# The Existance of Chi



## Makalakumu

Hey, this would be a good discussion for some actual Tai Chi people to get on board.  Check out this post in "the study"

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12022

Reply here or in the study, I want to hear what you all think.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Phil Elmore

*Chi Power, Pyramids, and Silliness*
By Phil Elmore
_Reprinted from the August Subscriber Content of _The Martialist

One of the perennial debates in martial arts circles can be summed up with the often-used topic title, "Is chi real?"

Chi or ki, the life force that permeates our beings, which some say can be channeled to produce physical and mental benefits, is the basis for much Eastern lore.  Feng Shui, for example, is the practice of helping the chi of a given space flow freely through that space without ebbing away, wasted, or pooling up, trapped.

The eclectic martial art I study, Shanliang Li, is at its core a meditative art.  One of the skills on which we focus is extending the awareness of the mind and body into the ethereal - meaning, beyond the body, to anticipate and counter strikes.  My teacher David stresses very much the benefits of meditation.  As a Pagan, I can relate to these concepts and to other ideas that would be considered _paranormal_ in nature  existing outside the domain of pure logic and tapping certain subjective, emotional elements of our beings.

You may choose to believe that these things, these concepts, are literally real and physically accessible.  You may choose to view them metaphorically.  Chi, for example, is a superb metaphor for visualization and mental focus.  That is how I tend to view it most of the time.

The benefits of positive visualization are widely known in martial arts circles.  Chuck Norris, for example, in _The Secret of Inner Strength_ and _The Secret Power Within_, writes of the gains he achieved through visualization of success in competition. 

What we must remember, however, is that there are certain things chi cannot do.  There are certain martial arts myths and silliness out there that too many people seem willing to believe.  When pressed, they will retreat to illogic, claiming that "simply because science hasn't proved something doesn't mean it isn't true."

That is, one supposes, true enough  but we must maintain a sense of perspective.  Science hasn't proven that there isn't a unicorn living in my closet.  In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, however, the reasonable default position is one of skepticism.  If am going to assert that there is a unicorn in my closet, claiming that unbelievers render the beast invisible is not sufficient to bolster my claims or excuse my lack of proof.







*Chi power cannot be focused to knock you down without touching you.*

That is a _fact_.  I challenge anyone who believes they can knock me down by focusing their chi and waving their hands at me, or perhaps by making other gestures accompanied by Sonny Chiba breathing noises, to drive to my city and do so on videotape.  

No one will ever accept my challenge, because this cannot be done.  This cannot be done _because nobody has ever done it on an uncooperative opponent_.  I don't care if someone claims to have managed it, because _it isn't true no matter what they say_.



> "What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an 'open mind' but an _active mind_  a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them _critically_. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood."
> 
> - Ayn Rand



I bring this up because I've seen such claims made in the martial arts community.  There are a lot of people out there who seem to think they can do a lot of posing and posturing and noisemaking and then bowl you over with the incredible power of their lifeforces.  I even saw a video online from a notorious cultlike martial arts group in which people wave their hands, make funny sounds, and knock down groups of charging attackers from twenty paces.  It's absurd.  Yet there's no limit to what some people seem willing to believe.

I once witnessed, with my jaw dropped to my keyboard, a lengthy discussion at bladeforums.com in which countless individuals actually professed their belief that keeping one's razor blades under a pyramid would somehow magically keep those blades sharper.  This mysterious "pyramid power" is not a new idea by any means, but it was as ridiculous then as it is now.  

A pyramid does not possess the ability to make your razor blades sharper, preserve your dead cats, or shine and wax your apples and vegetables, respectively.  It won't make your clothes brighter or your whites whiter.  It's a geometrically fascinating structure that _possesses_ no magic by itself. 

Am I saying there is no such thing as magic(k)?  Absolutely not.  I believe very strongly in the power of the mind.  I also know that no amount of focus, meditation, and energy on my part is going to violate the laws of physics or create the impossible from the unknowable.

Just when I thought I'd seen everything, I witnessed another discussion online, this one in an Aikido forum, in which the participants wondered aloud if those of great development in the martial arts are or were capable of _projecting beams of light from their eyes and fingers_.  When I stated how flatly absurd I found this notion  people cannot shoot light from their eyes no matter how "open" their minds might be  I was told that it was terribly rude of me not to keep an open mind!

It's time we dismissed ridiculous nonsense for what it is.  There are plenty of "anomalies" out there that point to gaps in our knowledge of our world, and there are things we might call "paranormal" that defy explanation.  _The laws of magick, however, never supersede the laws of ballistics_.  That's a good slogan to remember whenever you're tempted to believe the unbelievable.

No-touch knockouts do not work and do not exist.  Believe in chi or don't, but don't ask unrealistic things of it.


----------



## 7starmantis

I have to agree and disagree with Sharp Phils comments.
I do not believe in a supernatural force able to be conjured at will by those versed in chi power. I do however believe that it is possible to develop "chi" in your techniques that can be used to increase power and even damage of your attacks. It is nothing magic about it, but a focusing of mind, and body. I can't explain it completely because I'm not exactly sure what I think about it, I'm still researching it, but I'm researching it medically and scientifically. I have witnessed and been the recipient of a relativly soft hit that sent me across the floor a good 8 feet, so I know it exists, I just don't believe it is magical or supernatural.

7sm


----------



## pete

if you believe the body has an electrical current (the nervous system), then why wouldn't the coiling and coordinated control of that system produce an electro-magnetic force.

if you believe the body has an air current (the respiratory system), then why couldn't the proper use of breath produce the power of an air stream.

if you believe the body contains the flow of fluids (circulatory system), then why wouldn't the unicumbered flow of the bloodstream create an energy similar to a centrifugal force.

now why would these forces as the appear otherwise in nature be able to extend beyond their containers, but are constrained by human skin?


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by pete _
> *if you believe the body has an electrical current (the nervous system), then why wouldn't the coiling and coordinated control of that system produce an electro-magnetic force.
> 
> if you believe the body has an air current (the respiratory system), then why couldn't the proper use of breath produce the power of an air stream.
> 
> if you believe the body contains the flow of fluids (circulatory system), then why wouldn't the unicumbered flow of the bloodstream create an energy similar to a centrifugal force.
> 
> now why would these forces as the appear otherwise in nature be able to extend beyond their containers, but are constrained by human skin? *



Good point.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore

That's spurious logic.  The existence of an electrical current within your body is not synonymous with the ability to project that current beyond your body, just as the existence of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in your body is not synonymous with the ability to produce those atoms recombined as varying molecules at will.  To believe otherwise is like saying, "Of course I'm connected to the Internet.  I own a modem and I own a computer.  Doesn't it follow that I'm on the Internet?"


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *That's spurious logic.  The existence of an electrical current within your body is not synonymous with the ability to project that current beyond your body, just as the existence of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in your body is not synonymous with the ability to produce those atoms recombined as varying molecules at will.  To believe otherwise is like saying, "Of course I'm connected to the Internet.  I own a modem and I own a computer.  Doesn't it follow that I'm on the Internet?" *



Your body does project an electrical current, thus EKG (electrocardiogram) machines. Recombining molecules of differing atomic elements is not quite in the same boat as projecting an allready in place current.

I'm not saying you can "shock" anyone with this "current", I'm saying body mechanics play a larger roll in physics than some believe. How would you explain a soft hit, not hard enough to leave bruise, sending me (6'2" 205lbs) across the floor 8 feet? Its a usage of body mechanics and center of gravity.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore

Body mechanics isn't electromagnetism, though.  It's simply physics at work.


----------



## pete

then, sir, please explain the neuron transmission via synapse


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Body mechanics isn't electromagnetism, though.  It's simply physics at work. *



No one is saying chi is electomagnetism, that is a completely differing idea than chi being part of the electrical "current" if you will, of the body. Your muscle, if you believe it or not, are working by electric current, even if you believe they aren't they still are.



> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *It's simply physics at work. *



Agreed, physics is exactly what it is, but biological physics.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore

> then, sir, please explain the neuron transmission via synapse



That has nothing to do with the ridiculous pseudoscience we're discussing, such as shooting light out of your fingers.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *That has nothing to do with the ridiculous pseudoscience we're discussing, such as shooting light out of your fingers. *



This is getting ridiculuous, you refuse to listen to any of what I'm saying. You stand on your own beliefs of what I'm saying and demand I'm talking of "...pseudoscience...such as shooting light out of your fingers." I specifically remember saying thats not what I'm talking about. 

A serious open conversation I'm up for, a one sided pseudodiscussion I'm not. No itent to offend, just I would like to have a mutual conversation, and this is not happening.

7sm


----------



## Cruentus

HEY MODS! 

Could we merge these threads: 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...&threadid=12022

It's too confusing to watch both. My opinions on the subject are over there!

PAUL


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *HEY MODS!
> 
> Could we merge these threads:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...&threadid=12022
> 
> It's too confusing to watch both. My opinions on the subject are over there!
> 
> PAUL *



I doubled up on this thread because I wanted to get the opinions from some Tai Chi practicioners.  I seriously recommend checking out the other thread.  Lots of good info there...

7starmantis

Do not take Phil's remarks so seriously.  When they are useful reply.  I would wager that he is reacting to the preponderance of silly psuedoscience in tai chi practice.  Personally, I think that if we can understand chi scientifically we can all increase our ability to use the concept and make ourselves better martial artists.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *HEY MODS!
> 
> Could we merge these threads:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...&threadid=12022
> *



I'm not hitting anything with that url.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *7starmantis
> 
> Do not take Phil's remarks so seriously. When they are useful reply. I would wager that he is reacting to the preponderance of silly psuedoscience in tai chi practice. Personally, I think that if we can understand chi scientifically we can all increase our ability to use the concept and make ourselves better martial artists.*



I'm not taking SharpPhils comments extremely serious, its just I get irritated when people on threads refuse to accept what you are saying is different from what they think you are saying. 

I truly wish we did understand Chi more scientifically, it would be great for us all. There is alot of old still in Taiji today, and it will probably remain for quite a while, but that doesn't make everything they say wrong, just because they don't understand it correctly.

7sm


----------



## Ender

> _Originally posted by pete _
> *if you believe the body has an electrical current (the nervous system), then why wouldn't the coiling and coordinated control of that system produce an electro-magnetic force.
> 
> if you believe the body has an air current (the respiratory system), then why couldn't the proper use of breath produce the power of an air stream.
> 
> if you believe the body contains the flow of fluids (circulatory system), then why wouldn't the unicumbered flow of the bloodstream create an energy similar to a centrifugal force.
> 
> now why would these forces as the appear otherwise in nature be able to extend beyond their containers, but are constrained by human skin? *



Well for one thing, the current that flows in your body is in the nano-amp range. Far too low to create any kind of "force". Plus the body operates as an electro-chemical mechanism, where chemicals and electricity combine to provide locomotion.

Any "coiling" or inductance would be disruptive to various organs of the body and could possibly cause death.  Only if the other parts of the body were isolated from any type of induction, but again, that almost impossible because of current pathways.

