitting nerves does nothing but make people go "OOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!!", and holds no truck with chinese medicine.

[Walter Joyce]

And at the risk of this seeming an ad hominem attack, I visited the site, watch the clipe of his forms, and for someone with 30 years of experience, well, I'm not impressed.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Same here Walter, I would of expected 30 years of quality experience to be exhibited, not what I saw.

[fa_jing]

I've had accupuncture about ten times from a doctor who was well-known in China, before he came to the U.S.

Every single time, I was impressed by the MYOFASCIAL RELEASE
that accupuncture created along my tracts of connective tissue. Both during, and for a few hours after treatment. This is more than pain management, it is a change in your muscles and connective tissue that releases tensions that these fibers hold. It is very easy to detect, once you know the feeling. This has a cumulative and long term benefit.

Even better than Rolfing, I'd say.

-FJ

[greendragon]

wujidude: Aside from the chi issue, To say Pete Starr and Yi li chuan " didn't teach internal principles at all" is ludicrous. Yi li is composed of traditional PaKua and Hsing-I. No "mumbo jumbo". And i believe the dis-association was the other way around when he claimed to be teaching Yi li in this manner. What was he doing while holding and internalizing postures for 20 minutes, thinking about what's not happening ?

[Repulsive Monkey]

Ultimately and in all honesty I would expect Chen Xiao Wang to obviously say YES, and that is probably what he will say, but not to all his students. He probably realises that discussing such subjects are to the west quite abstruse and yes dare I say the word "Mysterious". However like any good master, sure they can teach Taiji without mentioning the words Qi etc., however if you are ever to fully embrace the higher concepts of the art, then you cannot avoid it. Basically one will always remain at a beginners level without encompassing the methodologies which he so amazingly taught and showed us at our seminar in the UK.

Its true he can show and teach describing body mechanics, but if you ask him at any of his seminars the same kind of questions and then ask about higher aspects he will tell you that you have to have experience and understanding of Qi if you don't want to be a beginner for the rest of your days.

One will always merely have the shell of the art and no substance to fill it out. I teach beginners the bodily mechanics of how to do a whole short form, yet teaching them the internal aspect is more difficult and less accepted by some if there understanding is in conflict with it.

[Walter Joyce]

Whether accurate or not, this thread beagn with this quote, "this Chen Tai Chi, Hsing-i, Pa Kua teacher is teaching his students that Chi does not exist and acupuncture is quackery."

I agree that skill can be developed without reference to the qi paradigm. That does not mean that qi (or more accurately, jing, the transformation of qi to a usable martial energy) is not being developed, just that the practitioner is not fully aware of what is happening.

I also try to understand internal training from a biomechanical perspective (I am not claiming skills like any of the Chen famuily by any means) but this does not require total rejection of the qi paradigm, or rejecting the efficacy of accupuncture.

I confess a certain bias, one that I could express this way: I am bothered by people who throw out the baby with the bath water. There are qi charlatans out there, no question. But does this necessitate the rejection of one culture's understanding of the nature of things?

I am perplexed by people who seek out knowledge from a culture, here internal training, and then take the cafeteria approach...i.e. I'll accept this from coloum A but reject that from colum B.
I beleive I also understand the counter argument, that one should be encouraged to view their teaching from a critical stance. There needs to be a balance, I believe between these two.
This argument could, and probably should, be developed further, but for the moment I'll end with one of my favorite cliches in the hope of sparking further intelligent discussion.
Minds are like parachutes, they work best when fully opened. In this context I assert that this means leaving open the possibility that qi exists, is a natural force that is outside the western paradigm, and the only mystery attached to it is that part of it we don't understand, not the things that can be achieved by accepting it as part of (not the first line of explanation) ones training.
Good training,
Walter

[Repulsive Monkey]

On the button mate, well said.

[GLW]

no one said you inserted at the nerve....

The human body is made up of a great deal water...meaning it conducts electricity quite well. Inserting a metal needle or influencing the electrical fields of a conductive system in any way can and does generate EM fields (Magnetic field alone according to the right hand rule with direction of current flow...)

So, is it possibly electrical...wouldn't surprise me. Is it chemical...OK... does it matter if it helps...not to me.

I am naturally skeptical. The first few times I had a treatment...my approach was "yeah...but it is probably BS...but let me see what happens" When you have a needle in one place and you get sensations down at another point...and know nothing about Jing Luo channels...and then after several treatments look on the acupuncture chart and see the EXACT points that you felt but had NO needle on, you may not know why it happens but you do know that something does happen. Then, if it feels better afterwards, you may not know why..but you do not discount it as BS.

[batesy]

I attended a seminar yesterday with Chen Xiao Wang in which he was teaching basics of silk reeling. I am a total beginner in Chen style, with less than a years experience, but he did give explanations from a viewpoint of chi movement, mental intention and body mechanics. Obviously, as a beginner I found myself focusing on the body mechanics as it was more helpful for the learning of the routines. There were more advanced students present however who were given explanations in terms of chi flow, although not at the expense of drilling and reinforcing correct body mechanics.

[RAF]

You know, we have been through this posting and argument several times over.

There are many ways and philosopical issues underlying science. Qi can be viewed as a construct. The predictions based on this construct have held up fairly well. Science uses many constructs which are not directly measureable but are inferred by derivable hypotheses that yield empirical predictions.

Western medicine is far from being a pure science. Mechanisms are often left uspecified as in epidemological studies and even in experimental settings, explanations of the mechamisms are often speculative at best Double-blind studies of drugs do not always specifiy the underliying mechanims of a drug's effect. We look for a statistical significance (effect significanlty different from zero or random error). We accept many western drug treatments without understanding its underlying mechanism.

Even more interesting is the inability of Western Science to definitively explain the mechanism of the placebo effect. Lots of speculative modeling that gets mistaken for proven fact but no definitive answer.

So, like GLW I am skeptical but my own experience echoes his regarding acupuncture. Also good post by Walter Joyce, too.

This topic will go on for a couple more posts and then sputter to a stop. Everything that could possibly be posted on this subject has been posted.

Do you believe in lab replications or historical replication. Or both?
There are a number of studies over the months on Yahoo Health that show acupuncture signficantly affects disease and condition outcomes.

Be pragmatic, as long as it works doesn't matter what the underlying explanations are or do they?

[Walter Joyce]

OK, complete non sequitor, but how did you guys register in december 1969? And thanks RM, RAF et al.

[dezhen2001]

hehe, it's to do with a problem that occured with the forum some time ago... Dates were lost and all screwed up.

I can answer THAT question

david

[Walter Joyce]

Thanks

[Liokault]

Repulsive Monkey...yes I am indeed a student of Dan Dochertys school of tai chi and I am proud to be able to say this.

Also I should point out that in our tai chi we are not told that chi is non existant or that it powers every thing. We are left to make up our owe minds.


Ok my turn to guess where you train.....I would guess some half assed yang style that tells you in 10 years if you train in the hand form enough then you will be able to fight useing your tai chi and chi powers.

I stand by my statment that chi is an old theory that science has passed by.

Any one who still belives in Chi belives because they WANT to belive...like guys who belive in Elvis being alive...They want to belive in elvis still being alive.