Your chi stories...

[ammocase]

Tell me ... in your own words... is it real... what did you do, or what did you see?

[cjurakpt]

no such thing per se; it's metaphorical; a qualitative descriptor of the net effect of all functional interrelationships in the body and its surrounding environment; there is not independent "thing" - electicit, heat, gravity, magnetism - these are all discreet measurable phenommena that participate in the way the body/universe functions, so the descriptor "qi" necesarilly includes them;

all so-called "qi" phenommena can be pretty much explained by contemporary anatomy/physiology - most of it has to do with the way the autonomic nervous system responds in conjunction with the entrainment effect; also understanding how the connective tissue system functions along the lines of tensegrety principles, you can get an idea of how / why certain principles of so-called "internal" arts make sense in context of functional applications

so "qi" is only "real' in the sense that by adhering to an internally consistent methodology like TCM, you can have pretty good descriptive and, more importantly, predictive system for dealing with the human organism in terms of maintaining or restablishing homeostasis

"qi" is NOT some sort of hoo doo voo doo mystical cr@pola that you shoot out of your fingers to knock people out

this has been beaten to death around here - go look at some old threads if you don't think it has or if you think you actually have anything original to add...

if you are looking for reinforcement on beliefs regarding para-normal phenommenon, this may not be the right place...

[Corwyn]

no such thing per se; it's metaphorical; a qualitative descriptor of the net effect of all functional interrelationships in the body and its surrounding environment; there is not independent "thing" - electicit, heat, gravity, magnetism - these are all discreet measurable phenommena that participate in the way the body/universe functions, so the descriptor "qi" necesarilly includes them;

all so-called "qi" phenommena can be pretty much explained by contemporary anatomy/physiology - most of it has to do with the way the autonomic nervous system responds in conjunction with the entrainment effect; also understanding how the connective tissue system functions along the lines of tensegrety principles, you can get an idea of how / why certain principles of so-called "internal" arts make sense in context of functional applications

so "qi" is only "real' in the sense that by adhering to an internally consistent methodology like TCM, you can have pretty good descriptive and, more importantly, predictive system for dealing with the human organism in terms of maintaining or restablishing homeostasis

"qi" is NOT some sort of hoo doo voo doo mystical cr@pola that you shoot out of your fingers to knock people out

this has been beaten to death around here - go look at some old threads if you don't think it has or if you think you actually have anything original to add...

if you are looking for reinforcement on beliefs regarding para-normal phenommenon, this may not be the right place...

The red part is the ONLY relevant information you need to know. Everything after is just BS

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Hi Corwyn.. nice to see you!! now, could you please give us a little background as to how you can justify the following statement..

The red part is the ONLY relevant information you need to know. Everything after is just BS

Please enlighten us as to the qualifications you have that might inspire us to consider your notions as valid..

cjurakpt (Chris), has done a very good job of describing Qi.. to label that description as BS without backing it up, lacks any validity..

Corwyn, you come around from time to time just to stir-up conflict, and.. to your credit you are a bit successful.. but you have yet to make any contribution that supports you notion that Qi is BS.. like Chris said, it's not voodoo or mystical.. it's a word the ancestors used to describe pretty much what Chris described.. to contend otherwise is just uninformed and ill-intended attention-seeking rubbish.. i suggest that you actually do some research, Corwyn, you will surprise yourself.. and, you might even evolve into a person capable of thinking for themself.. good luck with that..

Be well..

[cjurakpt]

The red part is the ONLY relevant information you need to know. Everything after is just BS

I'm not exactly sure what your point is...

but anyway, when you make it so eloquently, I find myself helpless in the crushing grip of your reason and am therefore unable to respond

[bodhitree]

Everything after is just BS

I would say his point of view is in line with that of reality.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I am curious, how difficult is it to acknowledge the following concepts:

~The ancient Chinese had limited knowledge of physiology..

~There were people that, without knowing the physiology, were able to accomplish superior physical feats..

~That through careful observation and discipline, people could use seemingly little force to accomplish what others could only by using excessive force..

~That ancient people chose a word, "Qi", to describe the type of discipline and the "little force" that accomplished difficult feats..

~That today we can describe these disciplines and forces through standard scientific expressions and knowledge.. just as cjurakpt has done..

