Gene Ching Believes in No Touch Knockouts?

[greendragon]

Apoweyn, I see your point. MP, thanks, my thinking has improved. but that fighting spirit keeps running my mouth.

[Merryprankster]

Greendragon--

LOL--thanks! I'm glad you took it far less cantankerously than I did... I can be a schmuck.

Cheers!

[GeneChing]

willow sword - I agree with what you say, but being of western mind myself (for the most part) I try to step outside of the paradigm as much as possible. After all, the westerrn mind came up with McDonald's and I think we should all be ashamed of that

merry prankster - So what inspired you to cop that name exactly? Don't say Tom Wolfe....
BTW, my thought process did imporve for just a moment. Keep on visualizing, I need all the help I can get nowadays

apoweyn - reproducible qi - hmm, now this gets real interesting... I suppose I could invoke the Heisenberg principle but that would be a default to that mcdonald's western mind. Let shoot back the painting analog again - Is the Mona Lisa reproducible? Actually I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, so I'm going to switch to my favorite Dali masterpiece, the Hallucinogenic Toreador (This is just my own personal preference, you can put any painting here.) I had seen that piece reproduced in book, on postcards, all over, but when I saw it in person (It's in FL) it blew me away. Now that was qi and it couldn't be reproduced. Look at how many people emulate Bruce Lee. Bruce had qi, but his followers? Not the same.

The concept of qi is elusive by defination. To me, to define it robs it of its power. It is the unexplained. Sure bioelectric forces or even lucasfilm forces might have plenty to do with it, but it's not x = x. It's parallel, like trying to map the acupuncture meridians on the endorphin sites or on the ayuvedic nadi system (actually I'm trying to save the acupuncture card from this discussion until it's really necessary.) Like any heuristic concept, when you define it as something else is when you get into trouble, like saying love is internet porn, hate is bin laden, real is reality tv.

Take it or leave it, qi is part of our heritage. Real or fake, if you accept that heritage, the question becomes how much of it will you take on faith? To me, if it's good enough to have faith in, it's good enough to test. That's why I let Leon Jay attempt to knock me out. But just because he failed doesn't mean that I've disproven the whole concept. I'm still open to the possibility with guarded skepticism.

[Merryprankster]

Nope.

Ken Kesey. A real writer. And a wrestler to boot!

[Braden]

diego - Just my reasoning. However, for an interesting account from a prominent quantum physicist, check out David Bohm's books 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' and 'The Undivided Universe.' There are also a variety of other works spawned by his thinking which might be of greater interest, depending on your background.

dezhen - I hadn't heard that one, thanks.

Kung Lek / Shadow Dragon / MerryPrankster - I think what Kung Lek is saying, is that if you divorce yourself from 'discrete layer'ism, you may be able to adequately consider chi as an interpretation of reality, the way molecules or quantum level is (simply, one which is not entwined with the concept of visual resolution, and therefore not a layer in the explicit sense). Along this way of thinking, the concept may have as much validity as anything in western science, however it's unlayerness would explain why the western mind has a difficult time with it. Conversely, I think what MerryPranker and others are saying (and what has certainly been my experience) is that rather than actually being delt with in this manner, 'chi' has been used to write off anything and everything. I think we can all agree this is inappropriateness.

MerryPrankster - "Chi has not yet been shown to have a demonstrable, observable substance."

I think if you approached it as a conceptual model rather than a particle, you would have more luck. Although - see above.

"A better analogy would have been gravity."

Gravity is a GREAT analogy, in that science is still utterly baffled by it. But, like you pointed out, nonetheless we've managed to do a decent job of cataloging it's effects.

"the reason we don't have a wave-particle model of biomechanics is because we don't know enough yet. Get back to it in a couple of thousand years, and I bet that Quantum Biochemicalmechanics is a standard field of study in respected universities"

I doubt it. This whole way of thinking comes about because people consistently confuse science (the process of applying the scientific method to develop increasingly accurate models of reality) with metaphysics (the process of determining the actual underlying nature of reality). Specialized fields in science (eg. biochemistry) come about not in an attempt to determine a metaphysics (except in the minds of people making the above mistake - which results in a large mess; see last rant). but rather from an attempt to deal most accurately with a given phenomenon. Biochemistry continues to develop today (in leaps and strides, we might note) in spite of the existance of quantum physics (for nearly a century now) and indeed, in spite of particle physics, and 'deeper' levels of chemistry (which are much, much more mature). Why is this? Because biochemistry deals with biochemistry better than particle physics ever will. That's the definition of what it is! When we send out deep space probes, bouncing them around 9 gravitational pools to get them out there (by all accounts, a sophisticated problem for physics), do we use quantum mechanics? No, we still follow the teachings learnt from an apple and a head meeting. Why? Because that model really is the best we've got for dealing with things of that sort. Again, it has advanced in leaps and bounds since the advent of quantum mechanics - contrary to what you'd observe if quantum mechanics really was going to replace it.