Outside magnetism or current could have an effect ON the body, but not FROM the body. I only know this because I am an electrical engineer.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> * the body operates as an electro-chemical mechanism, where chemicals and electricity combine to provide locomotion.
> *



While I respect your knowledge of electicity, the body is not an electro-chemical mechanism. No chemicals combine with electricity in the human body. 

I understand the electrical current of the body is too low to produce a "shock" but I don't believe that chi is a "shock" or anything other than a power that can be delivered in a punch or even kick. Its nothing that really transfers from one person to the next, execpt in the form of inertia.

7sm


----------



## pete

> Outside magnetism or current could have an effect ON the body, but not FROM the body. I only know this because I am an electrical engineer. - Ender



i'm not a real doctor but i do play one on tv.


----------



## Ender

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *While I respect your knowledge of electicity, the body is not an electro-chemical mechanism. No chemicals combine with electricity in the human body.
> 
> I understand the electrical current of the body is too low to produce a "shock" but I don't believe that chi is a "shock" or anything other than a power that can be delivered in a punch or even kick. Its nothing that really transfers from one person to the next, execpt in the form of inertia.
> 
> 7sm *



Chemicals combine to produce electricity within the body. Much like a battery. The electrical current causes cells to move, produce movement of cells to interact with other cells, or simply travel along the central nervous system. when the current travels to it's destination a reaction occurs. Much like an electric shock, your muscle will contract and spasm because the current from an outside source overloads the bodies electrical system.

Inertia has very little to do with electricity except in the form of electrons colliding when current is flowing.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Chemicals combine to produce electricity within the body. Much like a battery. The electrical current causes cells to move, produce movement of cells to interact with other cells, or simply travel along the central nervous system. when the current travels to it's destination a reaction occurs. Much like an electric shock, your muscle will contract and spasm because the current from an outside source overloads the bodies electrical system.
> 
> Inertia has very little to do with electricity except in the form of electrons colliding when current is flowing. *



I know of no chemicals that combine to form any type of electrical current in the body. Would you mind telling what chemicals these are? Cell mobility has nothing to do with electrical currents. No cells pass "down" or through the Central Nervous System. Your talking on two differnet levels, the cellular level and the systemic level. Groups of cells form organs, which in turn group to form systems. 

I don't believe that chi has anything to do with electricity anyway. Inertia comes into play when the "chi" or "power" or whathaveyou, is transfered from one individual to the next. Its like pushing a bowling ball. Your inertia or energy is transfered to the ball and thus moves it. What I'm saying is that you can increase the amount of energy you transfer when doing a hit or push or kick.


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I know of no chemicals that combine to form any type of electrical current in the body. Would you mind telling what chemicals these are? Cell mobility has nothing to do with electrical currents. *



Charged particles cross the nerve synapses in the form of an ionic exchange.  There are lots of chemicals called neurotransmitters that readily break ionic bonds to form transmission ions.  In order to break a chemical bond, a small electrical impulse is required and this is caused by something called an electrochemical reaction.  When the impulse reaches the muscles, the correct chemicals are released and the muscle contracts.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Charged particles cross the nerve synapses in the form of an ionic exchange.  There are lots of chemicals called neurotransmitters that readily break ionic bonds to form transmission ions.  In order to break a chemical bond, a small electrical impulse is required and this is caused by something called an electrochemical reaction.  When the impulse reaches the muscles, the correct chemicals are released and the muscle contracts. *



Right, we are talking about the origin of the "electric" current that causes the inonic bonds to break. chemical bonds are broken, and I will assume you mean hydrogen bonds, by enzymes, not by electrical impulses. The charged particles do cross the synapse of a nuron, but that is not what creates the electrical pulse, you said it yourself, the particles are allready chraged. Neurotransmitters include neuromodulators, neuroregulators, neuromediators, and neurohumors, whether or not acting at synapses. these "transmiters" do not break ionic bonds but rather regulate ion channels. This stimulus can be not only nurotransmiters but also a  membrane potential, drug, or cytoplasmic messenger. 

I'm sorry, this is really getting off topic. Regardless of who is correct here, I don't think chi exchange is electrical in any way, but rather an energy exchange.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I'm sorry, this is really getting off topic. Regardless of who is correct here, I don't think chi exchange is electrical in any way, but rather an energy exchange.
> 
> 7sm *



The electrical impulse breaks ionic bonds through electrolysis.  Electrolysis is a process that uses H-bonds to carry negative charges.  This is a cascading effect known as an electrochemical reaction.  

As far as this discussion is concerned, this process is highly relevant if Chi is an electromagnetic force.  Through little understood processes like biofeedback and the placebo effect, it may be possible to control these impulses to cause various biological effects.  Isn't analogous to the concept of chi?  Yet no one can shoot lightning from their fingertips that we know.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *The electrical impulse breaks ionic bonds through electrolysis.  Electrolysis is a process that uses H-bonds to carry negative charges.  This is a cascading effect known as an electrochemical reaction.  *



I think you are meaning hydrogen bonds, not ionic bonds. Electrolysis is simply the process of an electrical current passing through an aqueous solution causing a series of redox reactions which break apart the components of the solution. That has nothing to do with the electrical impulse of the body, such as the heart or muscular contraction at all.

Why are we arguing about organic chemistry when we are talking about Chi?



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *As far as this discussion is concerned, this process is highly relevant if Chi is an electromagnetic force.  Through little understood processes like biofeedback and the placebo effect, it may be possible to control these impulses to cause various biological effects.  Isn't analogous to the concept of chi?  Yet no one can shoot lightning from their fingertips that we know. *


I already said, I do not believe Chi to be an electromagnetic force, so this would me moot.  Biofeedback and the placebo affect are techniques used heavily in psychology, but not in any way relevant to chi or energy transfer. I don't think anyone thinks that shooting lightening from their fingertips is relevant to Chi.
I certainly have said I do not think it is anything close to that. I said I believe it to be the transfer of energy from one person to another in the form of inertia, or force, not electric or magnetic or electromagnetic in any way. 

7sm


----------



## pete

> I believe it to be the transfer of energy from one person to another in the form of inertia, or force, not electric or magnetic or electromagnetic in any way.  - 7sm



the inertia, or force you describe is the external muscular result of chi cultivated and harnessed from internal energy sources... basic life forces consisting of the electrical, magnetic, centrifugal from breath, circulatory, adrenal, nervous systems.  chi cannot be described as any one of these, as it is all life forces working in concert.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by pete _
> *the inertia, or force you describe is the external muscular result of chi cultivated and harnessed from internal energy sources... basic life forces consisting of the electrical, magnetic, centrifugal from breath, circulatory, adrenal, nervous systems.  chi cannot be described as any one of these, as it is all life forces working in concert. *



To a point I agree with you. However, it being a concert of all internal life forces, it is thus internal and not an external component to be "shot" or thrown at will. It is these forces being transfered not as a "shock" of electricity, or a repulsion as a magnet, but as a force of such like inertia. The force can travel until it is stopped. You can yield to the energy or force and it will not hurt you. It is only when the force finds something to stop it, that it hurts you. That could be your ribs, or more internal such as organs.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Why are we arguing about organic chemistry when we are talking about Chi?
> 7sm *



We are talking about organic chemistry because chi is a biological function.  It is something that occurs in the body and on a cellular level is nothing but the exchange of chemicals.  Chi is not some mystical force.  It is not something that "can never understand!"  Everything in our lives is explainable through physical methods.  

7sm take a look at electrolytic cascades.  This process should explain nerve conduction.  H bonds pass ions like hot potatoes until they reach thier destination.  Then they cause a nucleophilic attack and spawn a whole new series of ions to begin a new series.  Not too important. 

My point is that what if we can really control this process?  What if we can meditate to a point that we can manipulate our bodily functions on a cellular level?  Wouldn't this account for the abilities given to "chi?"


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *My point is that what if we can really control this process?  What if we can meditate to a point that we can manipulate our bodily functions on a cellular level?  Wouldn't this account for the abilities given to "chi?" *



Except that Chi cultivation and meditation are not combined. Some say the cultivation of chi is from meditation, while others ignor that meditation has anything whatsoever to do with chi cultivation.

You also said chi is the exchange of chemicals, if that were so, the exchange of chi would be an explination for the spread of pathogenically passed viruses and deseases. This is not so.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore

> We are talking about organic chemistry because chi is a biological function.



No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.   *



True....sorta.... 

Here is what I said in a different post: 



> So either Chi exists, or it doesn't...it doesn't matter what I believe. It can either be proven to exist or it cannot because it doesn't.
> 
> I believe that there is plenty of evidence that it at least exists. Acupuncture lends us enough evidence of Chi, I believe. I think our real challange is in discovering a way of understanding how it works, how to measure it, how it may or may not be important to us, and what its limitations are (what it can and can't do). That, I think, is our real challange, not tryong to "prove" its existance which seems to me to have been already proven.



Also...



> I watched (on Television) a brain surgury take place in Japan. The patient was awake and communicating the entire time; they used no anastetic other then acupuncture to redirect the electrical energy so that she wouldn't feel pain.
> 
> Now, if we want to distinguish these effects from a placebo, I guess we could cut into someones head without anastetic and w/o acupuncture, but we could only TELL them that it won't hurt. Would you like to volunteer your skull for the experiment...cause I ain't voluntering mine!
> 
> Acupuncture has been proven to "work" by the use of placebo in different Western Universities, such as UCLA. Acupuncture is based off "Chi". Now although we can't accurately measure "chi", the fact that acupuncture can work based off the principle of manipulating this "unseen energy" proves that it at least "exists."
> 
> Dispite what a lot of people seem to be saying here, Chi is not just an "idea". Its a physical energy, that can be proven or disproven, and measured (even if we don't know how to yet measure it). Now I know this takes a lot of the mysticism out of the equation for some of you, so I apoligize for ruining the fantasy.
> 
> So, if you (any of you, not directed at one person) want Chi to be an infinite unprovable energy, fine with me. I'm sure you can see dead people, communicate telapathically, and fly around out of body at night too. I, however, prefer hard science to explain things (when possible and available). Hard science says that it exists. If you don't like it, take it up with the medical community.
> 
> (I am now waiting for someone to tell me that gravity and water are only observable ideas also... )



So, in some cases (because "Chi" is not well defined) I can see how someone might say Chi to mean "thought" or "physical energy". So, this can be really confusing.

However, I think in a real sense, outside all the confusion, Chi exists as a quantifiable force that we have not been able to measure yet.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *No, chi is a term applied to a phenomenon that is not consistently defined, the existence and precise nature of which cannot be determined -- rendering all conversations on the nature of chi theoretical and entirely subjective.   *



Well, phenomenon or not, consistently defined or not, its existence is felt and seen, so therefore is not theoretical but actual. 
Subjective is a different story, those who know how to generate power in their punches through chi may view it one way, while those receiving the punch may view it another. Either way, it is still existent because it can be felt and seen.

7sm


----------



## pete

objectivity is subjective...


----------



## Phil Elmore

> Well, phenomenon or not, consistently defined or not, its existence is felt and seen, so therefore is not theoretical but actual.



False.  People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality."