Now, i'm no brainiac, but.. i can read, use google to research, and formulate sound opinions.. and to assert that "Qi" doesn't exist is outside the realm of reasoning and logic.. it exists because we discuss it, it is part of the Chinese language, it has cultural meaning and practical application.. it is not mystical or voodoo except to close-minded persons that need something to ridicule to make them feel like they have something important to say..

Qi, as understood today, is nothing more than superior understandings of physiology, bio-physics, and finely tuned disciplines.. and, i can find no inconsistency between that description and "reality".. Qi, in today's "reality" is the result of intellectual research, focused discipline, and a willingness to evolve beyond antiquated prejudices..

Be well..
Be well..

[cjurakpt]

Greetings..

I am curious, how difficult is it to acknowledge the following concepts:

~The ancient Chinese had limited knowledge of physiology..

~There were people that, without knowing the physiology, were able to accomplish superior physical feats..

~That through careful observation and discipline, people could use seemingly little force to accomplish what others could only by using excessive force..

~That ancient people chose a word, "Qi", to describe the type of discipline and the "little force" that accomplished difficult feats..

~That today we can describe these disciplines and forces through standard scientific expressions and knowledge.. just as cjurakpt has done..

Now, i'm no brainiac, but.. i can read, use google to research, and formulate sound opinions.. and to assert that "Qi" doesn't exist is outside the realm of reasoning and logic.. it exists because we discuss it, it is part of the Chinese language, it has cultural meaning and practical application.. it is not mystical or voodoo except to close-minded persons that need something to ridicule to make them feel like they have something important to say..

Qi, as understood today, is nothing more than superior understandings of physiology, bio-physics, and finely tuned disciplines.. and, i can find no inconsistency between that description and "reality".. Qi, in today's "reality" is the result of intellectual research, focused discipline, and a willingness to evolve beyond antiquated prejudices..

Be well..
Be well..

nicely nicely summarized Bob, as per usual...

some thoughts: there seems to be the phenomenon of "if it's Chinese, it must be good" permeating a lot of tai ji and qi gong practice, to the point where it's assumed apriori that anything that was developed in China 1,000 years ago or more must be inherently superior to anything in the so-called "west" (personally, I blame Kapra, but anyway...); so we need to move past that a bit...
also, I think you make an excellent point though - that for a people with a limited understanding of physiology compared to how we know it today, they derrived a highly consistent and dependable methodology of empiricism which worked very well given the obvious limitations; part of the reason this was possible was that in pre-industrial society, things moved a bit slower, so people could spend more time watching and listening to the world around them in a way that rarely happens these days - it's like the way many ancient cultures mapped the heavens - they had people who dedicated thei entire lives to observing minute details and recording them - and that's all they did (perhaps, I am assuming that, i admit); but anyway, now that we have the ability to understand much of what is happening in the body differently and more specifically, we can appreciate the gestalt that is "qi" for its component parts - in fact, we can use the paradigm to enable use to engage in non-linear analysis in context of our contemporary knowledge (which I find rather exciting); to wit, your own discovery of the roll of CT mirrors mine, but yet we came up with it independently - so that suggests something worth pursuing, as a means to more definitively articulate the processes involved in tai ji / qi gong practice

anyway, it IS all just BS when you really look at it...

[Scott R. Brown]

Whether we consider Qi BS or not is dependent upon how we define it. If it is biomechanics harmonized with/directed by mind then how can it be BS; if it is magic (in a manner of speaking) then it is still based upon some kind of measurable phenomenon and is therefore a definable and understandable process. Since this is the case how can it be BS??

Either way it is not actually BS, both are definable/measurable. One is presently measurable the other is not presently measurable. "Not presently measurable" does not mean it is impossible to measure only that it is we do not have the ability to measure it at this time.

Electricity, photography. CPR, the Taser, etc. would all look like magic 1,000 years ago!

[mantis108]

Greetings..

I am curious, how difficult is it to acknowledge the following concepts:

~The ancient Chinese had limited knowledge of physiology..

The ancient Chinese didn't have limited knowledge of physiology. Ancient Chinese did have limited knowledge of physiology "as we know it" today in the western world. Ancient Chinese had a very different worldview then the general understanding of the modern western world. It has always been mind-body continuum in mind. Ancient Chinese didn't treat mind as one thing and body as another. This has to be made clear.

~There were people that, without knowing the physiology, were able to accomplish superior physical feats..