What gets people thinking otherwise is that they do see every layer in the layer they are looking at. Looking at the quantum layer, we really can see how it forms sub-molecular and how that forms molecular, and how that forms cellular... But we mistakenly conclude 'discrete layer'ism from this, as I have previously argued. Consider that reality really is just reality - this whole big continuum of things, in which there is no real discreteness (as I have previously argued). Would you expect to see all the others layers in one layer? Of course! How could you not? This model accounts for all the observations we have made, without the problems of the 'discrete layer'ism model outlined in this post and the previous.

"Further, Calculus and other maths demonstrate that seemingly infinite series can result in a finite answer, and that a finite definite patterned result is the product of seemingly infinite chaotic series/actions."

Yes! These are, to me, some of the most fascinating revelations. And they are necessary (if seemingly utterly nonsensical!) if we are to have the kind of metaphysics I have outlined, yet still percieve it the way we do. From utter chaos spawns order, from utter order spawns chaos. From infinity spawns finacy, from finacy - infinity. Yes, the taoists did say exactly this. And it is clearly the underlying ordering principle of reality. Spooky stuff!

"That REEKS of animism."

You don't want to get me started on panpsychism.

"Willow bark has salicylic acid in it."

What does Lithium have in it? I think we just have to be careful confusing scientific and medical approaches. In science we want an analogy of how things work. In medicine, we just want to know what things do. Of course, there's alot of crossover, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind when making these arguments.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--I appreciate your point, and I also believe that biochemistry CURRENTLY deals with Biochemistry better than anything else. However, I also forsee a time in which quantum physics and astrophysics are almost exactly the same field. Could not the same be said of biochemistry? We have no idea what odd manipulations will take place in the future. In other words, who is to say that quantum medicine might not exist in the future---we already use MRI's... It's a stretch, I know... I was just trying to point out that we might have "god knows what," as fields of study in the future.

However, I too am a great believer in the right time, right place. Why use relativistic equations, when on the normal everyday level, Classic mechanics work just fine? No reason to muddy up the waters.

I completely agree about discrete layerism. I personally would never expect to find quantum mechanics as an integral part of biochemistry. I was really just using that as an example of the kind of wierdness that frequently happens. Could you imagine how strange the electrostrong theory, that unifies 4 of the 5 forces, would look to Newton? That's really more what I was suggesting with my comment.

However, certain "particle physics" effects ARE integrally part of organic and therefore biochemistry--like the hybridization of electron orbitals in atoms--especially carbon, being responsible for local charges and the rigidity/flexibility of certain bonds, which greatly affect the entire scheme of things---even liquid water is a by product of quantum level effects.

When I was discussing Chi not having demonstrable observable substance, I wasn't thinking of it as a particle--I was pointing out that that is part of what makes "air" an unsuitable analogy.

As far as the willow bark thing--that was specifically addressed to Shadow's comments--and that medical research does USE the scientific method, even if it's not modeling anything. They develop a theory, they test it out, and continue refining and retesting until they get it right-- like penicillin--hey, there's something in this mold that's an antibacterial, I think. Let's grow it again and see if we get results similar to the first one--yep... well, heck, will an extract of the mold do the same thing... yep... ok, well, what part of this extract is causing this---let's test the components... ok, there it is....

Anyway, basically Braden, I'm trying to agree with you--just pointing out that the future has a way of surprising us with wacky sh!t

[Merryprankster]

Braden, where are you located, just curious...

[Braden]

I think we agree, or at least see eye to eye.

Not a disagreement, but just a clarification - that one 'layer' will positively influence understanding of another (eg. orbital hybridization in biochemistry) is an observation independant of the existance or nonexistance of reductionism. For anyone interested, do a google search for "special sciences"+fodor to get a very different account of the thing I'm driving for here.

"Braden, where are you located, just curious..."

Ottawa, Canada.

[Merryprankster]

Yeah I didn't think you were US.

Yes-- I completely agree that one layer affecting the other is independant of the validity of reductionism.

[No_Know]

"Good Lord.

No-Know--it's the process man, the process. If Chi exists as some kind of energy, I should be able to apply the scientific method to it and get consistent results within an acceptable error margin, as no two individuals or experiments are precisely the same."

Process?

"Gravity is a GREAT analogy, in that science is still utterly baffled by it. But, like you pointed out, nonetheless we've managed to do a decent job of cataloging it's effects. "

" Drop an apple, it falls. Repeatable, consistent. Kinda like finding out if the earth is a sphere."