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *False.  People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality." *



Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance. 
Otherwise, falsy atributing the fault of an automobile accident to the wind would disprove the existence of wind.

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore

> Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance. Otherwise, falsy atributing the fault of an automobile accident to the wind would disprove the existence of wind.



This is faulty logic at its worst.  The burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something.  You cannot prove a negative;  therefore your objection is _meaningless_.  You must prove chi exists -- and falsely attributing things to the concept of chi does not constitute proof of chi's existence.  That is the whole point.

Sweet tusked existence.  Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp.  The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *This is faulty logic at its worst.  The burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something.  You cannot prove a negative;  therefore your objection is meaningless.  You must prove chi exists -- and falsely attributing things to the concept of chi does not constitute proof of chi's existence.  That is the whole point.*



Calm down, lets discuss rationally. My last post was not an effort to prove the existence of chi, but rather to disprove your statement of the non-existence of chi because of people falsy atributing actions or "feelings" to it. 

To speak of faulty logic and then speak of proving a negative is an oxymoron. You are trying an exercise in appeal to ignorance. This is faulty logic in which your argument on something is supposedly true because its opposite has not been proven true. You say because I can't prove chi exists, then it doesn't exist. To say someone who believe in chi believes in a negative is absurd and quite closeminded. There are many who initially write off an belief because they dont believe themselves, but that is the characterization of closemindedness.

I don't believe that there is anything in this world that would turn your head and make you believe in the existence of "chi". So what will be the benefit of me trying to make you believe?



> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Sweet tusked existence.  Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp.  The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me. *



Can we keep the discussions respectful at least? 

7sm


----------



## pete

> You must prove chi exists -- sharp? phil



chi cannot be proven over the internet, similar to proving the extent of pain a woman experiences during childbirth.    you gotta get off the keyboard and begin practicing chi kung, tai chi, or another internal art such as pakua chang.  until then, in order to remain in the tai chi forum you must prove chi does not exist.

pete


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Falsly attributing an action to a certain phenomenon does not disprove the existence of the phenomena or the actuality of the occurance. *



Allow me to paraphrase.  If an action that is attributed to chi is shown not to have anything to do with chi, this does not disprove the existance of chi.  

I don't think anyone is claiming that chi does not exist.  When I practice chi gung, I feel something, for instance.  Yet, that something could be something else.  How do you show that it is chi?  How is chi defined?

These are important questions.  Learning the answers to them will allow a greater control of the force then we ever could have now.  Lets take electromagnetism for instance.  Without Maxwells equations that describe this force, we wouldn't have things like radio, microwaves, television, cell phones...ect.

I will reiterate my point.  If chi exists and if it is a force then you must be able to sense it, count it, measure it, and eventually control it.  Our understanding of this concept rudimentary at best.  People say the sense it and people say that they control it to a certain extent.  If we understand chi biologically we might be able to focus on the development needed to control it.  

People, nothing exists beyond what we can measure.  Chi should be no different.  If it exists...

upnorthkyosa

PS - perhaps take this discussion down a different path to help us understand better.  When do you feel the existance of chi?  What is that like?


----------



## Phil Elmore

> I don't believe that there is anything in this world that would turn your head and make you believe in the existence of "chi". So what will be the benefit of me trying to make you believe?



Of course there is.  Consistent, _reproducible_ evidence of an explicitly defined phenomenon identified as "chi" would be sufficient to prove it to me -- and to everyone else.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I don't think anyone is claiming that chi does not exist.
> *





> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil_
> *People experience a great many things they attribute to "chi," but this does not constitute proof of its "actuality."*





> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil_
> *Sweet tusked existence. Next we'll be bickering about using pyramid power to keep our razor blades sharp. The idiocy people will believe never ceases to amaze me.*



I think there are those saying Chi does not exist.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I will reiterate my point.  If chi exists and if it is a force then you must be able to sense it, count it, measure it, and eventually control it.  Our understanding of this concept rudimentary at best.  People say the sense it and people say that they control it to a certain extent.  If we understand chi biologically we might be able to focus on the development needed to control it.
> 
> People, nothing exists beyond what we can measure.  Chi should be no different.  If it exists...*



Thats not neccesarily true. Does sound exist? How about light? We cannot control them. We can contain them, or create them, or even use them to do work, but we can't control it. What about energy? It exists, yet we cant control it.

Chi is able to be sensed, counted, measured, and even controled. I'm not sure of your point.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I think there are those saying Chi does not exist.*



Claiming that chi might or might not exist is different from saying that something doesn't exist.



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Thats not neccesarily true. Does sound exist? How about light? We cannot control them. We can contain them, or create them, or even use them to do work, but we can't control it. What about energy? It exists, yet we cant control it.*



We have developed a greater ability to control all of the phenomenon you mentioned above because of our ability to describe them in detail.  This is the basis behind the science of physics.  Yet, why do we not read about chi in a physics book?  This is the difference between chi and other phenomenon normally studied with science.



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Chi is able to be sensed, counted, measured, and even controled. I'm not sure of your point.*



People claim to sense chi.  They claim to be able to control it.  They claim to be able to describe it.  An accupuncture text is very detailed in this respect.  I refuse to believe that we cannot understand this using science, though.  In fact, I think that coupling our current understanding of chi with scientific knowledge of the subject will only benifit us in the end.  So, if you have any sources that show how chi can be quantified and expressed scientifically, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post them for all of us to see.

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Claiming that chi might or might not exist is different from saying that something doesn't exist.*



I don't think that is what was said. Lets rule it out. If I asked, 
Is there anyone here who would be brave enough to post that they do not believe that chi exists? I think we would see quite a few posts, dont you?



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *We have developed a greater ability to control all of the phenomenon you mentioned above because of our ability to describe them in detail.  This is the basis behind the science of physics.  Yet, why do we not read about chi in a physics book?  This is the difference between chi and other phenomenon normally studied with science.*



I think our ability to describe any of the above phenomonon is not quite what you think it is. Also, I do read about chi in printed material. I think you are only trying to see chi accepted by physics, when its biological in nature. You have to accept other sources as well. In every biological text I have read, I see material about chi. Your expecting something unreal. Chi is a combination of many biological elements, not something that stands on its own. You dont read about air in chemistry, but you read about the components of air, Nitrogen, Oxygen, ect.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *People claim to sense chi.  They claim to be able to control it.  They claim to be able to describe it.  An accupuncture text is very detailed in this respect.  I refuse to believe that we cannot understand this using science, though.  In fact, I think that coupling our current understanding of chi with scientific knowledge of the subject will only benifit us in the end.  So, if you have any sources that show how chi can be quantified and expressed scientifically, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post them for all of us to see.*



In order to change that statement from "people" claim to sense it, I suggest meeting with a skilled taiji practitioner who understand how to generate chi in theire hits, and let them hit you. You might then understand and be able to claim you sensed it as well. I agree that we can understand it using science, but not as long as people refuse to accept any type of scientific data which points towards the existence of chi. I think the problem is the refusal to accept any source which points to chi. The power in a hit or kick, the ability to practice chi gung and control disease. No one will accept that chi had anything to do with this. It is yet still unexplainable without the presentation of chi, but that doesn't seem to be a problem, they just refuse to accept that chi had anything to do with it. With this mentality, it will be very hard to study chi scientifically.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I don't think that is what was said. Lets rule it out. If I asked,
> Is there anyone here who would be brave enough to post that they do not believe that chi exists? I think we would see quite a few posts, dont you? *



Yes, anyone want to make that claim?  




> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I think our ability to describe any of the above phenomonon is not quite what you think it is. Also, I do read about chi in printed material. I think you are only trying to see chi accepted by physics, when its biological in nature. *



Biology is physics based.  The forces that run through our bodies obey the laws of physics.  Chi should also obey the laws of physics unless it is truly something new that we don't understand.  Here is an interesting thought that just popped in...scientists cannot explain the expanion of the universe without invoking a quantity of "dark energy."  Since chi is in everything, perhaps "that" is the "dark energy."  Pure psuedoscience and conjecture, I know, yet interesting to ponder.  It's too bad I can think of no way to test this...



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *You have to accept other sources as well. In every biological text I have read, I see material about chi. Your expecting something unreal. Chi is a combination of many biological elements, not something that stands on its own. You dont read about air in chemistry, but you read about the components of air, Nitrogen, Oxygen, ect.*



Any sources that you can provide other then accupuncture texts would be greatly appreciated.  I have heard that chi has been studied in the medical field, yet I can find nothing beyond peoples stories that it has been studied.  I would like something more.



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *In order to change that statement from "people" claim to sense it, I suggest meeting with a skilled taiji practitioner who understand how to generate chi in theire hits, and let them hit you. You might then understand and be able to claim you sensed it as well.*



I have gone through a few really bad tai chi instructors who had nothing but charlatenry to show.  My current instructor is of direct liniage to Chen Men Ching and I have been thrown across the room I have experienced something during correctly performed chigung.  I am reluctant to call this chi because I can think of other biological means that could have caused what I felt.  My instructor says "whether or not you call it chi matters little.  Chi is."



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I agree that we can understand it using science, but not as long as people refuse to accept any type of scientific data which points towards the existence of chi. I think the problem is the refusal to accept any source which points to chi. The power in a hit or kick, the ability to practice chi gung and control disease. No one will accept that chi had anything to do with this. It is yet still unexplainable without the presentation of chi, but that doesn't seem to be a problem, they just refuse to accept that chi had anything to do with it. With this mentality, it will be very hard to study chi scientifically.*



I think there are a lot of open minded scientists who are willing to look at data.  I have heard stories that chi has been studied scientifically and am looking for confirmation of this.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Biology is physics based.  The forces that run through our bodies obey the laws of physics.  Chi should also obey the laws of physics unless it is truly something new that we don't understand.  Here is an interesting thought that just popped in...scientists cannot explain the expanion of the universe without invoking a quantity of "dark energy."  Since chi is in everything, perhaps "that" is the "dark energy."  Pure psuedoscience and conjecture, I know, yet interesting to ponder.  It's too bad I can think of no way to test this...
> *



If Biology is Physics based then I would also say that Physics is Chemistry Based, and Chemistry is Biology based, and I would offer that it goes in both directions, to truly understand the concepts. I also would say that you cannot understand any of it with out Mathematics, even to make a logical statement.

So, if it fails to be described by Newtonian Physics it does not exist? Wait, we have Einsteinian and Nuclear Physics, which discusses atomic and sub-atomic particles and where the _"Law of Cnservation of Mass"_ fails as some mass is converted into Energy

In places where the human mind has developed a concept it can explain and reproduce, it has a hard time believing in the existance of an idea. Yet, some dreamers used science an physics to determine that Pluto was actually out there. The existance of new elements, just from previous understandings.

So, when there is something we do not understand, yet can repeat, we like to come up with or derive new explanations to better understand. Even if you cannot repeat it, you can describe the theroy in some form of description, some form of mathematical description.

A long time ago the world was flat and everyone knew it. The Sun revolved around the Earth, and everyone knew it. As time progressed and understanding and more data collected, these ideas were laid aside as incorrect expressions of phenomanons we were trying to describe. 