I would rather rephrase this as "there were people that have exceptional understanding of the mind-body continuum to the extend that they can accomplish superior physical feats without dwelling into academic labeling of physiology. In other words, they simply just expressed the grace of Dao/God as it is available to them without fussing over academic elitism.

~That through careful observation and discipline, people could use seemingly little force to accomplish what others could only by using excessive force..

The "mechanics" of Ancient Chinese can be expressed as Xin (consciousness) - Yi (mind - seeing and operating through sensory) - Qi (quanta - particle/wave) - li (force or energy)

~That ancient people chose a word, "Qi", to describe the type of discipline and the "little force" that accomplished difficult feats..

Qi can be understood through shu (mathametics), Xiang (phenonema - particularly celesterial bodies), and Li (reasoning). It's not hocus pocus.

~That today we can describe these disciplines and forces through standard scientific expressions and knowledge.. just as cjurakpt has done..

Human brains are wired to be able to expirence the world through reasoning and mystical disciplines. It's a matter of preference to chose which discipline. It is the person who chose to switch off either one ability but we don't have to switch off either one.

Now, i'm no brainiac, but.. i can read, use google to research, and formulate sound opinions.. and to assert that "Qi" doesn't exist is outside the realm of reasoning and logic.. it exists because we discuss it, it is part of the Chinese language, it has cultural meaning and practical application.. it is not mystical or voodoo except to close-minded persons that need something to ridicule to make them feel like they have something important to say..

The mystic way is grossly misunderstood today IMHO.

Qi, as understood today, is nothing more than superior understandings of physiology, bio-physics, and finely tuned disciplines.. and, i can find no inconsistency between that description and "reality".. Qi, in today's "reality" is the result of intellectual research, focused discipline, and a willingness to evolve beyond antiquated prejudices..

Be well..
Be well..

Qi being part (the grace and/or the glory) of Dao is very much like Dao/God in the sense that you can ignore it, sally it, toy with it, or whatever but it just go on and on without failing what it does. It is what it is. It's only when we have human arrogance (secularism) to the extend that we believe we are above and beyond it.

Just some thoughts

Warm regards

Mantis108

[RonH]

Yes, one of the things I've done is healing myself and others.

[Vajramusti]

There are different paradigms and resultant models of health, disease and human activity. And there are people who are good within their working paradigms
while others are incompetent or even fraudulent in western or eastern disciplines..
Dismissing chi offhand is possibly a very western cultural bias. A top flight acupuncturist can be miles ahead of an MD in physiology in understanding some aspects of the human body- while a research MD with molecular biology background can know things about cellular behavior that the acupuncturist doesnt.
Some great kung fu systems has come out of understanding the proper flow of chi.
Not an accident that taiji didnt come from the world of Gray's anatomy.Top flight yoga -not the health club variety is based on understanding prana and pranayama....the Indian equivalents of chi and chigung.
Medicine is an applied science- an all medical models are effective in some contexts and ineffective in others. The key is finding top flight diagnosticians in different models.
But as far as a kung fu list discussion-if I want to know what the path of a good kung fu motion is- I will choose a knowledgeable kung fu master who has had access to experience and multi generational observation and practice.. If I need part of my ear bone structure scraped I will go to ear surgeon(MD).If I need to have an unwanted
growth in my brain removed I will look for a top flight neurosurgeon.
Context, context, context.

joy chaudhuri

[imperialtaichi]

Qi is part of a model to explain and predict observable phenomenons.

Western science, such as Newton Physics, Quantum Mechanics etc are also models to explain and predict observable phenomenons.

Looking at Chinese scientific models through Western science makes it difficult to make sense. And the reverse is the same as well.

There is virtually no way of solidly saying something is real or not; we can only come up with models to explain things.

We may not even have the intelligence to see what's real anyway! Try explaining to a monkey about the molecular make up of a banana; when all he needs to know is that the banana is yummy.

What makes us think we are that much smarter than a monkey? I rather just eat my banana.

Cheers,
John

[cjurakpt]

The ancient Chinese didn't have limited knowledge of physiology.

yes they did - the fact that they had to resort to a metaphorical model to describe the way the body works is evidence that they observed physiological function only up to a point; hence, it was limited; just like "western" medicine pre-1900's was also very limited, and so used many similar types of descriptors (go read some early osteopathic texts - they sound more like TCM than allopathic)

Ancient Chinese did have limited knowledge of physiology "as we know it" today in the western world.

the way "we" know it, is also the way everyone "knows" it - and that's because to a large extent, the bio-medical model trumps the TCM model in most cases, especially in traumatology and infectious disease management; why else has it become dominant? it works more consistently, more reliably and more quickly (largely because it is "forcing" something on the organism, as opposed to TCM, osteo, homeopathy, which push the body's own abilities towards dealing with the illness: works great if you have the forces to do it, and the time...)

