# OK. Any sort of evidence that chi works. Or not or whatever.



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2015)

For ruhanni here is your thread on chi,bending spears and the whole mess. Go buck wild.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

Chi is real, as long as you don't try bending spoons and chit.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> For ruhanni here is your thread on chi,bending spears and the whole mess. Go buck wild.


thank you.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2015)

Let's kick it off by doing the spear throat thing. Now to be conservative I will suggest it can be a trick. Rather than it always is one at this stage.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

Think of Chi as a German trying to become an Ubermein. It is real if you work at it, You are improving or you are not. But these exercises get you somewhere. Right?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Chi is real, as long as you don't try bending spoons and chit.



Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible instead only try and realise the truth.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Think of Chi as a German trying to become an Ubermein. It is real if you work at it, You are improving or you are not. But these exercises get you somewhere. Right?



Good point. Don't know. Purely psychological exercises do work.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible instead only try and realise the truth.


Chi and Char are almost the same word; so, if you build you Char-acter you are improving your Chi-acter. They both mean power. And powers are traits of character. So, get off chi, man!


----------



## lklawson (Nov 3, 2015)

First things first.  Define "Chi."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Think of Chi as a German trying to become an Ubermein. It is real if you work at it, You are improving or you are not. But these exercises get you somewhere. Right?


Übermein is not a word. Explain please?


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible instead only try and realise the truth.


There is no spoon. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

It means, Sunshine super man.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> It means, Sunshine super man.



No, uber = over. mein= mine. I think you mean Übermensch.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

as expected nothing serious was going to come from this topic lol


----------



## Danny T (Nov 3, 2015)

And on a lighter note: when it comes to chi and ki Tuhon Gaje' has the Double L theory. "I will take your 'chi' and double L to it and Chill you, I will take your ki add double L to it and kill you."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> as expected nothing serious was going to come from this topic lol


Says you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Says you.


lol yes I'm the one that said it. that much is clear


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 3, 2015)

Chi is real. It's just our overblown definitions and expectations that are messed up. To my way of looking at it, all real chi can be explained through science and biomechanics.  I think chi is just the best they could do to explain it back in china. Heck we thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Every example of chi I have ever seen that had real life effects I can explain. But then there is the hocus pocus magic touch and bending spoons garbage.  Uri Gellar bent spoons with his "chi"  he was later proved to be a fake.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 3, 2015)

The big stumbling block is that some people are literally using "chi" to mean "a combination of skill, focus, and intuition, also explainable through rational means, but easily summarized by a one syllable word," while some people use the same word to actually refer to some sort of supernatural, undetectable energy. Until someone gives us a clear definition, it's a pretty useless discussion...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> The big stumbling block is that some people are literally using "chi" to mean "a combination of skill, focus, and intuition, also explainable through rational means, but easily summarized by a one syllable word," while some people use the same word to actually refer to some sort of supernatural, undetectable energy. Until someone gives us a clear definition, it's a pretty useless discussion...


Lee say it again. Chi means Power.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> The big stumbling block is that some people are literally using "chi" to mean "a combination of skill, focus, and intuition, also explainable through rational means, but easily summarized by a one syllable word," while some people use the same word to actually refer to some sort of supernatural, undetectable energy. Until someone gives us a clear definition, it's a pretty useless discussion...


And that wraps up the entire discussion chi. lol.  I wouldn't be surprised if people see the definition of Chi differently.  There is already talk about spoon bending so I'm sure the magic fighting will come in soon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 3, 2015)

If Chi works then should we already see it's used in Sumo ring?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 3, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> And that wraps up the entire discussion chi. lol.  I wouldn't be surprised if people see the definition of Chi differently.  There is already talk about spoon bending so I'm sure the magic fighting will come in soon.


Don't make me bend your spoon.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 3, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Lee say it again. Chi means Power.



OK. So, what does "power" mean? Hitting hard? Control of a fight? Electrical Power? Political Power? Military Power? Or maybe magical Power?

The term power may have even more definitions and connotations than "Qi/Chi/Ki." legs

If it's in terms of "power" as in "force," as in an application of energy in a physical sense, than what is Chi aside from an effective use of your legs, hips, core and limbs? In that case, it sounds like "Chi" just means "sound application of body mechanics."

Basically, "Chi" is either just an translation of one of a variety of basic English terms such as "sports physiology" or "bio-mechanics" or "mental focus" or "you've done a good job of training specific actions into your neurology", or it's something supernatural which has never been documented, demonstrated, or even reliably witnessed, and which is largely simulated through a combination of self-deception, wishful thinking, and outright charlatanry.

If we're going to say that "Chi" is "Power" in the sense of applied biomechanics that is too complex to really do justice to in casual conversation then sure, we can all discuss "Chi," although I think I and others might still use other more specific terms.

If we're going to say that "Chi" is "Power" in terms of focus, control, and awareness of the situation, then again, sure, we can all discuss examples of that, although again I think some of us may use other better defined terms.

If we're going to say that "Chi" is "Power" in the sense of, well, most people's understanding of the term chi, then saying that "Chi is Power" is at best vague. I think most English translations of the word are probably more like "vital essence," "Life force," or "spiritual energy."

Let's glance at the Wikipedia article on Chi, the term "power" shows up exactly five times: 
1. As part of the word "willpower" referencing ways to control Chi.
2. Once as part of the term "feats of power," regarding things like spears to the throat, etc, which are noted as also being explainable through basic biomechanics.
3. In the title of a cited reference, _The Chi Revolution: Harnessing the Healing Power of Your Life Force_.
4. Once as part of the term "Qigong Empowerment," again in the title of a cited reference.
5. Finally, as the name of an author, John Powers.

The concepts listed as being similar to Chi include prana, pnuema, mana, lüng, ruah, and The Force, all of which are spiritual or fantastical, most of which are religious, none of which are particularly synonymous with "power."

So, I would say that the consensus is perhaps not entirely solid that "power" is the best, or even a particularly viable translation of the concept of "Chi."


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 3, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Übermein is not a word. Explain please?



Superman.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 3, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> And that wraps up the entire discussion chi. lol.  I wouldn't be surprised if people see the definition of Chi differently.  There is already talk about spoon bending so I'm sure the magic fighting will come in soon.



Much like most religious and spiritual discussions.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Think of Chi as a German trying to become an Ubermein. It is real if you work at it, You are improving or you are not. But these exercises get you somewhere. Right?





Gnarlie said:


> Übermein is not a word. Explain please?





Touch Of Death said:


> It means, Sunshine super man.





Tez3 said:


> No, uber = over. mein= mine. I think you mean Übermensch.





KenpoDave said:


> Superman.



The word is Übermensch. The word carries some pretty heavy Nazi master race connotations, and it is not something that Germans aspire to, but rather a word associated with a past that they are collectively ashamed of. Probably not a great example unless you meant Nazis, or you mean that Germans are Nazis.

On topic, James Randi has offered his challenge for decades, and nobody has ever provided proof of chi, even for massive financial rewards, so I would not expect it to turn up in this thread.

Maybe chi 'universal energy' is what we see every day: gravity, heat, light, kinetic energy, potential energy, sound, electricity. Maybe we are looking for proof of something that has already been proven. I can live with chi as an expression of a combination physical factors in synergy. I do not believe it is a special extra type of magical energy that can not be detected. There is no magic anywhere else in the universe, why would there be here?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> The word is Übermensch. The word carries some pretty heavy Nazi master race connotations, and it is not something that Germans aspire to, but rather a word associated with a past that they are collectively ashamed of. Probably not a great example unless you meant Nazis, or you mean that Germans are Nazis.
> 
> On topic, James Randi has offered his challenge for decades, and nobody has ever provided proof of chi, even for massive financial rewards, so I would not expect it to turn up in this thread.
> 
> Maybe chi 'universal energy' is what we see every day: gravity, heat, light, kinetic energy, potential energy, sound, electricity. Maybe we are looking for proof of something that has already been proven. I can live with chi as an expression of a combination physical factors in synergy. I do not believe it is a special extra type of magical energy that can not be detected. There is no magic anywhere else in the universe, why would there be here?


While Nazis loved this stuff, no I don't mean Nazis, and yes Germans should aspire to it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> OK. So, what does "power" mean? Hitting hard? Control of a fight? Electrical Power? Political Power? Military Power? Or maybe magical Power?
> 
> The term power may have even more definitions and connotations than "Qi/Chi/Ki." legs
> 
> ...


I studied a little bit on Prana, and that is what we get when we breath, and if that ain't power, nothing is, Secondly, you are right, Power is such a vague term it only touches on the spiritual connotations of Chi, but again, we are talking spiritual power. Life Force, sounds like power, to me. I could go on.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> While Nazis loved this stuff, no I don't mean Nazis, and yes Germans should aspire to it.


Well the word has been corrupted I'm afraid, so no, they really shouldn't. The problem is the aspiration to Übermensch implies the existence of the Untermensch, the 'subhuman', which is dangerous for obvious reasons. It really isn't an appropriate example.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Well the word has been corrupted I'm afraid, so no, they really shouldn't. The problem is the aspiration to Übermensch implies the existence of the Untermensch, the 'subhuman', which is dangerous for obvious reasons. It really isn't an appropriate example.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


That is your opinion. The idea is that we are all sub-human until we get with it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Every religion, including Christianity, preaches that true spiritual power happens when you eliminate your desire for non-spiritual things. So, even just walking around, trying to be a good person is empowering, right?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is your opinion. The idea is that we are all sub-human until we get with it.




Actually it's not his 'opinion' it's well known that the Nazi's used this as their 'ideal' and to now think that it is an ideal well, that's sick.

Hitler's Supermen: The Ubermensch, Eugenics, and Perfecting the Master Race.

Untermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Every religion doesn't think that true spiritual power comes from eliminating non spiritual things, Judaism doesn't work that way at all, we don't do 'spiritual' in the way it's meant here. Judaism is about how you behave to others, spiritualism doesn't really come into it at all.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is your opinion. The idea is that we are all sub-human until we get with it.



That the use of the example is inappropriate is my opinion (an opinion which the vast majority of the German and Jewish populations are very likely to share). That the word Übermensch has very negative connotations (as does sub-human) is fact. 