Just some ramblings, no real point other than, there might be an explanation in the future or we might not see one.


----------



## Cruentus

The question remains: Who here believes that CHI does NOT exist?


----------



## Ninway J

*looks around*

*hears crickets chirping*


----------



## chbaehr

Well, I for one do not believe CHI exists.

I believe that "CHI" is used to describe many things, from generating force in a punch or block to delivering pain relief in Accupucture. I believe that SOMETHING is happening, but that it all can be attributed to a single "life-force" called CHI is a bit of a stretch.

I am willing to accept a spiritual explanation regarding CHI, but the people explaining CHI to me ultimatly cause it to have a component in the physical world; it can throw someone across a room, it can break the 7th brick from the top in a stack of 10 bricks without damaging the other bricks, it can alleviate pain, etc.

Once the claim is made that CHI can have a physical effect on something, then it follows that we should be able to measure it, and be able to use scientific methods to study it.

When believers in "CHI" are asked about scientific study of "CHI", more times than not the reply is a story supporting the "CHI" cause, not actual scientific study.

I believe that we are entitled to a more concrete, detailed explanation regarding "CHI" than simply 'It exists, shut up and pratice", and the person making the claims should be the one supplying the answer.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by chbaehr _
> *Well, I for one do not believe CHI exists.
> 
> I believe that "CHI" is used to describe many things, from generating force in a punch or block to delivering pain relief in Accupucture. I believe that SOMETHING is happening, but that it all can be attributed to a single "life-force" called CHI is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I am willing to accept a spiritual explanation regarding CHI, but the people explaining CHI to me ultimatly cause it to have a component in the physical world; it can throw someone across a room, it can break the 7th brick from the top in a stack of 10 bricks without damaging the other bricks, it can alleviate pain, etc.
> 
> Once the claim is made that CHI can have a physical effect on something, then it follows that we should be able to measure it, and be able to use scientific methods to study it.
> 
> When believers in "CHI" are asked about scientific study of "CHI", more times than not the reply is a story supporting the "CHI" cause, not actual scientific study.
> 
> I believe that we are entitled to a more concrete, detailed explanation regarding "CHI" than simply 'It exists, shut up and pratice", and the person making the claims should be the one supplying the answer. *



I think that we might agree, but that we might use different ways of explaining?

Let me see if I understand: You don't believe that Chi exists as a single "life force". You believe that many people attribute different things to "chi," such as simple physics or leverage, that could have alternative "real world" explainations. You do agree that there is a measurable energy at work in something like Acupuncture (even if we are unable to measure it yet), but you don't attribute it to a mystical "life force."

If the above is what you are saying, then I agree. I explain it differently, though (almost oppositely) in that I say that I DO believe in "Chi" because that seems to be the energy that drives eastern medicine. Yet, I don't believe that its a singular, "ultimate and Mystical" force that some people describe. I do believe that if it can affect the physical matter around us, then it is measurable (even if we haven't figured out how to measure it yet). I also agree that many people attribute certian "feats" to Chi, when there could be many alternative explainations.

So, even though I say that I believe that Chi exists, it would seem as if we agree. Am I wrong?

 PAUL


----------



## wingchunner

Hello:

As an instructor, I have been asked many times what chi is.  I've heard it simply explained that it is the air we breathe in to some mystical force.

I don't think that it is anything mystical.

I believe it is more than an electrical energy, more than part of the body's magnetic field, more than breathe, more than just the physics of a persons body, more than a persons intent, spirit or energy, more than tension or relaxing a muscle or groups of muscles, and more than the blood flowing to or away from a certain area.  I believe it is aspects of each of these... at times more in one area than others depending on the situation, or even the technique or position in practice.

I believe the term chi has been overused by some to sound like someone knows what they're talking about when they don't, or they don't have any other way of explaining what is going on.

I can feel my chi.  I can sense the flow of chi in others.  It is difficult to explain or define, but with experience I believe it can be recognized, and refined. Some of my students can sense it as well.  At times I use it as a guide to determine if a students technique is correctly done.  There really isn't any simple way to describe what is happening in words.  But, time and experience can clarify what it is.

I don't know if this helps or if you find this babble.
Normally, in my classes we don't really speak of chi, rather, we use the term energy.  This tends to de-mystify what is going on.

Marty


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by chbaehr _
> *Well, I for one do not believe CHI exists.
> 
> I believe that "CHI" is used to describe many things, from generating force in a punch or block to delivering pain relief in Accupucture. I believe that SOMETHING is happening, but that it all can be attributed to a single "life-force" called CHI is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I am willing to accept a spiritual explanation regarding CHI, but the people explaining CHI to me ultimatly cause it to have a component in the physical world; it can throw someone across a room, it can break the 7th brick from the top in a stack of 10 bricks without damaging the other bricks, it can alleviate pain, etc.
> 
> Once the claim is made that CHI can have a physical effect on something, then it follows that we should be able to measure it, and be able to use scientific methods to study it.
> 
> When believers in "CHI" are asked about scientific study of "CHI", more times than not the reply is a story supporting the "CHI" cause, not actual scientific study.
> 
> I believe that we are entitled to a more concrete, detailed explanation regarding "CHI" than simply 'It exists, shut up and pratice", and the person making the claims should be the one supplying the answer. *



chbaehr,

Welcome To Martial Talk.

If you have any questions or issue with the forum feel free to contact ay of the staff.

Also, feel free to post any of you questions in the appropriate forum for people to respond too.

Enjoy your stay here at Martial Talk.

*Rich Parsons
MT Assistant Administrator*


----------



## Ninway J

wingchunner, I agree.  Very good.

I think Laozi states it well:

_The five colors blind the eye._ 
_The five tones deafen the ear._ 
_The five flavors dull the taste._ 
_Racing and hunting madden the mind._ 
_Precious things lead one astray._ 

_Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees._ 
_He lets go of that and chooses this._ 

_ - Tao 12 - _ 


Also a quote by scholar Jacob Needleman:

"Modern Anglo-American philosophy's tendency to reject metaphysics stems largely from our culture's loss of the art and science of real 'seeing.'"


I, myself, believe in an intangible force.  However, I don't see it as mysterious or "mystical" by most people's definitions.  I see it as natural and part of this universe in which we live.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by chbaehr _
> *I believe that SOMETHING is happening, but that it all can be attributed to a single "life-force" called CHI is a bit of a stretch.
> *



So what exactly do *you* attribute this SOMETHING to?

If something is happening why do you believe it doesn't exist? Maybe chi is the SOMETHING that is happening. In that case, why be so strongly against the existence of chi, but maybe just against the "mystical" unkown aspects people attribute many things to.

7sm


----------



## someguy

Define Chi before you fight over its existance.
Also does it matter if it exists or not.  If you gain results does the explaination of how something works matter when you know how to gain results?


----------



## Ninway J

> _Originally posted by someguy _
> *Define Chi before you fight over its existance.
> Also does it matter if it exists or not.  If you gain results does the explaination of how something works matter when you know how to gain results? *




As far as defining chi, I think the above post by wingchunner says a lot.

Whether it matters if it exists or not is probably up to the individual.  Obviously, here it matters, or else we wouldn't be here discussing it.

For those of us that believe in chi and have cultivated it enough to gain results, obviously it doesn't matter to us if we can't explain how it works.


----------



## pete

A Modern Definition of Qi
by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming 

It is important that you know about the progress that has been made by modern science in the study of Qi. This will keep you from getting stuck in the ancient concepts and level of understanding.

In ancient China, people had very little knowledge of electricity. They only knew from acupuncture that when a needle was inserted into the acupuncture cavities, some kind of energy other than heat was produced which often caused a shocking or a tickling sensation. It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls "bioelectricity."

We must look at what modern Western science has discovered about bioelectromagnetic energy. Many bioelectricity related reports have been published, and frequently the results are closely related to what is experienced in Chinese Qigong training and medical science. For example, during the electrophysiological research of the 1960's, several investigators discovered that bones are piezoelectric; that is, when they are stressed, mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the form of electric current. This might explain one of the practices of Marrow Washing Qigong in which the stress on the bones and muscles is increased in certain ways to increase the Qi circulation.

It is understood now that the human body is constructed of many different electrically conductive materials, and that it forms a living electromagnetic field and circuit. Electromagnetic energy is continuously being generated in the human body through the biochemical reaction in food and air assimilation, and circulated by the electromotive forces (EMF) generated within the body.

In addition, you are constantly being affected by external electromagnetic fields such as that of the earth, or the electrical fields generated by clouds. When you practice Chinese medicine or Qigong, you need to be aware of these outside factors and take them into account.

Countless experiments have been conducted in China, Japan, and other countries to study how external magnetic or electrical fields can affect and adjust the body's Qi field. Many acupuncturists use magnets and electricity in their treatments. They attach a magnet to the skin over a cavity and leave it there for a period of time. The magnetic field gradually affects the Qi circulation in that channel. Alternatively, they insert needles into cavities and then run an electric current through the needle to reach the Qi channels directly. Although many researchers have claimed a degree of success in their experiments, none has been able to publish any detailed and convincing proof of the results, or give a good explanation of the theory behind the experiment. As with many other attempts to explain the How and Why of acupuncture, conclu?sive proof is elusive, and many unanswered questions remain. Of course, this theory is quite new, and it will take more study and research before it is verified and completely understood.

Much of the research on the body's electrical field relates to acupuncture. For example, Dr. Robert O. Becker, author of The Body Electric, reports that the conductivity of the skin is much higher at acupuncture cav?ities, and that it is now possible to locate them precisely by measuring the skin's conductivity. Many of these reports prove that the acupuncture which has been done in China for thousands of years is reasonable and scientific.

Although the link between the theory of "the Body Electric" and the Chinese theory of Qi is becoming more accepted and better proven, there are still many questions to be answered. For example, how can the mind lead Qi (electricity)? How actually does the mind generate an EMF (electromotive force) to circulate the electricity in the body? How is the human electromagnetic field affected by the multitude of other electric fields which surround us, such as radio wiring or electrical appliances? How can we readjust our electromagnetic fields and survive in outer space or on other planets where the magnetic field is completely different from the earth's? You can see that the future of Qigong and bioelectric science is a challenging and exciting one. It is about time that we started to use modern technology to understand the inner energy world which has been for the most part ignored by Western society.

This article is a direct translation of text from the book ¡§Taijiquan, Classical Yang Style¡¨ by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming. YMAA 1999


----------



## Cruentus

Cool. So Chi is Bioelectromagnetic energy. Neato! Does anybody have any references on studies that have been done regarding this energy? I would love to read about them.

:asian:


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Qi has been translated as many things. Air, energy, etc. If it is either of the former, how can you deny its existence? Surely both exist, else we would be non-existence, and in the case of the latter, certain laws of physics, engineering and other disciplines surely would not exist.

Dr. Yang being an engineer is very succint, and less prone to superstitions. Bio-energy has been fairly well documented, and in fact, is almost a prerequisite because one of the criteria that determines life is movement. If you run a google search, I'm sure you can find a plethora of both good and bad information, which should help illustrate both sides of the coin.