The process of Gravity has been referred to. You see it's effects. Not it. The wind is not seen yet you would say it exists. You say Gravity exists yet cannot hold it. Cannot see it with your eyes, would not claim to hear it or taste it or smell it. Perhaps the same should be with chee. While you've lived with it you've not needed to name or refer to it. But in the Orient areas they do.~ So they named it. The Hawaiians have many names for waves. Waves is their life.-ish The Eskimos have many names for snow. They know snow. Chinese claim there is some stuff called chee, which is versitile. They are not necessarily wrong just because it hasn't been proven to you.

I could, ten times out of ten get MerryPrankster in a throat lock from behind after we face off. But with what he knows of himself and perhaps has thought of me, he would not readily believe that. Merely his belief that it is not likely or not possible, would not keep it from being true. If it were. :-)

"I should be able to apply the scientific method to it and get consistent results within an acceptable error margin, as no two individuals or experiments are precisely the same."

Good, so you realize that with this chee stuff one might not compensate appropriately to a new subject or diffent yet seemingly similar situation. And therefore not have a succesful result. Not that Chee does not exist. Merely that that the practitioner did not use it right enough at that moment.~

" Drop an apple, it falls. Repeatable, consistent. Kinda like finding out if the earth is a sphere."

The Earth was round for at least centuries before finding out it was sphereish (more-so eliptical-ish). Yet theoretically it was round before it was found out to be. So (needle-and-thread), perhaps you can admit to not knowing! As chee might exist and is perhaps analyzeable; but, perhaps it would be at least centuries before there is enough comprehension to grasp what has been there.

Repeatable, consistant. The result, yes. But seeing the result is not seeing the thing! You still can't prove to me Gravity. Merely show me the Result of things not readily emperical. I can put my hand near strong pain--headache, migraine, menstral cramps, backaches, tight lungs (asthmatics) and there can be less pain from within seconds to two hours later to the next day.

"A better analogy would have been gravity. We've got this force we call gravity, and we've developed a theory that explains its existence and its mechanisms rather well."

How is chee different? It sounds remarkablely similar to what you said about gravity, just there.


Wind is the result of a something, a force. Waves are the result of a something, a force. Gravity a name for something of which results are noted, yet it is not. Perhaps chee is one of these energies/forces/whatevers which are yet not proveablely noticeable to exist.~


People who claim chee knockout capability might should come out about it when they can do it while moving around and having to defend too. Then they would be most capable when it has success here. Some people might use good techniques with out full enough comprehension of those techniques. The techniques aren't bad because of this. They just need someone who can readily execute them. It doesn' t mean there's no chee. Perhaps some such, some might say.

[Merryprankster]

Because No_know, it's the process.

Chi has been passed down, it is true, but it has been passed down in the way that an herbalist used to pass information to her daughters---anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotes have a way of going beyond the facts.

The study of Gravity has, however, been very systematic and very well documented under acceptable expirimental guidelines. The study of Chi has not.

I am not suggesting that chi does not exist. I am not suggesting that certain kinds of knowledge that are now thought to be correct will stay that way in the future.

What I am suggesting is that the claims made in the name of chi be studied, catalogued and tested, vice passed from person to person. A hypothesis to be developed, tested and studied under appropriately controlled conditions. For instance, the idea that you use chi to help heal yourself or eliminate pain... GREAT! Let's study that. There's a real effect of chi we should be able to study.

And if you can take my back and choke me 10 out of 10 times, good god man, you're good!

[No_Know]

Study it....(0 0), ohhhhhhhh! :-) O.K. :-)

[Merryprankster]

Yup! Subject it to the same sort of objective analyses we study other things with. That's all.

Until then, it's an unverified concept. Useful perhaps to some, and perhaps having real effects, but the process of studying it is where I think we'll get some answers.

[David Jamieson]

wow, the ebb and flow of this thread is chi like.

Well, I personally believe in the constant and persistent existance of chi, and accept it without actually being able to accurately and fully describe it.

I do feel it's effects when I breath, eat food, drink water, squint my eyes in the bright sun, etc, etc, etc.

I see it's effects when body and mind connect, which in turn I feel encourages and broadens ones spirit, intent, will and resolve.
I have experienced it's effects through time as my body ages and as it grew. I imagine it will still be felt as I expend my last breath

I understand what's been said about inanimate objects possessing chi, however, to me, it is residual in nature (like an object under water) at that level and as semantics go, it is a more broadly accepted term in the east to be used in such fashion. On the other hand, on a much wider scale, the whole of the universe has chi.


peace

[KenGullette]

Kung Lek wrote:
Well, I personally believe in the constant and persistent existance of chi, and accept it without actually being able to accurately and fully describe it.
_______________________________

But why?

Why would an intelligent guy like yourself believe that you feel something like chi in the sun, in the air -- when so many others believe they feel different things other than chi (God, radiation, etc.).

Why do so many intelligent folks just buy into it? Is it the romance of the ancient Chinese culture -- some perception we have that these old theories are cool, so they must be right?

Just curious. I'm always curious when people say "Yep. I believe it. Can't describe it. Can't prove it. But I believe it."