You might want to express your ideas in a different way e.g. In terms of enlightenment, as that seems to be what you actually mean.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> Chi is real. It's just our overblown definitions and expectations that are messed up. To my way of looking at it, all real chi can be explained through science and biomechanics.  I think chi is just the best they could do to explain it back in china. Heck we thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Every example of chi I have ever seen that had real life effects I can explain. But then there is the hocus pocus magic touch and bending spoons garbage.  Uri Gellar bent spoons with his "chi"  he was later proved to be a fake.



Actually that people thought the world was flat is a myth.
Did Medieval People Believe in a Flat Earth?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's not his 'opinion' it's well known that the Nazi's used this as their 'ideal' and to now think that it is an ideal well, that's sick.
> 
> Hitler's Supermen: The Ubermensch, Eugenics, and Perfecting the Master Race.
> 
> ...


So... what that Ten Commandment thing all about then?  You are stretching, now. Go ahead and tell us how Judaism isn't about eliminating sin. This should be fun.


----------



## 23rdwave (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Actually that people thought the world was flat is a myth.
> Did Medieval People Believe in a Flat Earth?



The flat earthers are still going strong.

The Flat Earth Society


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> So... what that Ten Commandment thing all about then?  You are stretching, now. Go ahead and tell us how Judaism isn't about eliminating sin. This should be fun.




I don't find it 'fun' and if you are just going to belittle of people's beliefs there's little point in discussing anything with you. and by the way there's 631 commandments not 10. The fact you talk about 'eliminating' sin shows you know little about theology in general and certainly nothing about Judaism.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I don't find it 'fun' and if you are just going to belittle of people's beliefs there's little point in discussing anything with you. and by the way there's 631 commandments not 10. The fact you talk about 'eliminating' sin shows you know little about theology in general and certainly nothing about Judaism.


Sin means, to miss the mark, which implies you should stop doing that. What did I miss?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> The flat earthers are still going strong.
> 
> The Flat Earth Society




That's a modern thing encompassing religious beliefs , even the early Greeks know the earth wasn't flat. the flat earth society had about 3000 members worldwide, it's doubtful there are that many now.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I don't find it 'fun' and if you are just going to belittle of people's beliefs there's little point in discussing anything with you. and by the way there's 631 commandments not 10. The fact you talk about 'eliminating' sin shows you know little about theology in general and certainly nothing about Judaism.


631 things you need to not do. Sounds like some empowerment code to me.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> 631 things you need to not do. Sounds like some empowerment code to me.



What on earth are you talking about? It doesn't mean things you 'need not do', nor does 'sin' mean 'missing the mark'. You are trolling purely for the sake of being argumentative.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> What on earth are you talking about? It doesn't mean things you 'need not do', nor does 'sin' mean 'missing the mark'. You are trolling purely for the sake of being argumentative.


Actually, sin does mean that. I ain't makin' this stuff up.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

By the way, Western thought is founded on the concept of sin. Instead of Yin and Yang, you are closer or further from the truth/God. Again, I ain't makin' this up.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> By the way, Western thought is founded on the concept of sin. Instead of Yin and Yang, you are closer or further from the truth/God. Again, I ain't makin' this up.



This is about as simplistic as it's possible to get without actually using one syllable words. Whose 'Western thought'?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> This is about as simplistic as it's possible to get without actually using one syllable words. Whose 'Western thought'?


The West, perhaps you have heard of it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Western Civilization is founded Truths.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> The West, perhaps you have heard of it?



Sigh, you cannot really be this obtuse and must be doing this for amusement. sorry, not playing anymore. Get back to the OP and whether chi exists, works or is a figment of imagination.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Sigh, you cannot really be this obtuse and must be doing this for amusement. sorry, not playing anymore. Get back to the OP and whether chi exists, works or is a figment of imagination.


It is real.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> By the way, Western thought is founded on the concept of sin. Instead of Yin and Yang, you are closer or further from the truth/God. Again, I ain't makin' this up.


Source? 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> It is real.


Source?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Source?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Philosophy 101, in 93. I can still remember all that stuff. You should try it.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Philosophy 101, in 93. I can still remember all that stuff. You should try it.


Ok, let me be clearer. Which philosopher(s) exactly, and how was this idea expressed? 

I'm relatively familiar with the canon of western philosophy due to my book research. I don't recall seeing anything that supports your claim about sin.

Thanks for condescending, though. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Anyways, I don't remember them off the top of my head, but one of the five universal truths is ceremonial, Which is like a stamp of truth. If you believe in Chi, it has a stamp of truth to it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Ok, let me be clearer. Which philosopher(s) exactly, and how was this idea expressed?
> 
> I'm relatively familiar with the canon of western philosophy due to my book research. I don't recall seeing anything that supports your claim about sin.
> 
> ...


Greek thought in particular. Sin is a Greek word. Start there.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Anyways, I don't remember them off the top of my head, but one of the five universal truths is ceremonial, Which is like a stamp of truth. If you believe in Chi, it has a stamp of truth to it.



You know that doesn't make sense right?

'Sin' isn't a Greek word at all.

Online Etymology Dictionary


Ancient Greek religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> You know that doesn't make sense right?
> 
> 'Sin' isn't a Greek word at all.
> 
> ...


Sure it is, it is an archer's term.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Greek thought in particular. Sin is a Greek word. Start there.


What is Sin


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> What is Sin


Are just disagreeing with me to hear yourself type?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

The fact you are putting the 'funny' icons on posts indicates you are playing a game, trolling in other words. You aren't attempting to put a serious argument forward on anything, you are just trying to mock people.
Posting up a biased one sided  source isn't proof of anything and you probably shouldn't take such things literally.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> The fact you are putting the 'funny' icons on posts indicates you are playing a game, trolling in other words. You aren't attempting to put a serious argument forward on anything, you are just trying to mock people.
> Posting up a biased one sided  source isn't proof of anything and you probably shouldn't take such things literally.


So the fact that they teach this in school, and I google sin and came up with that in three seconds, is biased and one sided. What side are you on?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Here is another possibly offensive analogy. If a billion Christians believe they have a soul, you can't prove, to them, they don't, and they can't prove, to you, they do. It is all in or heads, one way, or the other. Chi is the same. Saying it isn't real is just going to offend those that believe, and define their lives with that term.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> So the fact that they teach this in school, and I google sin and came up with that in three seconds, is biased and one sided. What side are you on?




You do understand what's wrong with this don't you? They may have taught you that in 'your' school, doesn't make it true. You can google anything and come up with wildly varying results.
What has 'sin' got to do with 'chi'?

I came up with this off Google and 'sin' 

Sin, Cos, Tan | S-cool, the revision website


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Here is another possibly offensive analogy. If a billion Christians believe they have a soul, you can't prove, to them, they don't, and they can't prove, to you, they do. It is all in or heads, one way, or the other. Chi is the same. Saying it isn't real is just going to offend those that believe, and define their lives with that term.



So you are looking to offend people then? that's why you are posting. I don't find anything like that offensive, I don't think anyone else does either so you are probably wasting your time.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> So you are looking to offend people then? that's why you are posting. I don't find anything like that offensive, I don't think anyone else does either so you are probably wasting your time.


 I don't need to look to offend. Offense finds me, just fine


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

OK fine, so those dirty Greeks lied. What, pray tell, did they say when the archer missed his mark?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> . What, pray tell, did they say when the archer missed his mark?


Crap, he missed.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> What is Sin


An offense against a deity.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> An offense against a deity.



An offence against another human being.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> An offence against another human being.


Don't forget idolatry which is indirect.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Don't forget idolatry which is indirect.



Which religion are you talking about, not all have idolatry as an issue.


----------



## 23rdwave (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> That's a modern thing encompassing religious beliefs , even the early Greeks know the earth wasn't flat. the flat earth society had about 3000 members worldwide, it's doubtful there are that many now.



The Amish are still flat earth believers.

Is the earth spherical or flat?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> For ruhanni here is your thread on chi,bending spears and the whole mess. Go buck wild.



I'll take a shot at this.

Chi or ki or whatever you want to call it, exists in my experience.  I have seen and experienced it being applied to me by my instructors, and perhaps more importantly, I have seen and experienced it NOT working when applied to me by others.

Now, if you ask me what it is, I do not know exactly.  I believe it is not supernatural.  I believe it is an application of physical laws.  Some might call it good body mechanics, and I would not argue with that definition, although I suspect it is more than just that.

I will say that it is difficult to explain and harder to demonstrate without an in-person demonstration by a skilled practitioner.  Seeing, and in some cases, feeling, is believing.

I believe that one cannot describe a given technique to another and then expect that person to be able to perform it.  It does not appear to be the type of knowledge that can be easily transmitted verbally or in writing, or even via video.  One has to experience the technique, mimic it, and then practice it over and over again, in some cases thousands of times, until one day it just seems to happen.

Chi (again, to me) can be seen in relatively simple things, like a soft strike which overcomes a hard blow - and hurts the recipient far more!  It can be felt in the manner of absorbing a blow by connecting oneself to the ground via what some might call good body mechanics.  To feel the incoming power go flowing out and leave one undamaged is an interesting experience, to say the least.

And although I do not wish to play the part of the elitist or the purist or anything like that, I do believe that many are those who study and train their entire lives, experience nothing resembling chi flow or power or whatever you want to call it, do not believe it exists, and are fine martial artists.  But those who have, have, and know differently.

I have heard it described as living inside the art as opposed to living on the surface of it.

I won't argue with anyone that it does or does not exist, or that it is or is not beyond physical laws.  I have no idea, no proof, and only my own experience to guide me.

The above are my opinions and nothing more.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 4, 2015)

Strong Qi = Healthy
Weak Qi = Sick
No Qi = Dead

Nothing magical about it, other than a western misunderstanding and fantasy as to what it actually is


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And although I do not wish to play the part of the elitist or the purist or anything like that, I do believe that many are those who study and train their entire lives, experience nothing resembling chi flow or power or whatever you want to call it, do not believe it exists, and are fine martial artists.  But those who have, have, and know differently.



Fair enough, and I certainly don't want to play the part of the arrogant naysayer who dismisses everything outside of his own experience as BS.

That said, this is, in many ways, a faith-based discussion. If I may draw a parable:

I have a friend, a close friend, who is deeply, deeply Christian in the most compassionate and commendable of senses, and also in the most Biblically literal of senses. If it is written, it occurred, when and how and why the Bible records it. no question. No room for creative interpretation. He's very conservative in the American sense as well. I was raised without any sort of religion, and continue to be non-religious, though I find it fascinating. I'm quite Liberal in the American sense.