Ancient Chinese had a very different worldview then the general understanding of the modern western world. It has always been mind-body continuum in mind. Ancient Chinese didn't treat mind as one thing and body as another. This has to be made clear.

again, read up on "western" non-allopathic approaches such as homeopathic, chiropractic and osteopathic in their pre-20th forms: they are also "top down", looking at the entire organism's function in a holistic context; nothing unique about that in China; and the reason they stopped being so prominent here was because when allopathic medicine hit its stride, it worked much better, for all it's linearity, then the other stuff did on most things (not everything, mind you, and certainly some things do respond better to a TCM / ostepathic / etc. approach); in fact, contemporary allopathic approach doesn't put them in opposite corners either;

Qi (quanta - particle/wave)

why is "qi' quanta? I know Kapra has a very romantic view of Shiva's dance looking like a collision in a particle acccelerator, but quantum physics is simply what it is: describing how things work at the "very small" level; up here in the big world, Newton still rules...

Human brains are wired to be able to expirence the world through reasoning and mystical disciplines. It's a matter of preference to chose which discipline. It is the person who chose to switch off either one ability but we don't have to switch off either one. The mystic way is grossly misunderstood today IMHO.

mystical experience = self-indulgent cr@pola (just my opinion); mere distraction; solar-flares of the brain...even the Taoist's practicing alchemical transformation warned of them; and the Ch'an folk would smack your head with a broom handle if you talked about that sort of thing...

Qi being part (the grace and/or the glory) of Dao is very much like Dao/God in the sense that you can ignore it, sally it, toy with it, or whatever but it just go on and on without failing what it does. It is what it is. It's only when we have human arrogance (secularism) to the extend that we believe we are above and beyond it.

why is secularism arrogant? why is it arrogant to see things simply such as they are? if anything, theism / religion is the arrogance: man, in his desire to feel like he occupies some special place in the universe and because of fear of the unkown (death) / possible extinguishing of the ego construct, has created, in his own image, a great fabrication that has been the cause of more suffering and torment than anything else I can fathom; don't consfuse Dao and good: Dao is form and function such as they are, and requires no elaborate theology or even belief in itself to manifest; without human consciousness, poof, God begone - quite a difference...

[cjurakpt]

Qi is part of a model to explain and predict observable phenomenons.

Western science, such as Newton Physics, Quantum Mechanics etc are also models to explain and predict observable phenomenons.

Looking at Chinese scientific models through Western science makes it difficult to make sense. And the reverse is the same as well.

There is virtually no way of solidly saying something is real or not; we can only come up with models to explain things.

We may not even have the intelligence to see what's real anyway! Try explaining to a monkey about the molecular make up of a banana; when all he needs to know is that the banana is yummy.

What makes us think we are that much smarter than a monkey? I rather just eat my banana.

Cheers,
John

agreed in terms of the limitations inherent in observation, and re: everything being essentially a model; the difference is the degree to which the model is able to predict and account for changes in the organism (talking aboutmedicine) and correct those changes consistently; as far as east vs. west and never the twain shall meet, i disagree - I think that as the two cultures intermesh more and more, we will find some way to do just that - for example, the "western" concept of tensegrity is, at base, a model of yin/yang theory, but it's aplied functionally to things like architecture and human connective tissue; binary code is essentially yin / yang theory - in fact, Master Jou Tsung hwa in his I Ching book shows how mathematical concepts such as the Bell curve and binary merge seamlessly with generating a bat gwa...

the difference between us and the monkey is basically the ability to abstract and therefore to project the ego self via the mechanism of psychological time onto the backdrop of reality in such a way that craving and desire are satisfied in a much more complex manner; the monkey wants the bannana, he screams until he gets it, he eats it, he moves on; we on the other hand, are able to manipulate nature so that we can put off getting the bannana immediately, but invest psychologically in the eventuality of that bannana being there - of course, as we eat it, we are worrying about when the next one will be available...