I am, as one might imagine, a firm believer in Qi; however, I don't think it is something mystical or the like. I think it is simply a natural byproduct of the living process, from interactions within the cells themselves, with the mitchondria as a possible source. Though I will say that there is oftentimes more to the situation than meets the eye. Things today that we take for granted, 100 years ago, or more, were inconceivable. What will the future bring?


----------



## Ninway J

Is it safe to say that the ancient Chinese people believed that Qi is within all living things?  If so, that would include plants and trees.  Do plants and trees have bioelectricity?  If not, isn't Qi more than bioelectricity?

Dr. Yang defines Qi so that we do not get stuck in the ancient concepts and levels of understanding.  So how do we know that his definition and the ancient definition of Qi is the same?

I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of Qi because I've done the work and achieved results, probably like many others here.  To me, I don't need to have it defined.  I think the people who don't understand need to have it defined for them.  After all...

"defining things limits them"


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by Ninway J _
> *Is it safe to say that the ancient Chinese people believed that Qi is within all living things?  If so, that would include plants and trees.  Do plants and trees have bioelectricity?  If not, isn't Qi more than bioelectricity?*



All living things that we know of, have bioelectricity in some form.  Bioelectricity can be caused by chemical reactions that carry information or it can be caused by nerve conduction on static impulses.  This does not explain how, according to the classics, rocks would have chi.  Perhaps they are mistaken and they don't.  There seems to be a lot of religion mixed up in this concept and I believe that if we stripped away the mysticism, our understand would increase exponentially.



> _Originally posted by Ninway J _
> *"defining things limits them" *



Defining a concept sets it free.  It allows humans to manipulate it.  If chi was completely undefined, we would have no understanding of how it works or how to use it.  As it stand now, I believe that chi is partially defined, which accounts for our partial understanding of what it can and cannot do.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Defining a concept sets it free.  It allows humans to manipulate it.  If chi was completely undefined, we would have no understanding of how it works or how to use it.  As it stand now, I believe that chi is partially defined, which accounts for our partial understanding of what it can and cannot do. *



And all things that humans cannot define, understand, or manipulate do not exist right? That way we are in complete control of our environment. Writing off something because you don't understand it or cannot define it is unwise.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *And all things that humans cannot define, understand, or manipulate do not exist right? That way we are in complete control of our environment. Writing off something because you don't understand it or cannot define it is unwise.
> 
> 7sm *



Some things might be beyond our power to define.  I do not think that chi is one of them.  Nobody is writing off anything but charlatans who claim super powers.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

That is one easy to spot however... Qi/Chi/Ki is not a metaphysical or supernatural power or force, it is natural, inherent in everything that lives. You will always have those of questionable ethics. It is an unfortunate fact of life, so its best not to dwell on them.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Nobody is writing off anything but charlatans who claim super powers. *



We have allready addressed that in this thread, seems some are. Needless though, there are diseases, sysmptoms, and parts of the body even that humans cannot define or understand as of yet. This doesn't make them mystical or spiritual, neither does it make them unimportant, or less existent.

I responded to the statement:


> If chi was completely undefined, we would have no understanding of how it works or how to use it. As it stand now, I believe that chi is partially defined, which accounts for our partial understanding of what it can and cannot do.



Definition has absolutely nothing to do with existence, as is the topic of this thread. It also has nothing to do with the ability to be used or do work.

7sm


----------



## Black Bear

You guys are all nuts. Of course chi is real. I sprinkle it over bland foods to give it some kick. You can get it at Salvadoran grocers. 

If you don't believe it exists, I challenge you to try a tablespoon of my homemade bolognese with, and another without.


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Definition has absolutely nothing to do with existence, as is the topic of this thread. It also has nothing to do with the ability to be used or do work.*



Definition has everything to do with existance.  If something is totally undefined, there are no words to describe the phenomenon.  If something is partially defined, it means that we have words to describe a phenomenon, but that explanation is incomplete.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Definition has everything to do with existance.  If something is totally undefined, there are no words to describe the phenomenon.  If something is partially defined, it means that we have words to describe a phenomenon, but that explanation is incomplete. *



Your missing the point. Defined, partially defined, or undefined, something can still exist. Existance is not controled by definition. If your of the mindset that only things which you know are in existence than yes, you are correct. However, there are a great many things in the world that are not defined as of yet, and this doesn't make them any less existant.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *However, there are a great many things in the world that are not defined as of yet, and this doesn't make them any less existant.*



Name one of those things and we shall see.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

How about this... a few years ago, people believed the celocamph to be exinct. We now know that not to be true. We also just found a new species of whale, this very year. PArticle physics has new avenues, as have the majority of the sciences. SARS was an unknown illness until earlier this year, and the dynamics behind its transmittal are still largely unknown. The genetic code has been cracked, but we are still ignorant on exactly how it works, and the list goes on and on. New discoveries are made which brings them into the realm of the "defined" but there are things which we still do not know, and lie within the realm of theory... a good and easy example is a black hole, which when crossing the event horizon, gravity takes down light and and matter into the singularity, and if a person was to get pulled in, that person would be ripped apart until finally the very atoms would be left, and those would be pulled apart. Now I ask you this, just how do we know that? The answer is that we don't. We are going by obsarvation and patterns. This is exactly the same process that was used when Qi was first defined. Bio-electric energy does exist; however, I doubt, seriously doubt, anything like what the ancients proposed exists. Qi means both air and energy, and we know that both of these exist. Further, we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; however, it does change phase. BUT when this was first proposed, it would have been considered foolish, and depending on the era, witchcraft. Today we have evidence to suggest that acupuncture works, to varying degrees. And yet, this is a practice which evidence leads us to think was practice by the "iceman" (due to tattoos which correspond to acupoints) who lived just a few years before us. (lol).

Before one can just discount anything, it should be analyzed thoroughly and investigated. Even scientific law is changed when new discoveries make that a necessity.


----------



## someguy

Chi is real its a letter in the greek alphabet.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

ROFL. Good point... how could I have missed that?


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Name one of those things and we shall see. *



Here is one that every good science person should understand.
The nomenclature of a virus. That is currently not defined. Scientist do not yet understand where a virus fits in the nomenclature of the animal kingdom. Yet, I can assure you that someone suffering from advanced HIV or AIDS will contest that viruses are extremely existant.

We are getting off topic here however. I'm simply making the point that because we cannot completely define chi, doesn't make it less existant.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

My point is that our inability to completely define chi makes it less usefull.  Without a full scientific definition, all we are going to have is more misconceptions of what it can and cannot do.  The only reason cranks who claim super powers are believed is because we only have half a definition.  This subject need not be mystical.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Up,

WE have shown several scientific facts that dispute your assertion. One does not need to understand differential equations to work with math or algebra. You should keep a more open mind.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *My point is that our inability to completely define chi makes it less usefull.  Without a full scientific definition, all we are going to have is more misconceptions of what it can and cannot do.  The only reason cranks who claim super powers are believed is because we only have half a definition.  This subject need not be mystical. *



I think you are almost on the right track here. Not being completely defined doesn't make it less usefull, but only less credited for its usefullness. Not being defined, doesn't stop a trained martial artist from benefiting from it when punching or kicking correctly with it. So we see it is not less useful being undefined, only less understood. Its usefullness is the same, as is the genetic code, but now we in our own selfish human minds "believe" it exists. As human being we have a history of not believing the existence of things until "we" understand or "define" them.  

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *As human being we have a history of not believing the existence of things until "we" understand or "define" them.*


* 

I would consider myself a "believer" in the concept of chi.  I have used it and have had it used to affect my body.  Because of this, I find myself trying to understand "exactly" how this works.  There is a difference between that and what we understand of it now.




Originally posted by Kodanjaclay 
WE have shown several scientific facts that dispute your assertion. One does not need to understand differential equations to work with math or algebra. You should keep a more open mind.

Click to expand...

 

Those assertions have supported my claim that concepts undefined do not exist.  For instance, we know that a virus exists and that it can harm us, but we do not know exactly how to place it in our taxonomic system.  I think this reflects a limitation of the system that will be revealed fully if we ever discover life on other planets.  The assertion that the Ceolocanth discovered off the coast of africa somehow supports the concept that we know about something undefined is also incorrect.  For instance, we knew that ceolocanths existed, just not in our time.  Partially defined concepts exist, but are less usefull.  All the the facts you brought to us fall under the catagory partially defined.

Just stop and think about how it would change our world to have a working scientific definition of chi.  For instance, if it is bio-electric, it could be very easily manipulated from the outside...*


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I would consider myself a "believer" in the concept of chi.  I have used it and have had it used to affect my body.  Because of this, I find myself trying to understand "exactly" how this works.  There is a difference between that and what we understand of it now.*



It seems a bit like you are contradicting yourself by saying if undefined it doesn't exist, but I have felt it. Your feeling of chi proves it exists even if we had no word (chi) to associate with it.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Those assertions have supported my claim that concepts undefined do not exist.  For instance, we know that a virus exists and that it can harm us, but we do not know exactly how to place it in our taxonomic system.  I think this reflects a limitation of the system that will be revealed fully if we ever discover life on other planets.*



Can you define a virus without the use of descriptive words? None of us truly can, but yet it still exists in our world. By your reasoning gravity has not allways existed. It only began to exist when we "defined" it. What about fire? It didn't exist before we defined it? That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. 

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *It seems a bit like you are contradicting yourself by saying if undefined it doesn't exist, but I have felt it. Your feeling of chi proves it exists even if we had no word (chi) to associate with it.*



Actually, it is perfectly consistant as I have stated that concepts with partial definitions are things that we can sense (if somewhat dimly)



> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Can you define a virus without the use of descriptive words? None of us truly can, but yet it still exists in our world. By your reasoning gravity has not allways existed. It only began to exist when we "defined" it. What about fire? It didn't exist before we defined it? That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. *



I can define a virus with the letters AGCT in various combinations.  Of course this only describes its genetic code, yet it does describe something about the virus.  A partial definition.  In the same light, people always knew gravity existed in some way.  Even partially motile bacteria have a concept of this.  The same can be said of fire.  

I think that we are confusing the word "existance."  If I say that undefined objects do not exist, I am saying that they do not exist in our human consciousness.  With that being said, if we had no definition of Chi, we would have no idea of its existance even though in the "real" world, it does exist.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Actually, it is perfectly consistant as I have stated that concepts with partial definitions are things that we can sense (if somewhat dimly)*



I don't remember you saying that, but sense even dimly is proof of existence. There is no correlation between partially defined things and things we can sense, even dimly sense. Your tying together existence and our knowing of this existence, there is no relationship between the two.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *In the same light, people always knew gravity existed in some way.  Even partially motile bacteria have a concept of this.  The same can be said of fire.*



People did not allways know gravity existed, but maybe a better example would be an element such as Na (Sodium). We didn't "define" it until recently (relatively), but it allways existed, and it was used in the earth and did work and was sensed way before being "defined".