We talk about religion a great deal, and we always stay friendly. At the base of it though, he does believe, 100%, that I am blind, devoid of human spiritual realization, living in sin, destined to literally burn in hellfire until judgement day, and affronting and rejecting all that is beautiful in life. I think, mostly, that he puts a great deal of weight and bases life decisions on what is basically an imaginary friend. And we have, with smiles on our faces, discussed this exact phenomenon with each other, with quite similar wording.

Point being, if you say that Chi exists, is the pinnacle or the highest plane or whatever of martial arts, and that some people just never get there, then your _are_ saying that those who don't experience Chi are missing out on the most fulfilling, the most rewarding, the highest level of their potential, that they are falling short of what they aim for because they don't even know to seek it. And that's Ok. That's discussion. To actually discuss something like Chi, everyone has to be willing to say "no, you're wrong," and to hear the same thing in response, and be ok with that.

Conversely, people like myself look at those who believe in Chi, and believe they experience it, and no matter how we say it, we are insinuating that their experience is nothing more than a subpar understanding of body mechanics. And that's ok too.

The truth is, in a yes-no chi dichotomy, both views are necessarily incompatible, and both views clearly state the proponents of the other are misguided and missing out on "true" martial arts because of their assumptions.

With that in mind, these are my particular views on people's perception of Chi in the martial arts. I don't doubt that many practitioners who believe they are utilizing Chi are skilled martial artists. I only doubt that it is actually Chi that they are utilizing. I think they are just skilled martial artists. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Seeing, and in some cases, feeling, is believing.



Definitely true, although I would quibble that _believing _does not make a think so. How many times have we seen variants of images wherein two objects are shown, and we all believe one to be larger, or a darker color, though both are identical? There's a famous musical trick where overlapping ascending or descending scales create the effect of the sound getting infinitely lower or higher, while in reality neither is happening, you are presented with the same notes over and over, yet you think that they are continually rising or falling. Give me headphones, and with a different pitch played in each ear, I can make you think the sound is one pitch orbiting your head. We all know the pressing on a doorway trick, after which your arms helplessly rise. How often have you recalled a childhood memory and almost sworn you could smell the accompanying scent? Touched a cold object and thought it was burning you or the inverse?

I do not doubt that practitioners of many arts, my own included feel what they presume is Chi. Are they feeling the same application of technique as flavoured by the nuance afforded by long practice as I do, and just calling that skill Chi, or are they really experiencing something beyond that? In other words, I don't doubt for a moment that people feel Chi. What I question is whether that sensation is any different than the aforementioned Shepard Tone. 

Check out the link and keep listening. Most people would say that the sound gets lower and lower indefinitely, which would be impossible, as we would quickly get below 20 Hz or so, the limits of defined pitch in human hearing, and then seconds later we would reach 0 hz, at which point there literally _is no sound_. Trained musicians or those with naturally gifted ears might hear the separate component sin waves and entrances, and realize this is not the case. It seems to transcend basic aural ranges, yet it never does anything close. It's a very simple, otherwise un-noteworthy bit of audio, except that our brain struggles with truly comprehending it, and so comes up with an incorrect explanation, you hear it, so you believe it, but it's not real.

Seeing, hearing, smelling, and feeling may be believing for many people, but again, to believe a thing is not to demonstrate its existence.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe that one cannot describe a given technique to another and then expect that person to be able to perform it.  It does not appear to be the type of knowledge that can be easily transmitted verbally or in writing, or even via video.  One has to experience the technique, mimic it, and then practice it over and over again, in some cases thousands of times, until one day it just seems to happen.



I would agree with this, one hundred percent. I also play contemporary classical guitar, and would say the same holds true for that discipline as well. I can tackle a tricky passage over and over, seemingly getting no closer to performing it without error, let alone smoothly, and not even close to being able to emote anything other than technical competency through the passage. One day, for who knows what reason, it will be locked in, and my fingers will find the passage thoughtlessly, expression coming to the notes almost unavoidably.

The same goes for martial arts, although the process is longer and more difficult in many ways; with music, no one is trying to stop you playing. (Although my wife does love to walk up and grin at me while slowly detuning a string in the midst of a complex passage. Grrrrr.)

However, in neither study do I find the experience of that effortlessness that comes with absolute familiarity to indicate Chi or anything like it. I won't argue that it feels like a magical experience, that there is a joy and a deep, quiet satisfaction that comes from the unthinking fluid performance of a motion drilled through thousands of repetitions over the years, but to me, that's just my brain saying, "wow, my body/fingers are doing a thing I can't explain, wow, this is magical!" For those of you not involved in music, there is every bit as much mysticism and romantic thought in that realm of study as in the martial arts.

Perhaps that is Chi, a vital energy, a life force, a power flow; but I prefer to explain it as nothing more than _skill gained through hard work. _To my personal ideaology, that's a actually a more beautiful concept.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Chi (again, to me) can be seen in relatively simple things, like a soft strike which overcomes a hard blow - and hurts the recipient far more!  It can be felt in the manner of absorbing a blow by connecting oneself to the ground via what some might call good body mechanics.  To feel the incoming power go flowing out and leave one undamaged is an interesting experience, to say the least.



And again, to me, that's nothing that isn't suitably explained by a basic understanding of human motion, and the subtlety contained therein. Minute differences in the striking angle, the exact portion of the hand that impacts, the exact portion of the area it strikes, the exact position and motion of the target at the point of impact, differences in speed, in breath of the recipient, in which muscles are tensed and loose, etc, all contribute to the effectiveness of any given strike.

To take a ridiculously simplistic example, (and I realize you are referencing something much less blatant, but simple illustrations explain best I think, and the principles are transferable), let's look at a simple straight punch to the general middle of the abdominal muscles.

If I stand in a strong forward stance and have someone punch straight at the center of my lower torso, I'm probably going to be pretty ok, even if that someone is big, beefy, and knows how to hit. It's easy to take a hit there, we all know this. I can take the hit even better if I allow myself to roll, both preventing an impact at the ideal point, and prolonging the duration of that impact so that the force has time to spread rather than disrupt. Again, this is basic, and we all know this. 

We also all know that in the middle of explaining something to another student, some thirteen year old you're training with can wing a sloppy old punch into your gut and wind you. In the first two cases, you're ready, you react well, and the strike comes at a relatively ineffective angle, to a well protected target. In the third case, the strike catches you at the worst moment, and though lacking in skill, power, and certainly concerted Chi, has more effect. The same basic idea manifests itself in every strike, the combination of numerous tiny, unplanned, imperceptible details dictating the effectiveness of the strike.

Does the young teen's floppy pot shot have focused chi? Does your reception of the expected, well-executed punch exemplify your defensive chi in action? I think we all would agree that most likely not, at least not necessarily. Can the sucker punch or the well received strike _feel_ inexplicably powerful or extra-skillfully absorbed? Sure, but if we can _also _explain all of that through really simple principles combining in a more organic way than we can feasibly categorize, why invoke the arcane?

When I can't explain something, I like to accept that I, personally can't fully explain it, not that the principles contained within the last thousand years of rational study can't explain it. I certainly don't like to flip it around and say that, since I have no rational explanation that seems suitable _to me,_ that therefore "Chi did it."

I realize that last paragraph sounds dismissive, and I suppose in a way it is. As I said at the beginning of this foolishly long post, the essence of the discussion is really that a belief in Chi means that those who don't believe are training without the deepest possible understanding, while a dismissal of that belief means that those who believe are in a certain sense living in a fantasy world, though their skill itself may be sound.

So, I don't mind offending, but I hope not to upset, and that anything said is interpreted in the most amicable and earnest of possible tones.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Which religion are you talking about, not all have idolatry as an issue.


Which religion thinks its cool to worship false gods and Idols? Start there.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> An offence against another human being.



Like working on a sunday.  Wearing mixed fibres or eating pork?

I like the chi/religion comparison.  I dont believe god exists.  But it helps some people who do.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> The Amish are still flat earth believers.
> 
> Is the earth spherical or flat?



There was a dark ages.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Like working on a sunday.  Wearing mixed fibres or eating pork?
> 
> I like the chi/religion comparison.  I dont believe god exists.  But it helps some people who do.



I think you are mixing up your religions there.


23rdwave said:


> The Amish are still flat earth believers.
> 
> Is the earth spherical or flat?




That was written by a Jehovah's Witness who I believe had reason to disparage the Amish beside it's just hearsay that a few people think the earth is flat, doesn't mean all Amish do. I rather like the Amish, I like any peaceful people who don't push their views onto me.

BBC - Religions - Christianity: The Amish


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

At any rate before we can understand power, we must understand weakness. Sinnin' sinny sinners are weak, because they are slaves to their desires. And lets lot forget when you become weak it has a direct effect on those around you. The Chi is very low there.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm pretty sure neither the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, or any off shoot of Abrahamic Monotheism makes much reference to Qi, much less provides evidence for it.

I also think that, those of us who are non-religious have every bit as much credibility when it comes to discussing the validity of a given faith, the history of a faith, the accuracy of a text, etc, but if, on a purely hypothetical note, one is arguing the beliefs of Judaism with a member of the Jewish faith, one might do well not to tell them exactly what it is that Judaism teaches...

*But yeah. Qi. Any evidence for it?*

I will say that among those I know who profess to cultivate Qi and those who dismiss it, I have not noticed any difference in quality of martial arts. Those who believe in Qi seem to believe in solid technique more, and those who dismiss Qi seem to be every bit as subtle and effective in practice.

When I see no difference between the variable and the control, I get suspicious of the hypothesis.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> I'm pretty sure neither the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Christian Bible, or any off shoot of Abrahamic Monotheism makes much reference to Qi, much less provides evidence for it.
> 
> I also think that, those of us who are non-religious have every bit as much credibility when it comes to discussing the validity of a given faith, the history of a faith, the accuracy of a text, etc, but if, on a purely hypothetical note, one is arguing the beliefs of Judaism with a member of the Jewish faith, one might do well not to tell them exactly what it is that Judaism teaches...
> 
> ...


Thanks for the advice but I back my claims.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Because the two faiths so closely related, you can't understand the second faith without a vague understanding of the first. And, so far no experts have piped in.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Because the two faiths so closely related, you can't understand the second faith without a vague understanding of the first. And, so far no experts have piped in.



Do tell us what you understand about Judaism, I'm waiting with bated breath.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

They came up with Monotheism. How am I doing?


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> They came up with Monotheism. How am I doing?


I thought the Egyptians were monotheists before that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Steve said:


> I thought the Egyptians were monotheists before that.


Which Egyption God was that?


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2015)

Akhenaten?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Steve said:


> I thought the Egyptians were monotheists before that.


Perhaps you mean the Zoroastrians. They weren't in Egypt.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Perhaps you mean the Zoroastrians. They weren't in Egypt.


Were they Jewish?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Steve said:


> Akhenaten?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Maybe. I don't study much Akhenatenism.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Steve said:


> Were they Jewish?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, that is debatable. Chuck Missler believes they are the lost tribe of Israel, and so do I, but if you ask ten people, you will get ten answers.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Maybe. I don't study much Akhenatenism.


LOL... wow.  Cracking through that thin veneer of expertise didn't take long.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> They came up with Monotheism. How am I doing?



 Nope.
It's debated that the earliest monotheistic religion is either Zoroastrianism ( considered most likely by many scholars to be the first but not pertinent to this discussion as it doesn't matter whether it's the first or second) or the Aten cult. Judaism would be about the third religion to have the concept of one god.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, that is debatable. Chuck Missler believes they are the lost tribe of Israel, and so do I, but if you ask ten people, you will get ten answers.




We don't consider them to be so and really I think Jewish opinion trumps non Jewish opinion as they are our tribes roflmao. I could say I don't consider Hawaiians to be Americans but as Americans do that rules out my opinion as being of any worth.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Nope.
> It's debated that the earliest monotheistic religion is either Zoroastrianism ( considered most likely by many scholars to be the first but not pertinent to this discussion as it doesn't matter whether it's the first or second) or the Aten cult. Judaism would be about the third religion to have the concept of one god.


Hey, I mentioned the Zoros.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> We don't consider them to be so and really I think Jewish opinion trumps non Jewish opinion as they are our tribes roflmao. I could say I don't consider Hawaiians to be Americans but as Americans do that rules out my opinion as being of any worth.


No it does not! We can speculate and be just as wrong as you are, or right. Where did they run to, then?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Zoroastrianism is still going as a religion by the way. 

BBC - Religions - Zoroastrian: At a Glance


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2015)

Pardon the snips, but I had to cut to the core of what I believe you are saying.



Zack Cart said:


> I don't doubt that many practitioners who believe they are utilizing Chi are skilled martial artists. I only doubt that it is actually Chi that they are utilizing. I think they are just skilled martial artists.



Perhaps you are correct.  It does not seem entirely that way to me.



> Definitely true, although I would quibble that _believing _does not make a think so.



Self-deception is part of the human condition, and for both good and bad reasons.  There is no way that I can prove or otherwise demonstrate to anyone else that what I believe to be true is so.  Therefore, it best not to try.  It really isn't important anyway, is it?

I will only say that I am not a believer in magic or the supernatural.  Everything that happens, happens in accordance with physical laws that govern the universe.  I note that we don't seem to know what all of those rules are yet.



> I do not doubt that practitioners of many arts, my own included feel what they presume is Chi. Are they feeling the same application of technique as flavoured by the nuance afforded by long practice as I do, and just calling that skill Chi, or are they really experiencing something beyond that? In other words, I don't doubt for a moment that people feel Chi. What I question is whether that sensation is any different than the aforementioned Shepard Tone.



As well you should.  It is both logical and rational to question what others seem to earnestly believe without objective evidence.  I certainly do.

And yet, I find myself in a place where I have no objective evidence for the existence of a force commonly known as 'chi', but I also trust myself as a rational and intelligent human being, not given to flights of fancy or beliefs in typically unscientific things.  I know what I know, and although you may consider this analogous to religion, I do not.  I accept my religious beliefs as that - irrational, unscientific, and utterly unprovable or demostrable.  On the other hand, I am quite aware of people who can bring me to a higher understanding of pain, at will, without apparent effort, and without a requirement that anyone believe it is possible.



> Check out the link and keep listening. Most people would say that the sound gets lower and lower indefinitely, which would be impossible, as we would quickly get below 20 Hz or so, the limits of defined pitch in human hearing, and then seconds later we would reach 0 hz, at which point there literally _is no sound_. Trained musicians or those with naturally gifted ears might hear the separate component sin waves and entrances, and realize this is not the case. It seems to transcend basic aural ranges, yet it never does anything close. It's a very simple, otherwise un-noteworthy bit of audio, except that our brain struggles with truly comprehending it, and so comes up with an incorrect explanation, you hear it, so you believe it, but it's not real.



Can't help you there; I'm actually quite tone-deaf.  I am incapable of tuning a guitar.  Which is funny considering I'm an audiophile as well.  However, I take your meaning.  Illusions are easily demonstrated, aural, visual, etc.



> Seeing, hearing, smelling, and feeling may be believing for many people, but again, to believe a thing is not to demonstrate its existence.



Fortunately, I feel no need to demonstrate or prove anything.  You ask for proof.  I offer none.  Your logical and rational response should be to refuse to believe what you cannot see, touch, taste, feel, hear, and even more, to prove actually exists.  I applaud you for using your intellect to reject outside attempts to create a 'believer' in chi or any other force or energy that you do not have experience of yourself.



> I would agree with this, one hundred percent. I also play contemporary classical guitar, and would say the same holds true for that discipline as well. I can tackle a tricky passage over and over, seemingly getting no closer to performing it without error, let alone smoothly, and not even close to being able to emote anything other than technical competency through the passage. One day, for who knows what reason, it will be locked in, and my fingers will find the passage thoughtlessly, expression coming to the notes almost unavoidably.



Technical proficiency is one thing.  However, imagine while playing you hit a note a certain way and the audience begins to weep or laugh uncontrollably, or becomes angry or philosophical or filled with ennui.  That's more what I'm talking about.  You might play that note thousands of times, but there is a manner in which it can be played that transcends mere playing.  This, to me, is closer to my understanding of chi.  It still doesn't make it magical or supernatural; it makes it a deep mystery that is hard to understand, let alone master, but which some can seemingly invoke as they desire, effortlessly, and the rest of us just don't seem to be able to do it.  Maybe Montoya, Segovia, Ivanov-Kramskoi...

As the Supreme Court Justice once said about pornography:

_"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."_​


> The same goes for martial arts, although the process is longer and more difficult in many ways; with music, no one is trying to stop you playing. (Although my wife does love to walk up and grin at me while slowly detuning a string in the midst of a complex passage. Grrrrr.)



A very loving and amusing mental picture, she sounds wonderful.



> However, in neither study do I find the experience of that effortlessness that comes with absolute familiarity to indicate Chi or anything like it. I won't argue that it feels like a magical experience, that there is a joy and a deep, quiet satisfaction that comes from the unthinking fluid performance of a motion drilled through thousands of repetitions over the years, but to me, that's just my brain saying, "wow, my body/fingers are doing a thing I can't explain, wow, this is magical!" For those of you not involved in music, there is every bit as much mysticism and romantic thought in that realm of study as in the martial arts.
> 
> Perhaps that is Chi, a vital energy, a life force, a power flow; but I prefer to explain it as nothing more than _skill gained through hard work. _To my personal ideaology, that's a actually a more beautiful concept.



I believe it certainly is a skill gained through hard work. I also believe it transcends that, but without being a magical or unscientific force.



> And again, to me, that's nothing that isn't suitably explained by a basic understanding of human motion, and the subtlety contained therein. Minute differences in the striking angle, the exact portion of the hand that impacts, the exact portion of the area it strikes, the exact position and motion of the target at the point of impact, differences in speed, in breath of the recipient, in which muscles are tensed and loose, etc, all contribute to the effectiveness of any given strike.



Yes, you may well be right.  However, it appears to me to be uncodified if so, and perhaps uncodifiable.  What is the precise angle of the hand, etc, etc?  One learns only slowly and through imitation, trial and error.  But again, when the moment comes, it transcends (to me) even that.

I can break concrete pavers using a slow, soft, palm break through repeated practice and good body mechanics.  What I cannot do (yet) but have seen done in my presence, is to break concrete with a simple tap of the back of the hand.  No, I do not think it is magic.  But it is also not deception.  I am certain it does not violate the laws of physics as we know them.  Neither do I understand what is happening, precisely.   It is certainly the focused application of power, but how?   I will call this an example of my understanding of chi flow.  It is not the only one, far from it.  It is just something I have witnessed, repeatedly, up close and personal, and verified to my own satisfaction that no trickery was employed.  I have had more personal experiences of the type that involve rather breathtaking levels of pain.



> To take a ridiculously simplistic example, ...
> 
> Does your reception of the expected, well-executed punch exemplify your defensive chi in action? I think we all would agree that most likely not, at least not necessarily. Can the sucker punch or the well received strike _feel_ inexplicably powerful or extra-skillfully absorbed? Sure, but if we can _also _explain all of that through really simple principles combining in a more organic way than we can feasibly categorize, why invoke the arcane?



Three or four years ago, I would have been agreeing with you.  That is no longer my understanding of focused energy at this time.  I have no doubt my understanding will change even more over time, but at the moment, I can't speak to your perception.



> When I can't explain something, I like to accept that I, personally can't fully explain it, not that the principles contained within the last thousand years of rational study can't explain it. I certainly don't like to flip it around and say that, since I have no rational explanation that seems suitable _to me,_ that therefore "Chi did it."



Chi is just a word.  For me, since I do not believe that chi is magical or breaks the laws of physics, I can call it 'chi' or a jelly donut.  It is something I do not pretend to understand, but have come to accept exists.



> I realize that last paragraph sounds dismissive, and I suppose in a way it is. As I said at the beginning of this foolishly long post, the essence of the discussion is really that a belief in Chi means that those who don't believe are training without the deepest possible understanding, while a dismissal of that belief means that those who believe are in a certain sense living in a fantasy world, though their skill itself may be sound.



You are correct, and I have been on both sides of that particular coin.  Of late, I have tended to believe that there is a third side to that two-sided coin.  And a fourth, and a fifth, and etc.



> So, I don't mind offending, but I hope not to upset, and that anything said is interpreted in the most amicable and earnest of possible tones.



You have not offended me in the slightest.  No worries!