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I think that we are confusing the word "existance."  If I say that undefined objects do not exist, I am saying that they do not exist in our human consciousness.  With that being said, if we had no definition of Chi, we would have no idea of its existance even though in the "real" world, it does exist. *



I said this allready and you disagreed. I said we (as humans) have a history of ignoring things until "we" define them, or accept their existence. That in no way means they did not exist, did not do work, or were not sensed before we "defined" them. Taking your stance, then chi doesn't exist in our consciousness _yet_ but it is still just as powerful and complete as it has allways been. Its usefullness and ability to do work is at the same level as it will be if/when we ever "define" it.

7sm


----------



## Ninway J

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *Taking your stance, then chi doesn't exist in our consciousness yet but it is still just as powerful and complete as it has allways been. Its usefullness and ability to do work is at the same level as it will be if/when we ever "define" it.
> 
> 7sm *



In other words, no matter how much or how little we know about chi, it is still there.  It just _is._   We may have it defined later on, but that wouldn't make it more useful or more powerful than it was a-thousand years ago.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

We are fond of labels. If you ask someone why a bird flies south for the winter, they will say instinct. But when you begin to press for more information about instinct, in the end, they have to say its just the way things are. Just because we label something, and then agree to the label, does not mean that the label is accurate, or even representative of the whole. Labels are our way of communicating... nothing more.


----------



## 7starmantis

Exactly, the "power" in chi is from proper execution, not from proper definment. If someone lacks power or chi in their technique, it is not from a lack of understanding of chi, it is from a lack of proper execution of said technique. 
Its like saying someone who doesn't know the chinese terms for kung fu and the punches, who doesn't know the history of kung fu, who has absolutely no knowledge on what kung fu is about, could not practice kung fu. Thats simply not true. There are many who have more book knowledge about kung fu than my Sifu, but few that could best him in fighting or technique.

7sm


----------



## Kodanjaclay

My sifu is fond of telling me how much more practice I need. I think that is the key. Work more, and intellectualize less. Bottom line is that our understanding comes from the hard work and sweat we put in. There is a lesson I teach, and that lesson is that simply because you pay a few measly dollars for my class, or anyone elses class, that does not entitle you to the wisdom of the Orient. Only when you pay REAL tuition (blood, sweat and tears) and have tasted bitter, have you truly begun to pay tuition and are on the way to learning.


----------



## Makalakumu

A definition is more then a label.  A definition defines the finite.  In other words it describes the phenomenon including its limitations.  I will make the point again about the four fundamental forces in the universe.  

Electromagnetism is defined and has proven wholley useful to civilization in general.  Television, radios and computers are a direct product of its definition.

The weak nuclear force is defined and has been a boon and a bane of civilization.  We use it generate power and we use it to blow stuff up.  

The strong nuclear force is also defined.  This force is unleashed during nuclear fusion.  In the future, this may become more useful because of its definition.  

Gravity, on the other hand, is partially defined.  Humans know (sort of) how it works.  They think they know where it originates, but it hasn't been observed yet.  We understand gravity on large levels, but that understanding breaks down at the quantum level.  

Imagine what the world would be like with a full definition of this force?  What if it could be harnessed and used for our benifit.  Space travel becomes more possible as a result.  

Chi.  This concept is partially defined.  I hear it described as technique.  I hear it described as energy.  I hear it described as power (which is different then energy)  It has proven its usefullness.  Accupuncture works.  So does accupressure.  I have seen it work in my tai chi class and have felt myself using it.  I even go to a TCM doctor every once and a while.  This is absolutely fascinating to me because I always approach these mystical topics with skepticism and so far, Chi has passed these personal tests of mine.

I am not arguing whether or not it exists.  I am only trying to say that we do not know everything that it can and cannot do.  There are so many misconceptions flying around about this topic.  Its frustrating.  For instance, imagine using chi on a widespread basis to heal sickness.  Imagine using chi on a widespread basis to deal with mental health issues.  What it ADD can be treated with accupuncture or pressure?  Maybe a combination of points, manipulated in a certain way, can be taught to parents - replacing the use of ritalin?  

The Old Ways only describe it partially or we would see more of the above.  There is some liturature out there regarding this, but I haven't been able to find it.  Chi exists, humans know something of that existance, but not all, or even mostly, in my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by Kodanjaclay _
> *My sifu is fond of telling me how much more practice I need. I think that is the key. Work more, and intellectualize less. Bottom line is that our understanding comes from the hard work and sweat we put in. There is a lesson I teach, and that lesson is that simply because you pay a few measly dollars for my class, or anyone elses class, that does not entitle you to the wisdom of the Orient. Only when you pay REAL tuition (blood, sweat and tears) and have tasted bitter, have you truly begun to pay tuition and are on the way to learning. *



I agree, in the dojang, work more, talk less.  Sweat builds instinct.

Outside...scholarship is part of the Moo Duk Kwan.  TSD demands this type of questioning and thinking.  In fact, Hwang Kee was one of the first to describe TSD techniques with the old ways and the new - physics.  (according to his book)

I believe this duality gives us a better description of MA.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

I don't know if he was one of the first. Certainly he is the first I know of who made this information public. Otherwise you would have had to study physics yourself. 

Scholarship however, has always been a part of martial art. The ancient chinese had a standard they ascribed to called the Scholar-Warrior meaning that one had mastered both pen and sword. That is the way it should be.

How long have you studied MDK?


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by Kodanjaclay _
> *How long have you studied MDK? *




Eight years.  I'm working on my sam dan in between taking care of my family.  Sigh.  Its not like it was in the old days with the four hour workouts!


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *A definition is more then a label.  A definition defines the finite.  In other words it describes the phenomenon including its limitations.
> 
> The strong nuclear force is also defined.  This force is unleashed during nuclear fusion.  In the future, this may become more useful because of its definition.  *



I can agree with everything you say except on these few points. Nothing becomes more usefull _because_ of its definition. We become more aware of it becasue of its definition, but the defined does not change. I think you are putting just a little too much infasis on defining chi. Your speaking of using chi for medical purposes, its allready done. The lack of a concrete definition hasn't stoped it from being used.



> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Chi exists, humans know something of that existance, but not all, or even mostly, in my opinion. *



I agree, however, us not knowing all of that existence hasn't stoped us from receiving the benefits of its existence. Your saying that if we define it, we can harness it and use it more. Thats not true, a definition doesn't allow us to do more with something, just helps us communicate what we are doing better.

7sm


----------



## Kodanjaclay

At Sam Dan level, and this is just my opinion, class itself is not as important for you as personal practice. I'm not suggesting you don't go to class, but I am suggesting that you work out more on your own. Four hour training can be done, and you can still take care of your family. 

I wish you the best luck on your trip to Kodanja.


----------



## donald

I don't believe in chi, or ki. I believe Jesus Christ gave us the strength we all have in us. Not being a medical practioner of any kind. I can only surmise that this energy is a biological phenomenon. As far as the hocus pocus that is involved in these "demonstrations". I think its all trickery of some sort, but as always this is just one guy's opinion.

Respectfully,
Donald


----------



## MA-Caver

donald said:
			
		

> I don't believe in chi, or ki. I believe Jesus Christ gave us the strength we all have in us. Not being a medical practioner of any kind. I can only surmise that this energy is a biological phenomenon. As far as the hocus pocus that is involved in these "demonstrations". I think its all trickery of some sort, but as always this is just one guy's opinion.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Donald



Don, chi does exist in the sense it's the "...energy field created by all living things..." (to quote a well known Jedi:jedi1. However the "chi" shown on shows like dragon ball z and American Ninja movies and stuff like that... nah, I'll side with you on that one. 
Faith does help enhance the chi, belief in ones self and being aware of the inner-strength which we all have (read: light of Christ). Being in touch with one's self and one's inner-self can help locate and identify the energy (chi) that is within us. We can channel it and use it to our advantage. 
But sometimes we're not always aware of it. Example: A friend I know was having a particularly hard day and their kids were not helping out with running around, getting in the way, fighting, not coming to dinner when told and then finally just being obnoxious at the dinner table. Having enough my friend "lost it" and smacked (not hard) a dinner plate on the table as in "that's ENOUGH!". The plate shattered to a zillion pieces. By all rights it should've just cracked in two. 
When my friend related the story to me I told them that they had, because of the enormous stress from the earlier portion of their day and the stress that the kids were putting on her and all the little things that accumilated throughout the day, their emotional build up tapped into their "chi" and channeled it down through their arm and the energy pulverized the plate. 

We're a lot more powerful than we realize (overall) and it's in wisdom that our creator had to make those of us who earnestly search for it work for it. Same with brain power.


----------



## Ninway J

donald said:
			
		

> I don't believe in chi, or ki. I believe Jesus Christ gave us the strength we all have in us. Not being a medical practioner of any kind. I can only surmise that this energy is a biological phenomenon. As far as the hocus pocus that is involved in these "demonstrations". I think its all trickery of some sort, but as always this is just one guy's opinion.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Donald



I don't know if you could describe the miracles in the bible as "hocus pocus" or "demonstrations", but if one believes in those miracles, then one should not have any problem believing that chi had a part in those miracles, or apart from that, chi could be used to perform miracles even now-days.


----------



## someguy

Ninway J said:
			
		

> I don't know if you could describe the miracles in the bible as "hocus pocus" or "demonstrations", but if one believes in those miracles, then one should not have any problem believing that chi had a part in those miracles, or apart from that, chi could be used to perform miracles even now-days.


Unless God goes beyond chi.
This thread is still going wow.


----------



## donald

N.(may I call you N. ?),

Although I am not an evangelist, or Biblical studies major, I can read fairly well. Biblically speaking, all the miracles performed in the bible were done through the power of GOD. Not by any power originating in, or from man. As recorded in the Holy Scriptures, "by Him we live, and move, and have our being" New Testament, The Book of Acts chapter 17:verse 28.. As I stated previously. I am not a subscriber to the theory of chi/ki as taught through Eastern philosophy. And I do not describe the miracles of GOD as "hocus pocus". 

Respectfully,
 :asian:


----------



## 7starmantis

Just to throw in as devil's advocate (no punn intended) the Bible also says we are made in the image of God does it not? So who are we to say that the miracles that humans in the bibile did were not dealing with chi?

Just wanted to throw that in.
 7sm


----------



## someguy

If we are going to go into God we should first determine which religion is the true religion.  Ok thats not going to happen.  
Lets ask this what proof is there for and against chi?  Any cold hard facts for either side.
Can anything ever be truely defined?  Is human communication so perfect that we can full define anything with mere words?


----------



## Ninway J

I can forsee that this subject of chi and the Bible can, and might be, debated intensely simply because people have many different conceptions about chi.  People also have many different conceptions and interpretations about the Bible.  Throw these two together, and look out!

When my sensei taught us about chi, he said that chi has many names in different cultures.  For instance ki (Japanese), chi (Chinese), mana (Hawaiian), prana (middle-east Indian), and the Holy Spirit (Christianity), are all the same thing.

However, if you ask an evangelical christian regarding the Holy Spirit, he would say that the Holy Spirit isn't chi because chi is described as an impersonal force, and the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, but a person.

Then you ask the Jehovah's Witnesses about the Holy Spirit, and they will say that it is only an impersonal force emitted from God, so it could be called chi.

Taoists believe that chi is an impersonal force emitted from The One, which created the ten-thousand things, including the gods.