When I began training, I wanted to lose weight and get in better shape, and to learn some self-defense.  My background was originally in law enforcement and the military, but many decades ago, and I missed some of that discipline.  Verily, I received my reward.

I saw applications of what was described as 'chi' and my response was precisely what yours has been, as I understand your response.  I get your point of view.

Somewhere along the line, I lost track of why I was training.  Now I have lost track of my concern about that. I train because that is what I do.  Things that formerly mattered to me no longer did so.

I don't think a lot about chi; actually, with this exception, I don't think about it at all.  Is it?  Is it not?  I do not know.  I don't think it matters to me.

I just train.  Chi is something that is.  Although many strive to obtain it, I find myself going at it as I do most things - by not going after it at all.  Chi will happen when it is chi time for me; or not.  Either is fine.  I do not try; I train.  The only thing I actually struggle with is my own ego, which impedes my training when I do not manage to keep it in check, which is a lot.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> No it does not! We can speculate and be just as wrong as you are, or right. *Where did they run to, then*?



What are you talking about? 

BBC - History -  				Ancient History in depth: Akhenaten and the Amarna Period


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> BBC - History -                  Ancient History in depth: Akhenaten and the Amarna Period


I didn't see the lost tribe section.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> I didn't see the lost tribe section.



Perhaps because they aren't a lost tribe? they merely reverted back to their old religion, as archaeologists will tell you it says in the hieroglyphs they've found.
Ihere's no chi in any of this by the way, I can't believe I'm sat here at 2300h posting about the 'Lost tribes of Israel'. I think for everyone's sanity if you want to know anything about Judaism for goodness sake just message me and leave this thread to chi or no chi. I'm not an expert but fifty odd years of study in Judaism makes me the best one you'll have on the subject ( there was another much better than I but he got driven off here when we had the study)
anyway, some light reading for you, I'm off to bed.

Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes? - The saga of the ten lost tribes of Israel—Part 3


The Twelve Tribes of Israel | Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps because they aren't a lost tribe? they merely reverted back to their old religion, as archaeologists will tell you it says in the hieroglyphs they've found.
> Ihere's no chi in any of this by the way, I can't believe I'm sat here at 2300h posting about the 'Lost tribes of Israel'. I think for everyone's sanity if you want to know anything about Judaism for goodness sake just message me and leave this thread to chi or no chi. I'm not an expert but fifty odd years of study in Judaism makes me the best one you'll have on the subject ( there was another much better than I but he got driven off here when we had the study)
> anyway, some light reading for you, I'm off to bed.
> 
> ...


I read that and I still think it is the Kurds.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Therefore, it best not to try.  It really isn't important anyway, is it?



Generally, for you, for me, I would agree. Certainly, the existence of anything that cannot be shown to another is something which it is foolish to try to convince another of. Likewise, it's equally implausible to try to convince another of it's nonexistence. 

And, as you say, in the sense that you and I are talking about Chi, I really don't think it's important. Although, if it does exist and people like myself repeatedly dissmiss it, there is the risk of gradually losing all knowledge and cultivation of a wondrous part of human existence. I would also say that if I'm right and Chi is nonexistent then the variety of people devoting large portions of their time to strengthening it, to shaping it, to controlling it, and to learning to defend themselves and heal with it are at best wasting their time, at worst spending their time on pursuits possibly detrimental in nature.

It's not a discussion I'm interested in winning, it's a discussion that, when conducted on a semi-permanent, public, and relatively prominent place, I'm interested in having well represented from all viewpoints, if only to instill proper skepticism when new prospective students are presented with the less genuine views of Chi. If Chi is something that they come to encounter, believe in and utilize later in their training, then good for them, but if the supposed use of Chi is proffered in place of legitimate training, I think we can all agree that the more raised eyebrows the better.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I will only say that I am not a believer in magic or the supernatural.  Everything that happens, happens in accordance with physical laws that govern the universe.  I note that we don't seem to know what all of those rules are yet.



I agree. I will say though, that physics is much more complete than most other sciences, and the scope of what "we" as humanity and specifically the scientific community as a whole don't know about science is exponentially smaller than what "we" as laymen don't know on the subject. I do know that the interaction of matter on a molecular and anatomic level is pretty solidly understood, especially given conditions on Earth.

If Chi is a physical property, energy, whatever, than it must observable, either directly or by its effects. If it has no effects on matter or conventionally understood energy, than it clearly is not doing things like assisting in the breaking of concrete blocks.

So I agree with you, I just don't think that the scope of our knowledge is particularly limited when it comes to the scope of what Chi is supposedly responsible for. Chi being a part of everything from water to air to light to rocks, and when concentrated, Life, it seems like if it were actually possible to affect matter with Chi, then this would be either represented in contemporary physics, which it is not, unless we want to decide that heat, or light, or vibration is actually what we mean by Chi. If on the other hand, Chi is something else, but yet capable of affecting the physical world, as is claimed, then its interactions should be wreaking havoc with contemporary, and indeed Newtonian physics. However, physics is doing an exceptional job explaining the physical laws of the universe, and as I mentioned, is among the most complete sciences out there, especially on the level of the interactions of chunks of matter, like hands and heads and concrete blocks.

It seems that this version of Chi is sort of a "Chi of the Gaps" version, except that the gaps are gaps in the practitioner's understanding of physics, rather than the physicist's.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And yet, I find myself in a place where I have no objective evidence for the existence of a force commonly known as 'chi', but I also trust myself as a rational and intelligent human being, not given to flights of fancy or beliefs in typically unscientific things.  I know what I know, and although you may consider this analogous to religion, I do not.  I accept my religious beliefs as that - irrational, unscientific, and utterly unprovable or demostrable.  On the other hand, I am quite aware of people who can bring me to a higher understanding of pain, at will, without apparent effort, and without a requirement that anyone believe it is possible.



See, someone capable of doing something which cannot be explained by anything other than Chi _would_ be objective evidence. If you tell me that you feel Chi, that's subjective, I just have to believe you, or not believe you. Likewise, my protestations that I have never experienced Chi are subjective; I could be lying for whatever reason.

However, someone bringing you great pain without effort with cannot be explained by exemplary technique, without requiring you to play along, _is _objective. The are demonstrating the thing. We can quibble about what the thing is, but the thing has been empirically demonstrated. I would argue that the same results can be achieved by nuanced, intuitive, precise execution of technique. A rare thing, but certainly not beyond the standard physiological.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Can't help you there; I'm actually quite tone-deaf.  I am incapable of tuning a guitar.  Which is funny considering I'm an audiophile as well.  However, I take your meaning.  Illusions are easily demonstrated, aural, visual, etc.



Huh. This is a bit off topic, but my understanding of tone-deafness is that it is specifically related to musical pitch, as are other forms of amusia. I mean, you can tell that, say the whistle of a tea-kettle is higher and shriller than a the rumble of a passing eighteen wheeler, or the low throb of a jet high overhead, right? You can tell the difference between a child's voice and a man's? Hypothetically, that's all that should be required to hear the change in pitch in the example provided. It doesn't utilize any musical notes, just sliding pitches. Just saying, it's a pretty cool effect, not to be missed, unless you truly can't tell an oboe from a baritone sax.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Fortunately, I feel no need to demonstrate or prove anything.  You ask for proof.  I offer none.  Your logical and rational response should be to refuse to believe what you cannot see, touch, taste, feel, hear, and even more, to prove actually exists.  I applaud you for using your intellect to reject outside attempts to create a 'believer' in chi or any other force or energy that you do not have experience of yourself.



No, actually, I don't ask for proof. I've seen countless examples, real and in video, of people demonstrating Chi, but never one that wasn't the same thing that practitioners not claiming to utilize Chi could do. I've also never had someone actually try to create a Chi believer of me. And actually, I'm quite willing to believe in things I haven't experienced myself, if they are plausible and explicable. I've just never see any of that when it comes to Chi. Quantum Fluctuations in empty space, supernova, Tagalog, Madagascar, Creme Brulee, and my appendix are all things I cannot prove, have limited understanding of, have never seen, smelt, felt, heard, tasted, or otherwise experienced, and yet in which I believe with relatively strong but varied degrees of firmness. (It's possible I may actually have heard Tagalog spoken at some point, in the interests of full disclosure.)



Bill Mattocks said:


> Technical proficiency is one thing.  However, imagine while playing you hit a note a certain way and the audience begins to weep or laugh uncontrollably, or becomes angry or philosophical or filled with ennui.  That's more what I'm talking about.  You might play that note thousands of times, but there is a manner in which it can be played that transcends mere playing.



I actually almost brought this up, but opted not to. There is a long standing tradition of belief in the emotive power of notes. However, this power is entirely reliant on cultural indoctrination. There have been some attempts at, for example, drawing connections between certain musical intervals and natural human sounds, such as wailing laments and the descending fourth, but these are tenuous at best. And to say that is even stretching it, since the descending fourth is also the backbone of Country dance tunes, mariachi, John Phillip Sousa, and well, pretty much all music. It's based on natural resonances, not emotion.

There have been a number of experiments, to see if computers, disinterested performers, etc, can draw the same emotion as virtuoso, impassioned performers. My favorite being the claim of pianists the world round that they can draw a full emotional spectrum from a single note. A variety of renowned pianists were recorded playing single notes. These same notes were then played by dropping lead weights on the keyboard. The resultant tones were identical in every aspect of their waveform.

And yes, I can play the interval of a minor second and get cringing looks and comments of "scary" and "spooky" and "tense' and "ugly," from pretty much anyone in New England mainly versed in popular musics. Play those same tones for a Jazz guy, and he doesn't notice. They're in half his chords. Play them for some middle eastern music lovers, and they will find them to be, literally, the epitome of relaxation and beauty.

The augmented fourth or tritone was long held to be the "devil's interval" and it's use was actually forbidden at times. Legally. Today, and for a couple hundred years, it has been literally _the_ driving backbone of all western music. Not exaggerating.

I can play in a minor key and nearly everyone around will tell me it's sad. Why? Because that's the culture. Go to Tuva and the reaction will be flipped.

Music and emotion are closely tied, but the concept of emotion being literally tied to notes is actually a relatively modern one, one which J.S. Bach wouldn't have found familiar, one which Mozart would have found a bit silly. Beethoven certainly wrote bombastic stuff, but he had no illusions that his passion was somehow tied to the notes, or innate in the music. When Stravinsky's Rite of Spring premiered, he thought it was a beautiful masterwork (as do I) but contemporary audiences thought it was ugly, frightening, and crude.