These are just a few examples.


----------



## 7starmantis

I think chi is absolutely void of religion. I don't think there is anything spiritual about it in any sense, pure biology/physics in my book.

But thats just me...

7sm


----------



## Han_Tsu_Ki

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think chi is absolutely void of religion. I don't think there is anything spiritual about it in any sense, pure biology/physics in my book.


Through my own practices I have drawn the conclusion that chi is not something that can be explained by means of religion or science. Chi can only be experenced through actual training and combat. If you had to put a scientific tag on it, then it would be similar to adrenaline however chi can be focused where adrenaline cannot. When you are in a fight for survival then the existance of chi becomes apparent and you feel, for lack of a better word, 'alive'. I have studied the flow and movement of chi and I am certain that it does indeed exist, however you must practice and train a lot to aquire the proper understanding.


----------



## Cruentus

Oh...and one more:   

I see a lot of pseudo science and faulty logic in this thread that is laughable. The reason is because we don't have a provable, adequet means of explaining it. So some people try to take the religion angle, using Biblical references to try to prove the existance of Chi (which seems silly to me), others use science to go through the possabilities of what Chi might be (seems the most logical way to go to me), and other try to say "it can't be explained by science" (which I believe is a cop out).

Here, say this with me, "We are not sure exactly how to explain or characterize chi yet, but we do know that it exists." Don't worry guys...no one is going to think that your less of a chi master if you admit that you don't know certian things about it.  :wink1:

Also, keep in mind, if Chi is a physical force, then yes, it is measurable by science. Sorry to steal the mystic thunder from some of you. If it is a force that effects this physical world, then it must be observable and measurable by science, even if we haven't figured out a way to observe and measure it yet.

PAUL   
:hammer: (bringing the reality hammer)


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Paul,

I would ask you to keep an open mind. Certainly there are those who would use such mysticism to harm others, but keep in mind, only 100 years ago where we were with science. Science will be the first to tell you it does not know everything. And so far as medical science goes, ever heard of the term ideopathic? It means unknown source basically. For example, ideopathic scoleosis is scoleosis from an unknown cause.

Perhaps in the future we will know everything, but right now we don't. Science itself only considers things laws that appear unimpeachable, and under certain circumstances, those unimpeachable things suddenly take on new meanings, or alter themselves. Ever heard of frozen light? Did you ever think it would be possible to stop light? [An excellent article on this appears in scientific american].

Also, Bioelectrical energy has been studied and I believe quantified. Qi just means energy. So how is it that they are exclusive. We don't know they are. Like I said, there are some superstitious people out there, but don't wholesale disregard something because we don't have data to validate it. We may simply not have a means of quantifying it yet.


----------



## Cruentus

Kodanjaclay said:
			
		

> Paul,
> 
> I would ask you to keep an open mind....
> 
> Also, Bioelectrical energy has been studied and I believe quantified. Qi just means energy. So how is it that they are exclusive. We don't know they are. Like I said, there are some superstitious people out there, but don't wholesale disregard something because we don't have data to validate it. We may simply not have a means of quantifying it yet.



I have an open mind, but I will look at things with logic and scrutiny.

Having said that, I agree with your last statement. I also believe in Qi; mainly because acupuncture and chinese medicine does work, and it is based off manipulation of these energies. Watching someone go though a brain surgury on TV while fully conscience and able to communicate, with no anesthetic other then manipulation of their Chi through accupuncture needles will make a believer out of anyone.

I just think that to blow off the idea by saying something like, "science doesn't understand Chi because science can't explain everything" is a cop out. It implies that science will never understand this "mystical power." I think that to try equate "chi" to the every different energy belief in every different culture (like implying holy spirit, Prana, and Ki are all the same thing) without providing or having evidence is uneducated and pseudo religious. I think that many people would be better off saying that they "Don't know" instead of trying to make up some convoluded theory, and I think that they could then better stick to what they do know about the subject. They would definatily seem more credable that way.

IMHO


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Paul,

We are on the same page. I just wanted to make sure you kept the door open, if you know what I mean. 

You just have to watch out for the guru type who wants to teach the secrets of Qi in a weekend for a fee type of thing. Happens WAY too often.


----------



## someguy

Not everything can be explained.  Not by a human anyway.  Logic has limits.  It can't prove or disprove God 100%. At least not yet.  Maybe chi can be proved some day.  Maybe not.
It is almost impossible to prove a negative.  Try to disprove the existance of a unicorn they don't exist but still show me they don't.  Kind of hard isn't it.  Feel free to prove me wrong on that.  Any of that.
Chi is it real? I don't really know.


----------



## Cruentus

Kodanjaclay said:
			
		

> Paul,
> 
> We are on the same page. I just wanted to make sure you kept the door open, if you know what I mean.
> 
> You just have to watch out for the guru type who wants to teach the secrets of Qi in a weekend for a fee type of thing. Happens WAY too often.



So, you mean to tell me I should stop selling my video on how to through fireballs from your hands?  :boing2: lol


----------



## Cruentus

someguy said:
			
		

> Not everything can be explained.  Not by a human anyway.  Logic has limits.  It can't prove or disprove God 100%. At least not yet.  Maybe chi can be proved some day.  Maybe not.
> It is almost impossible to prove a negative.  Try to disprove the existance of a unicorn they don't exist but still show me they don't.  Kind of hard isn't it.  Feel free to prove me wrong on that.  Any of that.
> Chi is it real? I don't really know.



We are not talking abut God, though, we are talking about Chi. In theory, if there is a God that created this world, he would not be bound by space/time, or the physics of this world. Therefore, not only could we not prove or disprove God because he wouldn't be bound by our physics, but he could create phenomenom that are not bound by our physics as well (thus how "miricles" may be a possability if there is a God). btw, I believe that there is a God.

Now, with Chi, we are not talking about a phenomenom that exists outside of our reality. In Acupuncture, we can manipulate Chi. According to Eastern Theory, we can manipulate Chi also through movement, posture, and breath. Because we know that acupuncture works, we know that this energy must exist within our bodies (although we don't know if it is bound to our bodies). So we are talking not about an uncontrollable phenomenom that exists beyond are reality, we are talking about a real energy that exists within our reality that we haven't been able to explain yet. Since this is what we are talking about (and not some force outside of our physical reality), then it must be measurable and detectable by science, even if we haven't figured out a way to detect and measure it yet.

 :idea:


----------



## Ninway J

I think some people here don't want chi to be defined because it'll "cheapen" it or over-simplify it for them.  For those people, they are better off just practicing without knowing the HOW.  It's enough for them to just know that it works.  I am one of these.  I am also a spiritual person.

I think I've lately realized that chi is not just one thing, but many things.  We just use that one word to name all those unexplainable things that happen.

If we were to then measure chi, as mentioned in previous posts, then many different things would have to be measured.  Hook up someone to those huge bio-sensor machines while they are breaking ten bricks, or receiving accupuncture. :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Ninway J said:
			
		

> I think some people here don't want chi to be defined because it'll "cheapen" it or over-simplify it for them.  For those people, they are better off just practicing without knowing the HOW.  It's enough for them to just know that it works.  I am one of these.  I am also a spiritual person.



To each his own, I guess. I can respect not wanting to define it, but remember that when you say "chi might be this" or "chi might be that" or when you try to use Chi to explain all phenomenom that you don't understand, then you ARE indeed trying to define it.

Have a good day.  :asian:


----------



## Kodanjaclay

I agree with Paul. The very nature of language requires definition. Qi is an ideogram that has specific meaning.

Look at it this way: Qi is an energy form. That is what the term refers to. Energy can take a myriad of forms and according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, can neither be created nor destroyed (Third law if memory serves). For years people did not realize the effect that sunlight had on them, yet they knew it was energy. We are a species which responds to stimuli, and various types of energies. In some ways we have gross reactions such as radiation sickness, or we may have more subtle (ie not seen with the naked eye) reaction, conversion of Vitamin D is an example. But without setting forth definitions, we would have never been able to determine those results.

Defining is not going hurt spiritualism. Indeed it may help. For example, the Heart Sutra of Vatsiyayana (sp?) begines "O Sariputra, form here is emptiness, emptiness is form [...]." This is an apt description of the state of matter wherein physics has discovered that "solid mass" is mostly empty. Without definition, we would have never uncovered that. 

Life and science are miraculous fascinating creatures that do not necessarily exclude a life of spirituality. In fact some of the most spiritual people I have met, are among the most educated. Dr. Yang for example is an ardent believer in Qi and Chinese mysticism. and Yet he has a PhD in Engineering. My first teacher who was an adherent of both Zen and Taoist practice, mostly Taoist, was a tenured university professor. Without definition, these people would never have made their achievements, but by the same token, they never "cheapened" or over-simplified anything. We are limited by language, and as such, we are already limited in communication.


----------



## someguy

PAUL said:
			
		

> We are not talking abut God, though, we are talking about Chi. In theory, if there is a God that created this world, he would not be bound by space/time, or the physics of this world. Therefore, not only could we not prove or disprove God because he wouldn't be bound by our physics, but he could create phenomenom that are not bound by our physics as well (thus how "miricles" may be a possability if there is a God). btw, I believe that there is a God.
> :


Agreed



			
				PAUL said:
			
		

> Now, with Chi, we are not talking about a phenomenom that exists outside of our reality. In Acupuncture, we can manipulate Chi. According to Eastern Theory, we can manipulate Chi also through movement, posture, and breath. Because we know that acupuncture works, we know that this energy must exist within our bodies (although we don't know if it is bound to our bodies). So we are talking not about an uncontrollable phenomenom that exists beyond are reality, we are talking about a real energy that exists within our reality that we haven't been able to explain yet. Since this is what we are talking about (and not some force outside of our physical reality), then it must be measurable and detectable by science, even if we haven't figured out a way to detect and measure it yet.
> :idea:


NOt fully in agreement with you here though.  I can say that a coin is brought down to the ground when I drop is because it is the will of my computer but that does not mean that it is true.  The coin will fall to the ground but my computer doesn't tell it to.  THis is a bad example but none the less an explaination of something that works does not mean the explaination is true.
I hope that made some sense.


----------



## pete

What we have here is a discussion between the Martial Artist and the Martial Scientist, where just as most artists and scientists, will not fully appreciate the other's requirements for satisfaction.

The martial artist (include me here) does not understand the laws of thermodynamics, brain surgery, or rocket science, and will likely read the equivilant of Charlie Brown's teacher from that point forward.  However, we will listen to our senses and see how to apply the paint to the canvas rather than dwell on the chemical breakdown of the paint.

The scientist must seek to understand why things are the way they are, and
how things work.  However, unless we are truly professional scientists dedicated to this as a lifetime pursuit with the necessary educational background, there is a danger to dabble in areas we are not qualified to understand.  The scientist will not be satisfied with the same information that satisfies the artist... and vise verse.


----------



## Kodanjaclay

Pete,

I am both an engineer and a martial artist. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I find they tend to help and support one another.