Segovia may have thought that, but personally I find his playing a bit stodgy, by modern standards. I do love his strings, however, they are all I will play with!

I myself can play and cause people to feel emotions without intending them, or without feeling them. Sometimes I'm striving for relaxing beauty, but based on the differences in musical background between myself and the listener, they find the result creepy.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Three or four years ago, I would have been agreeing with you.  That is no longer my understanding of focused energy at this time.  I have no doubt my understanding will change even more over time, but at the moment, I can't speak to your perception.



Of course. And I'm, after all, only 25, with fifteen years in the martial arts, the majority of those as a child or teen. I'm a kid. I don't doubt that my views on many things will change over the next (I hope) sixty or so years of Martial Arts practice. Who knows, fifteen years from now I might stumble across this conversation and laugh myself into a coma at the ignorance and foolishness of my writing. I don't find it likely, but I'm not ruling it out either.

The thing is, my disbelief in Chi is based less on my own experience or lack thereof, but on my respect for causality in physics. If Chi affects the physical world, than it is observable and should be evident in the relevant studies. If it doesn't affect the physical world, then it is clearly none of the things it is professed to be in the martial arts. That is what I'm trying to say, not that I don't believe in it simply because I haven't experienced it.

My point being that, if tomorrow I achieve some unanticipated level of proficiency with less effort then should be rightly required, I wouldn't attribute that to Chi, no matter how impressed I was. I would attribute that to standard, known physics. What _would_ convince me is someone, somewhere, performing the actual work to demonstrate that there is something distinct from known physics which actually affects the physical world. If the scientific community starts sniffing around some new energy, life force, whatever, present in humans and responsible for effortless breaking of concrete, _that_ is what would change my mind. Not personal experience. I'm far too suggestible and have convinced myself of falsehoods too often to trust my own judgement! (Hyperbole? Yes. But only slight.)



Bill Mattocks said:


> I just train.  Chi is something that is.  Although many strive to obtain it, I find myself going at it as I do most things - by not going after it at all.  Chi will happen when it is chi time for me; or not.  Either is fine.  I do not try; I train.



Which, I would say, is the only way to go about it.

I do have one question that I often wonder, with regards to people's belief in Chi. If it is something which can be developed incidentally, without specifically cultivating it, is it then possible for someone to, hypothetically, be utilizing Chi in their own practice, but not know it and even disbelieve in Chi, or is it something which requires conscious awareness.

In other words, If I (general I) am a highly skilled practitioner who effortlessly trains and demonstrates my art, is it possible that that fluid grace and profound skill is in part a result of Chi, even if I don't believe it to be?



Bill Mattocks said:


> A very loving and amusing mental picture, she sounds wonderful.



But most importantly, yes, yes she is. Plus she makes excellent cheesecake.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2015)

Pardon my liberal use of snipping once more.



Zack Cart said:


> Although, if it does exist and people like myself repeatedly dissmiss it, there is the risk of gradually losing all knowledge and cultivation of a wondrous part of human existence. I would also say that if I'm right and Chi is nonexistent then the variety of people devoting large portions of their time to strengthening it, to shaping it, to controlling it, and to learning to defend themselves and heal with it are at best wasting their time, at worst spending their time on pursuits possibly detrimental in nature.



I do not disagree, although hearkening back to your comparison of chi to a form of religion, one might consider Pascal's Wager as being operative here.  Assuming (as I do) that there is nothing detrimental about the pursuit of martial arts training of nearly any type.



> It's not a discussion I'm interested in winning, it's a discussion that, when conducted on a semi-permanent, public, and relatively prominent place, I'm interested in having well represented from all viewpoints, if only to instill proper skepticism when new prospective students are presented with the less genuine views of Chi. If Chi is something that they come to encounter, believe in and utilize later in their training, then good for them, but if the supposed use of Chi is proffered in place of legitimate training, I think we can all agree that the more raised eyebrows the better.



I find myself in violent agreement with your statement.



> I agree. I will say though, that physics is much more complete than most other sciences, and the scope of what "we" as humanity and specifically the scientific community as a whole don't know about science is exponentially smaller than what "we" as laymen don't know on the subject. I do know that the interaction of matter on a molecular and anatomic level is pretty solidly understood, especially given conditions on Earth.



Well...perhaps.  I will reserve my objections to that statement as not being germane to the topic.  You follow my meaning, so I think we can leave it at that.



> If Chi is a physical property, energy, whatever, than it must observable, either directly or by its effects. If it has no effects on matter or conventionally understood energy, than it clearly is not doing things like assisting in the breaking of concrete blocks.



My own suspicion is that is more than one thing, but rather a collection of things that operate under similar principles and which have been given a collective name by some.



> So I agree with you, I just don't think that the scope of our knowledge is particularly limited when it comes to the scope of what Chi is supposedly responsible for. Chi being a part of everything from water to air to light to rocks, and when concentrated, Life, it seems like if it were actually possible to affect matter with Chi, then this would be either represented in contemporary physics, which it is not, unless we want to decide that heat, or light, or vibration is actually what we mean by Chi. If on the other hand, Chi is something else, but yet capable of affecting the physical world, as is claimed, then its interactions should be wreaking havoc with contemporary, and indeed Newtonian physics. However, physics is doing an exceptional job explaining the physical laws of the universe, and as I mentioned, is among the most complete sciences out there, especially on the level of the interactions of chunks of matter, like hands and heads and concrete blocks.



I hope that I have not been giving the impression that I believe chi to be a type of 'Force' as described in "Star Wars."  I have no idea what it is or where it resides, but I don't have much feeling for the notion that it is inherent in all things, etc.



> It seems that this version of Chi is sort of a "Chi of the Gaps" version, except that the gaps are gaps in the practitioner's understanding of physics, rather than the physicist's.



Could well be.  I know very little of physics or martial arts.



> See, someone capable of doing something which cannot be explained by anything other than Chi _would_ be objective evidence. If you tell me that you feel Chi, that's subjective, I just have to believe you, or not believe you. Likewise, my protestations that I have never experienced Chi are subjective; I could be lying for whatever reason.



I do not actually think many have experienced actual chi or witnessed it first-hand.  It's not that common, in my admittedly limited experience.  That would tend to support the notion that many who claim to have done so are either mistaken or being misleading.  However, that is supposition on my part.



> However, someone bringing you great pain without effort with cannot be explained by exemplary technique, without requiring you to play along, _is _objective. The are demonstrating the thing. We can quibble about what the thing is, but the thing has been empirically demonstrated. I would argue that the same results can be achieved by nuanced, intuitive, precise execution of technique. A rare thing, but certainly not beyond the standard physiological.



The problem is that as one attempts to provide specifics, one gets off in the weeds very quickly, and the conversation is dragged down by "well, buts" and "perhaps this instead" type arguments.  I have seen, I have experienced, and in a very limited way, based on my very limited experience, I have applied, chi energy or force or whatever one wishes to call it.  I can only say that it is an astounding thing.  An amazing thing.  It's the kind of thing that makes you stare at your own hand in horror and surprise as your uke writhes on the floor and you not only did not mean to hurt him, but truly believe you didn't land the blow with enough force to swat a fly.  And I'm talking about an uke who was raised and fought in the streets of Detroit, has scars from knife fights, can pretty much wipe the dojo floor with me at will, and takes direct kicks to the groin without apparent effect.  And uke who truly understands that faking or exaggerating a result is injurious to both the uke and the person trying to apply the technique.  It boggles the mind and makes one actually wary of applying certain techniques, as cliche as that must sound.



> Huh. This is a bit off topic, but my understanding of tone-deafness is that it is specifically related to musical pitch, as are other forms of amusia. I mean, you can tell that, say the whistle of a tea-kettle is higher and shriller than a the rumble of a passing eighteen wheeler, or the low throb of a jet high overhead, right? You can tell the difference between a child's voice and a man's? Hypothetically, that's all that should be required to hear the change in pitch in the example provided. It doesn't utilize any musical notes, just sliding pitches. Just saying, it's a pretty cool effect, not to be missed, unless you truly can't tell an oboe from a baritone sax.



It's not a gross distortion that I afflicts me.  It is more akin to color vision defect, which I also suffer from.  I can see colors, I can hear notes.  However, any two notes played that are not octaves apart might be too close for me to tell which is the higher and which is the lower.  As with color vision, a given shade of blue and purple may be indistinguishable to me.

However, thinking about this brought me to another point.  As most people have normal color vision, one generally only thinks of color vision defect as a liability.  In fact, it grants several advantages to some color-blind people, myself among them.  Because colors lie to me and cannot be trusted, I tend to pay more attention to light and shadow, texture and movement.  This ability has served me well.  I do not have senses others do not, in fact one might argue I have fewer (working) senses than others.  But paying attention to the senses I do have has worked to my advantage, particularly during my time in the military.

Imagine chi if it were like that.  Something that some can see, some cannot, but the fact that I can see the person crouching in the shadows and you cannot see that person does not mean he is not there, as you have astutely pointed out to the obverse.



> No, actually, I don't ask for proof. I've seen countless examples, real and in video, of people demonstrating Chi, but never one that wasn't the same thing that practitioners not claiming to utilize Chi could do. I've also never had someone actually try to create a Chi believer of me.



I hope that you have that experience at some point, in a positive way, of course.  I have no doubt that there are many who claim to be able to manipulate or otherwise use chi who will probably be quite disappointing.

If you showed up at my dojo and asked for a demonstration, I would no doubt disappoint you as well (unless you perhaps tried to kick me like my partner did on several occasions, and I punched your rising kick on your shin and you fell over and cried for awhile while I stared at my fist again).  



> And actually, I'm quite willing to believe in things I haven't experienced myself, if they are plausible and explicable. I've just never see any of that when it comes to Chi. Quantum Fluctuations in empty space, supernova, Tagalog, Madagascar, Creme Brulee, and my appendix are all things I cannot prove, have limited understanding of, have never seen, smelt, felt, heard, tasted, or otherwise experienced, and yet in which I believe with relatively strong but varied degrees of firmness. (It's possible I may actually have heard Tagalog spoken at some point, in the interests of full disclosure.)



I spent some time in the PI, but since I was in the military, all the Tagalog I know involves ordering beer or saying the rudest possible obscenities.



> I actually almost brought this up, but opted not to. There is a long standing tradition of belief in the emotive power of notes. However, this power is entirely reliant on cultural indoctrination....



I will withdraw my analogy.  Clearly I am outclassed here.



> Of course. And I'm, after all, only 25, with fifteen years in the martial arts, the majority of those as a child or teen. I'm a kid. I don't doubt that my views on many things will change over the next (I hope) sixty or so years of Martial Arts practice. Who knows, fifteen years from now I might stumble across this conversation and laugh myself into a coma at the ignorance and foolishness of my writing. I don't find it likely, but I'm not ruling it out either.



You have more time in the martial arts than I do.  But I am nearly 55 years old.  From my end of that yardstick, the gulf between me now and me at 25 is so immense as to basically constitute another person.

I can't say how you'll regard this conversation when you are my age - or how I will a year from now - but I suspect you think aright.  No offense.



> The thing is, my disbelief in Chi is based less on my own experience or lack thereof, but on my respect for causality in physics. If Chi affects the physical world, than it is observable and should be evident in the relevant studies. If it doesn't affect the physical world, then it is clearly none of the things it is professed to be in the martial arts. That is what I'm trying to say, not that I don't believe in it simply because I haven't experienced it.



Shall I quote the Bard?  "There are more things in heaven and earth...etc."



> My point being that, if tomorrow I achieve some unanticipated level of proficiency with less effort then should be rightly required, I wouldn't attribute that to Chi, no matter how impressed I was. I would attribute that to standard, known physics. What _would_ convince me is someone, somewhere, performing the actual work to demonstrate that there is something distinct from known physics which actually affects the physical world. If the scientific community starts sniffing around some new energy, life force, whatever, present in humans and responsible for effortless breaking of concrete, _that_ is what would change my mind. Not personal experience. I'm far too suggestible and have convinced myself of falsehoods too often to trust my own judgement! (Hyperbole? Yes. But only slight.)



That is not significantly different from my belief that what we call chi is not supernatural or magic, but rather follows the same laws of the universe as everything else does.

The main difference appears to be that I am willing to use a term you are not.  This gets down to personal preference.   Is it chi?  Is it not chi?  Whether it is or it is not, it exists or it does not.  If it does exist (the effect you describe) then what you call it is a distinction without a difference.



> I do have one question that I often wonder, with regards to people's belief in Chi. If it is something which can be developed incidentally, without specifically cultivating it, is it then possible for someone to, hypothetically, be utilizing Chi in their own practice, but not know it and even disbelieve in Chi, or is it something which requires conscious awareness.



Excellent question.  It calls to mind the reference I have heard to the strength of babies, especially those who do not yet walk and talk.  The observation made was that babies, not having yet learned what they can NOT do, often do things one might think otherwise impossible.  For example, as one carried an infant down a row at the grocery store, when they reach their pudgy little fist out, grab a stanchion, and nearly pull you over onto your back by simply not letting go as you pass.

Some refer to that as chi as well.  And I think it might well be a good example of precisely that.

In reference to my own description of my rather pedestrian and silly application of what I felt was some form of chi energy, punching my uke's kick and forthwith incapacitating him spectacular manner, I do not believe it was due to my own talent, expertise, or anything of that nature.  In fact, in neither case had I intended that result.  It was definitely a case of 'mushin' both times.  He moved, I reacted.  I've done the same thing countless times before and simply hurt my fist (in general, I am not confident about the notion of punching another person's rising kick, it seems like a conceptually bad idea to me).  However, when it 'worked' it worked without effort, without thinking, and with the net result that I wasn't even sure I had hit him at all.



> In other words, If I (general I) am a highly skilled practitioner who effortlessly trains and demonstrates my art, is it possible that that fluid grace and profound skill is in part a result of Chi, even if I don't believe it to be?



I do not know, but I would hope so, since I've been dusted by the karate fairy a couple times despite my nearly-complete lack of competence.

I was the last kid on my block to learn how to ride a bicycle.  Quite the embarrassment.  My parents tried and tried to get me to learn.  Endless hours after dinner, me crying, them pushing, me falling over.  Then one day I didn't fall over.  I half-heartedly punched rising snap kicks and got a hurt hand for my efforts, until one day I didn't.  The main difference is, I never forgot how to ride a bicycle.  The devastating punch, seems it's not mine to command so far.



> But most importantly, yes, yes she is. Plus she makes excellent cheesecake.



There is not much better than good cheesecake.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 4, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Strong Qi = Healthy
> Weak Qi = Sick
> No Qi = Dead
> 
> Nothing magical about it, other than a western misunderstanding and fantasy as to what it actually is


 
I think that pretty well sums it up. I may have missed when I skipped all the bickering, but, I guess it would be helpful to know what the OP means by "chi works."

I think that chi is often how people describe what is beyond their ability to understand or explain.

I have had the honor of seeing some amazing things. Some could explain, some could not. Some I understood/stand, some I do not.

Is it "chi?" I don't know. But it's something.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are mixing up your religions there.



Not really all old testement.  But the concept of sin is in more than one religion.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

Well, much as I'm tempted to go through and ruthlessly snip bits of your last post to continue this conversation, I honestly have very little to add.

Honestly, I'm not sure we actually disagree on anything, functionally, except perhaps for the extent to which modern physics is a cohesive explanation of phenomena and how relevant such cohesiveness is to Chi.

I agree that the sort of thing you are attributing to Chi is not supernatural, dependable, or generally even intentional. (When that sort of thing happens in my training, I either consider myself lucky, or consider it an unfortunate accident.) I agree that it's a combination of so many minute eventualities as to make analysis impractical.

If what you mean by Chi is exactly that, the perfect culmination of all the tiny, nearly undefinable aspects of physical movement and structure that produces astonishingly optimal results, then I would have to admit that I too, believe in Chi by that definition.

I will say that that's a far cry from my admittedly sickly understanding of the traditional concept of chi as a universal energy, which I believe was held to be present in all things, not just humans and animals and plants, but rocks and rivers and wind as well, as in Shinto, for example. The sort of Chi that leads to Reiki, the more surreal forms of acupuncture, to energy disruption through pressure applications, to Qigong, to Taoism, to Feng Shue.

At least in my experience, _that_ is some of what Chi is purported to entail. Some people like to say Chi is nothing but a term used to describe your overall health. Sure, I can get behind that, but I call that "health." Or in this case, if Chi is a seemingly inexplicable conjunction of every subtlety of technique, I could get behind that too, but I'd just call it "exceptional technique."

It's a messy term, with a long history entangled in myriad religions and spiritual beliefs. Which, I think, is where most of the disagreement comes from. You say Chi is, if I may brutally oversimplify, "such a perfect confluence of minutia that it is nearly transcendent, without violating anything in standard physics." I think, based on my own experiences and (very) limited reading, most believers in Chi would argue that it is much more than that, and even that that is not Chi at all. Which of course, you could say about their understanding of whatever it is we are applying the term to.

As you say, Jelly Donuts.

And as you say, the question is largely academic, if Chi need not be sought, and can only be found through training as one would anyway.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not disagree, although hearkening back to your comparison of chi to a form of religion, one might consider Pascal's Wager as being operative here.  Assuming (as I do) that there is nothing detrimental about the pursuit of martial arts training of nearly any type.



I almost brought up Pascal's Wager for that reason. While the original wager is obviously flawed in many ways,  similar concept actually bears more relevance here than in the false dichotomy of Christian Vs. Atheist. Since here, there is only one option, and the results are either good or good. 

At any rate, I have really very little to say about Chi, except to attempt to explain my disbelief, as well as a few descriptions of what I don't hold to be Chi at all. Anything more I say, will just be repetition of my one note song.

I suppose I'll let the thread get back to its main point of Abrahamic faiths. Or was it Cheesecake? 

My favorite is the white-chocolate and fresh cranberry cheesecake that she nearly always makes for Thanksgiving. Which is coming soon!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> If what you mean by Chi is exactly that, the perfect culmination of all the tiny, nearly undefinable aspects of physical movement and structure that produces astonishingly optimal results, then I would have to admit that I too, believe in Chi by that definition.



That is how I think of it, more or less.  I know that my own sensei and some very few others I know can produce these sorts of effects as they desire, while my own efforts are limited and haphazard to say the very least.  I certainly would not whip out my astonishing chi powers in a fight, for example.



> I will say that that's a far cry from my admittedly sickly understanding of the traditional concept of chi as a universal energy, which I believe was held to be present in all things, not just humans and animals and plants, but rocks and rivers and wind as well, as in Shinto, for example. The sort of Chi that leads to Reiki, the more surreal forms of acupuncture, to energy disruption through pressure applications, to Qigong, to Taoism, to Feng Shue.
> 
> At least in my experience, _that_ is some of what Chi is purported to entail. Some people like to say Chi is nothing but a term used to describe your overall health. Sure, I can get behind that, but I call that "health." Or in this case, if Chi is a seemingly inexplicable conjunction of every subtlety of technique, I could get behind that too, but I'd just call it "exceptional technique."



I know that many people see chi or qi or ki or whatever in all things.  Perhaps it is, I have no idea.  Perhaps it is health as well; again, no idea.  I am referring only to that type of energy or 'flow' as it is sometimes called that is apparent in certain aspects of martial arts.  And of course, I am not referring to 'no touch knockouts' or that sort of thing.



> It's a messy term, with a long history entangled in myriad religions and spiritual beliefs. Which, I think, is where most of the disagreement comes from. You say Chi is, if I may brutally oversimplify, "such a perfect confluence of minutia that it is nearly transcendent, without violating anything in standard physics." I think, based on my own experiences and (very) limited reading, most believers in Chi would argue that it is much more than that, and even that that is not Chi at all. Which of course, you could say about their understanding of whatever it is we are applying the term to.
> 
> As you say, Jelly Donuts.



It is a messy term.  I appreciate your simplification of my various disjointed statements.  I like it.  I absolutely understand why others understand it differently; it certainly has the whiff of magic on it.



> And as you say, the question is largely academic, if Chi need not be sought, and can only be found through training as one would anyway.



Well, that's my opinion about my own abilities in that area, yes.

I believe that one can seek and perhaps find.  One can seek and not find.  One can not seek and find, and one can not seek and not find.  Whether due to luck, temperament, timing, or the weather, I cannot say.