----------



## 7starmantis

My only problem with the argument of "we must be able to detect it and measure it if it exists", is that before we could measure gravity or any energy for that matter, said energy still existed and was able to do work. I agree that there should be some method of detecting and measuring it, but as of now we can't. And even though we can't, it is still there doing work and existing.

So that argument neither proves nor disproves anything, it is moot in the existence of chi. It does bring across a good point that chi is not spiritual or super-natural however.

7sm


----------



## Ninway J

I have some questions, and I'm curious to know your answers.

Can robots have or utilize chi?

If a robot walks up to a pile of 10 bricks and breaks all 10 at one time, is it the same as a human being doing it?

What about a robot performing a kung fu form correctly?

Or a malfunctioned robot being repaired by a robot mechanic (likened to accupuncture treatment for humans?)


----------



## Max15

I have ben doing tai chi for quite a while, and I may not know exactly what chi is however I have experienced it and I do know that something is happening in my body, it dousnt matter if it is exactly what we think it is or not. All that matters is the experience and practice. I do know that the more I am willing to experience it and the more dedication I pute toward it the more I am able to be aware of it. I still dont know exactly waht it is and I dont think anybody els knows exactly what it is either, however there are scientific studies that have ben happening that do conferm that certian things do happen which, to some extent douse prove that chi exists. I dont know for certian if it is mystical or not, I think that it is probably just some aspect of science that we are not totaly aware of yet. But none of this matters at all, all that matters is if you are willing to try it out with an open mind and maybe even a suspesntion of what you think is possible something will happen to you possibly. In the end I think all it should be looked at for know is an exprience, a positive and meaningful experience. After all if it douse exist the more that we dout it and say that it dousnt the more likely it is to fade away as superstition. Read the book the holographic univers or maybe watch the movie (What The $#@$ Do you know anyway). I dont believe everything in them but they are pretty interesting, and I think they can be tide into the belief of chi, I believe eveyone should stop douting and find out for themselves


----------



## Max15

My answere to you question Ninway is that I believe robots can do some things, however humans have certian characteristics that can not be reproduced in an artificial creation such as a robot, some things are just organic. But then again science has a long way to go. I hope that some things are unique to us as humans such as performing kung fu which is one of the things you asked but then again I dont know.


----------



## chi-ca

If you're looking for some scientific answers to the existance of Chi you might enjoy reading "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra.  It's a truely fascinating look at the relationship between science and eastern philosophies.  The chapter called "Emptiness and Form" discusses quantum physics and chi.  Well worth the read.


----------



## New boy

I love movies especially the second movie of the original Star Wars Series.  The scene where Yoda was teaching young Skywalker how to use force & to feel the force of all things including non-living objects such as stones & the X-fighter, I think, closely resembles the traditional chi theory in Dao.  What do you think?


----------



## Max15

Yep I agree it very much douse share alot of simularities


----------



## raedyn

> I may not know exactly what chi is however I have experienced it and I do know that something is happening in my body,


Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you have experienced something that you would describe as chi? That it fits your understanding of what chi is?

This is not meant as a criticism, but the semantics do make a difference. It's difficult for us to dicuss something abstract when we can't be sure if we are discussing the same thing! (This of, of course, is the challenge in discussing any abstract concept. At least if we are talking about something concrete - a table for instance - we can be fairly confident that we all have the same idea of what a table is).

I, too, have had experiences that I feel I can best explain by talking about ki (I am an initiate of Reiki if that means anything to you). But I can't be sure that what I experienced and call 'ki' is the same thing you experienced.


----------



## lhommedieu

A Brief History of Qi by by Yu Huan Zhang, Zhang Yu Huan, and Ken Rose (available from Amazon.com) offers an analysis of the concept of Qi from the perspective of traditional Chinese culture.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Dronak

It looks like I haven't posted in here yet, and forgive me if I don't go through all 8 pages first, but I'll comment a little.  In _Taijiquan, Classical Yang Style_ by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, Chapter 2 covers the subject of qi and defining it.  Parts talk about the more traditional definitions, about it being energy, and parts talk about a more modern definition.  To quote one line from it, "It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls 'bioelectricity'."  Later on it goes into some anatomy and stuff to work on the modern definition.  I guess my general feeling is that there is something there, some sort of energy you can call chi, and maybe you can define and describe it scientifically, but you don't really need to.  Sometimes it's just easier to work with something as a general concept than to break it all down into its component parts to get a complete, scientific explanation of it.


----------



## Patrick Skerry

Do I think chi or ki is real?  Yes I do.

Do I have any physical evidence or scientific proof?  Nope, but neither do I for the existence of the mind, dreams, or the soul, yet I know they _a priori _do exist.

But I don't think the results of Kirlian (sp?) photography show the chi, and I do not believe ki are bolts of lighting shooting from one's fingertips.

So what do I believe to be chi?  Chi or ki is when you open a padlock with the wrong key in an emergency; or know something is going to happen just before it does; or when a woman lifts a car off her trapped child; or when your much practiced _waza_ is pulled off in tournament without thinking; or when attacked in an alley or on a lonely stretch of road, you suddenly use techniques only practiced in kata.  Chi or ki is that feeling you have something else going for you besides brute strength or a gun, and it nags at you constantly.  That is a sign of chi (or Ki), and like a high I.Q. or talent, not everybody has it.


----------



## nlmantis

This thread is very interesting and long, why not post another view? This is one a la "je pense donc je suis" --Descartes

assumption: one form of qi is the energy you feel flowing in your body(bioelectricity or some combination of energies from circulatory systems?).

I know qi exists because I experience it. There is no further thought required to proof this to myself.

I know I exist because I experience qi, because I experience dreams and because I have thoughts as these. 

Since I exist I must have either been created somehow or have existed forever and evolved somehow. This is where the speculation starts.

Another speculation is that since I know I breathe and because my qi flow seems to strenghten/weaken with my breathing pattern intuitively I could deduce the two are somehow connected. I also feel that my body position, movement, muscle stifness and focus/concentration/thoughlessness have an effect on qi flow. Combining these components in various patterns results in various experiences in flow, strength and "form/feel".

None of this I can proof to you because all you really know are your own senses experienced inside, the rest is based on your assumptions and interpretations and beliefs. As far as you know I might not even exist, you might be a brain afloat somewhere...

Conclusion? I didn't really have one, however realize the internal arts deal with development from the inside out. Finding qi within and development to where you can take it. Don't believe anything you haven't found true for yourself so if you haven't experienced qi and don't believe in it then it doesn't exist for you. yet...

I know I will be experimenting along, having fun now and then experiencing one of the few things I know to be true. Call it chi, call it bioelectricity, call it good Kung Fu. What's in the name?


----------



## 7starmantis

Good post. We have been talking about chi lately in my kung fu. About using chi to "fill up" your arm right before a hit or block to protect yourself and hurt your opponant. I can't really explain what I'm tlaking about, but there is most deffinitely a differance in down blocking a sidekick with your forearm between the two "styles" Just a simple block can hurt and handle the block, but you can add more "intent", "chi", "umph", whatever and it really hurts worse. 
Whatever it is, its pretty usefull.

7sm


----------



## lhommedieu

One way to think of Qi is to think of the flow of Qi vis a vis anatomical structure.  Re. the above post, a block with the arm that is structurally sound (i.e. linked to other anatomical structures in the body) be more effective than one that is (relatively) mechanically ineffective.  This usually means that the bones in the arm are linked to other skeletal structures (e.g. the shoulder, spine, hips, legs, feet, etc.) while the muscular structure is kept relaxed.  This is one aspect of the flow of Qi with respect to martial arts training; Qi cannot flow if the muscles are tight and cramped and the joints are out of relation to each other.  One interesting effect of using your body this way is that effective techniques often feel "effortless."  I think that this feeling is related to not feeling your body perform in a typical locked, tight pattern, and a great benefit to training in this manner is that it will gradually spill over into everyday movement as well.  This is why it is said that some martial artists are "training" all the time:  they practice mundane, everyday tasks like, e.g. raking leaves, opening car doors, lifting heavy objects around the house with the principles described above to make them second-nature.  Ironic, isn't it, that that's the way nature intended it to be (just look at any animal move).

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Fumanchu

lhommedieu,

If there is really something called chi, then I think what you describe sounds the most reasonable out of all the other posts. 

However, another way to describe this is simply good body co-ordination. Examples - how does a internationally ranked tennis player serve at the speed they do? With our understanding of science today, we can do away with trying to describe things with chi.


----------



## chi-ca

I agree that you can credit the feelings of effortless action and strength to efficient form and the science behind the body's structure.  However, I feel very confident in saying that there is more to qi than that.  There is a hard to define quality that brings a sense of peace and makes you feel connected to something much bigger than yourself.  I have members of my own family who are healers and I know that their abilities come from more that just proper form.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Do I think chi or ki is real?  Yes I do.
> But I don't think the results of Kirlian (sp?) photography show the chi, and I do not believe ki are bolts of lighting shooting from one's fingertips.


 Do you know what kirlian photography is? It's simply a measure of skin conductivity. They put someone's finger on the lense or something and give it a light shock. The interesting part of it is the way in which the electricity exits, which is not out a single point, but in a sort of fan concordan with the theory that there is some sort of energy inherint in all, at least living, things.

 Also, i am hearing a lot of people saying they don't beleive in anything so 'mystical'. You are assuming, and DEFINATELY wrongly, that science has reached an end. Look, assuming you go ONLY by science, you would conclude that the universe does not in fact exist and is composed of nothing BUT energy. These are the most advanced physics theories right now. Particles at the smallest level are said to behave like waves, which implies that they are not ACTUALLY solid (go ahead, try and tell me a light wave is solid).

 I'm surprised no one has broughten auras up yet. Anyway the aura theory (i'll call it) says that there are somewhere from 6-12 planes of existence and that we have a body in each. The first one is dark and resides something like a quarter inch under the skin (i think). The second one is the physical body, then comes an ethereal coating that extends about a half inch past the outside of the body. Then comes the 'emotional aura', which is colored and extends up to a foot out from the body. There is then the 'mental body aura' which goes for several feet and i beleive is colored as well. the final aura around the body is the spiritual one and can't really be seen (yet); it extends for about a mile. I beleive that what the chinese refer to as chi is the very first of these. I know there are lots of you who think this is BS, and i completely understand, but I've experienced Chi first hand and on occasion have seen auras. It involves a different kind of seeing.

 To give an example, I was sleeping and trying to exit my body (hang with me here, I'm not joking and i have exited my body numerous times) when suddenly i saw my entire room, which i might add was pitched black, in a green light. I would also like to add that my eyes were closed.

 *Sigh* I can feel the angry remarks of criticism on what i've said already. Someday you, science, and everyone else will see I'm not far from the truth.

 oh, and if you want info on kirlian photography, go here, http://kirlianresearch.com/


----------



## dmax999

Chi is real.  Find a real Chi Gong teacher and seriously train with them for about 2 months and you will know it is real because you will feel it for yourself, guarnteed.  All kidding aside this will answer your question without a doubt.

As to if it can be used to increase striking power, root yourself to the ground to not be moved or any other claim, I can't really answer.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd

I really give tai chi my all and was able to feel the chi in my body within a month, or thereabouts.


----------