> I almost brought up Pascal's Wager for that reason. While the original wager is obviously flawed in many ways,  similar concept actually bears more relevance here than in the false dichotomy of Christian Vs. Atheist. Since here, there is only one option, and the results are either good or good.
> 
> At any rate, I have really very little to say about Chi, except to attempt to explain my disbelief, as well as a few descriptions of what I don't hold to be Chi at all. Anything more I say, will just be repetition of my one note song.



And my disbelief, nearly identical to yours in many ways, I label belief.  Isn't that odd?



> I suppose I'll let the thread get back to its main point of Abrahamic faiths. Or was it Cheesecake?
> 
> My favorite is the white-chocolate and fresh cranberry cheesecake that she nearly always makes for Thanksgiving. Which is coming soon!



I am not a fan of cranberries.  But you seem a nice fellow, it would be a shame to kill you just for that.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

Usually, when people claim to be arguing semantics, they are actually arguing about a great deal more. In this case, I am with each of your posts convinced that we are actually discussing the term rather than the thing. I think we're more or less in agreement on the thing. The term, well, words are tricky, especially loan words.

Because the term "Chi" is so often linked to the spiritual, the supernatural, the downright magical, the inexplicable rather than the unexplained, and because it is, at root, a religious term in many ways I assumed at least a touch of that flavour was added to your own definition of the word, even though you claimed it wasn't.

More and more though, I think we're on the same page in every sense except for the translation.

With the exception of Cranberries. Don't worry though, I'm more likely to hunt down someone for eating too many cranberries and depriving the rest of us. rather than someone likely to leave more for me. When I was a kid I'd sneak the frozen ones from the icebox like candy. Cranberry sauce, cranberry preserves, dried cranberries, oh dear lord DRIED CRANBERRIES.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 4, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Usually, when people claim to be arguing semantics, they are actually arguing about a great deal more.



I am, to a large extent, an autodidact.  While attempting to educate myself on semantics, I discovered the larger umbrella field of study, semiotics.  I fell in love with it.  From my photography to my martial arts to my work in general, I am interested in signs and symbols and what we mean when we say things, not necessarily the words we use to say them.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am, to a large extent, an autodidact.  While attempting to educate myself on semantics, I discovered the larger umbrella field of study, semiotics.  I fell in love with it.  From my photography to my martial arts to my work in general, I am interested in signs and symbols and what we mean when we say things, not necessarily the words we use to say them.



Whereas I'm just a plain old pedant. At least, so I've heard often enough that I've started to believe it. Badge of honor, I say!

In all seriousness though, language is fascinating.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 5, 2015)

I must applaud Bill and zack.  This was the best conversation I have read on this Web sight to date. So many things were stated so well that I am envious of the two of you for the ability to put thoughts into words so eloquently and precise.
Thank you


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> I read that and I still think it is the Kurds.



They don't think so, they claim descent from the Medes and the Hurrians.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Not really all old testement.  But the concept of sin is in more than one religion.



My comment about mixing religions was directed at the post below. Christians hold Sunday as the Sabbath, Judaism holds the Sabbath as sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, hence you are mixing up religions. The concept of sin maybe universal even but the ideas of what constitutes sin are widely varying!

Chi is the same as religion? No idea, as I know nothing about chi and am not prepared to comment on something I know little to nothing about. I can't believe though that one is infested with demons etc if one 'has' chi. I'm also noting that the poster for whom this thread was made has made no comments yet.





drop bear said:


> *Like working on a sunday.  Wearing mixed fibres or eating pork?*
> 
> I like the chi/religion comparison.  I dont believe god exists.  But it helps some people who do.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 5, 2015)

Zack has said almost everything I would want to say on the matter, in more depth than I probably would have.

I'll just add one more thing - the idea that "Chi" can be a potentially useful way of describing the subjective experience of applying a high degree of refined physical skill.

In other words, perhaps when a kung fu master demonstrates a seemingly miraculous "chi-powered" punch that effortlessly drops a much larger opponent the actual physics involved is something like "muscle A tightens up by 10% for .5 seconds while muscle B relaxes fully while the weight shifts to the left by 5% then muscle C contacts at 90% maximum force for .25 seconds while ... etc ... etc" - a huge chain of pricise subtle adjustments that no one can be fully aware or analytically break down while they are performing it. Meanwhile the subjective feeling that the master experiences while throwing the punch is "the chi started from my tan tien, spiraled up my spine and out through my arm." In some case the practitioner might be able to replicate the punch more easily by recreating that feeling than they could by trying to analytically understand the exact kinesiology and physics of the punch.

For a simple example, look at the classic "unbendable arm" trick commonly used in Aikido demos. (At least it used to be a standard sort of demo. Do Aikido folks still use that one? I haven't seen it referenced in a while.)  You can teach just about anyone to do the trick in just a few minutes by giving them a "ki" visualization to use.  The way it actually works is through simple basic kinesiology, but it's almost easier to get through the visualization.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 5, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> They don't think so, they claim descent from the Medes and the Hurrians.


You have to put what they think aside. You have to put what everybody thinks aside. LOL


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thanks for the advice but I back my claims.


 
My opinion is mine and only I am accountable for it.  But I can't see where you have backed up most of your claims with anything but your own words, or misdirection.  I am not sure what you are doing In this thread, and hope you will enlighten me.  I really have always thought better of you than to pick things out of context, which is what it seems to me you are doing, or avoid reasons for your statements, and simply try to redirect.  It seems to me you have been mostly confrontational, or contentious, especially to Tez3, who seems to mostly have tried to explain her beliefs with links to explanations of her beliefs. Granted, she seems to have become a little testy a couple of times, but at least imho, mostly not.

Whether you believe as she does, or I, or anyone else, what good does it serve to try and put her beliefs down, or bait her?  If you disagree, as I sometimes do, why not keep the discussion civil.

If I am not understanding you motives, my apologies, and please enlighten me with something other than one liners.  I am probably too slow for that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2015)

As to chi or gi or ki; I believe it exists.  I have seen it, and I have experienced it in minor ways.  Don't ask me to explain it because I cannot.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2015)

oftheherd1 said:


> Granted, she seems to have become a little testy a couple of times, but at least imho, mostly not.



It's because whenever a thread gets argumentative or goes off on a tangent I get walloped by the admins, they don't always say it's my fault just that they blame me!  I get very tired of having to pussy foot around people these days as they are very quick to report when they feel they've been outraged.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 5, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It's because whenever a thread gets argumentative or goes off on a tangent I get walloped by the admins, they don't always say it's my fault just that they blame me!  I get very tired of having to pussy foot around people these days as they are very quick to report when they feel they've been outraged.


Just for the record, I would never report you. Who would I have to talk to?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It's because whenever a thread gets argumentative or goes off on a tangent I get walloped by the admins, they don't always say it's my fault just that they blame me!  I get very tired of having to pussy foot around people these days as they are very quick to report when they feel they've been outraged.


 
I don't know what to say about that, other than I have trouble understanding it.  Maybe I just haven't seen all your posts.


----------



## Buka (Nov 6, 2015)

As threads go - this is a doozy.


----------



## Ruhaani (Nov 6, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's not his 'opinion' it's well known that the Nazi's used this as their 'ideal' and to now think that it is an ideal well, that's sick.
> 
> Hitler's Supermen: The Ubermensch, Eugenics, and Perfecting the Master Race.
> 
> ...


Well you need to go further into Judaism then because the most basic is doing good to others but on deeper levels Judaism goes into spiritual layers after that naturally your lower self desire based self will fall of like a nasa space shuttle leaving only the trueself to rise closer to godly realms research on your religion every religion carries this spirit power..and as for chi its soul vibrations that run through the body every religion knows about the breath of god or spirit of god whatever you want to call it..runs through us thats what makes this vehicle that we call physical work.

Going back to the martial way bodhidarma meditated for so many years till the fountain of knowledge poured its divine Knowledge into him only then he shared his knowledge with monks he taught them the secret of movement and how it forms energy vibrations which makes a link between the mind realm the mind realm carries heavenly attributes which let you mold your surroundings energetically with your vibrations everything is vibrating at certain frequencies like tuneing into different radio channels then later it teaches you to fight against your lower vibrations desire based..like sexual appetite anger jelousy etc etc from there you mold your character like how a blacksmith makes folds in a metal sheet and hammers it and polishes the metal and cools it till it becomes an unbreakable sword..my advice would be to research on meditation and spirituality and if your with a religion go deeper within it whatever religion it may be its ok all paths of goodness lead to heavenly realms..and thos of you who dont believe in god try to believe in the potential of yourself.

Forgive me if I offended anyone..peace.



Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2015)

Ruhaani said:


> Well you need to go further into Judaism then because the most basic is doing good to others but on deeper levels Judaism goes into spiritual layers after that naturally your lower self desire based self will fall of like a nasa space shuttle leaving only the trueself to rise closer to godly realms research on your religion every religion carries this spirit power..and as for chi its soul vibrations that run through the body every religion knows about the breath of god or spirit of god whatever you want to call it..runs through us thats what makes this vehicle that we call physical work.



WTF?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 6, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> WTF?


Quick translation, all religions suggest you don't sin against that religion's rules and regulations, so that you might get closer to what want, or need, spiritually.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Quick translation, all religions suggest you don't sin against that religion's rules and regulations, so that you might get closer to what want, or need, spiritually.




No, it's what the feck does he mean I need to go further into Judaism? How much further can I go after 50 years study and Semicha?

Jewish thought on sin " _To the sages of the Talmud, sin is, above all, an act of stupidity._

_"A person does not sin," they wrote, "unless a spirit of folly has entered into him."_
Do Jews Believe in Sin?



This was written by a brilliant man, intelligent and compassionate.

The Birth of Moral Selfhood


----------



## geezer (Nov 6, 2015)

Well I've learned at least one useful thing on this thread. The meaning of ubermensch. Oh sure I was exposed to Nietzche's _Man and Superman _a zillion years ago in college, but in English translation. So all I knew was that whenever I did something nice for my friend and former colleague in the the Visual Art dept. here where I work, was that she'd call me a _mensch. _

I didn't know exactly what she meant, but I could tell that she meant it in a really nice way, so I would have assumed that being an _ubermesch_ would be just terrific! 

Er ...guess not.  

Glad I didn't even know the word. My friend was a religious Jew and daughter of a holocaust survivor. I don't think she have appreciated it's use.


----------

