JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
Last edited by a moderator:
Ki is a hoax
- Thread starter K-man
- Start date
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
Last edited by a moderator:
Placebo effect.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
I have to walk away from this thread its not a positve discussion anymore I don't know if it ever was.
Think what you want in the end it does not matter either way it goes.
Think what you want in the end it does not matter either way it goes.
So anything which subjects claims which you happen to be committed to to critical scrutiny, and finds them wanting, is not a 'positive discussion'?? Very interesting conception of what 'positive' means here.
I suppose from your point of view it was a bit rough; your efforts to leverage the familiar conception of energy into a proof of a particular power or metaphysical 'force' or whatever were scrutinized from the point of view of ordinary logic, and didn't come off too well, and you didn't even try to respond in a way that meets basics standards of evidence and reasoning. But the fact that that's what the discussion revealed, along with spotlighting the overall incoherence of much of the initial OP assumptions, isn't negative, though I'm sure you find it comforting to think of it that way. Exposing bad argumentation is a constructive activity: it keeps a lot of crap from being circulated as though it had merit, making room for the relatively small number of ideas that can take whatever challenges are thrown at them. And those ideas are the ones we're all looking for, eh?
blindsage
Master of Arts
In my mind, any discussion with an exchange of ideas is a positive one. Because people didn't come around to your perspective or agree with you that your arguments were correct doesn't make it 'not positive.' I still respect everyone on here, and still have a great deal of respect for their opinions even if I don't agree with them or am skeptical of what they say. It is possible to disagree and still be positive, but you have to make that choice.
Archangel M
Senior Master
I agree. While the issue was debated I don't believe anybody was personally attacked for their beliefs either way.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh... JCA, you really, really, really don't get it, do you?
The problem has nothing to do with a mistranslation. Or a correct translation. The people who are talking about using Qi to create certain effects are claiming there's something out there that is different from what Western physics has revealed about the mechanics of the world. They are calling it Qi, but they could call it Xzzqw or any other thing you like. This whole debate is about the standards of evidence for admitting that thing, whatever it's supposed to be, into the class of entities we believe to be part of the fabric of reality. Period. The name of this thing is irrelevant. Empty Hands, among others, has pointed out in what should have been crystal clear fashion here just why all this stuff with Hanshi and Japanese and so on is a total red herring, having nothing to do with the issue. Reread what he has to say—or maybe, just read it for the first time; I'm not at all sure you actually do read what people are telling you about the points you raise. If you do read them, you need to be a bit more careful about it, because you're not taking in what they're saying, and you need to.
I just can't believe that after all this time, you still don't get it. OK: one more time: this is not a linguistic problem, or a philological problem. This is a problem about verification of an extraordinary claim, only vaguely formulated at that, in the absence of even weakly supportive evidence.
Do you get it NOW?? :hb: :hb: :hb:
Last edited:
Ninjamom
2nd Black Belt
I just found a website (http://zhongwen.com/) that allows you to click on the radicals in a Chinese character to see what parts go into making the whole.
Within a few minutes of clicking at random, I found some very intersting things:
1. A character composed of two elements, one depicting children under a roof and the other depicting a woman, means "alphabet" (zimu)
2. A word made of four radicals (two hands grasping a moon, a mouth, and evening) means "famous" (youming)
3. Three characters meaning 20 hands together make the character for "Communist China" (OK, that one almost makes sense).
To say that any of these have some deeper meaning, or that you can tell what they 'actually' or 'literally' mean by looking at the character elements just isn't the case.
English has something very similar, with roots, prefixes, and suffixes that combine to make words. Some words obviously take their meaning directly from these elements. For example, 'philosophy' comes from two Greek roots that literally mean 'love of wisdom'. However, language is not static, and neither is culture. Sometimes the connection between a word's current usage and its ancient history or development is only historical, or vague, or non-existant. The English word 'nice', for instance, comes from a root and a prefix that mean literally 'without knowledge'. In Middle English, 'nice' therefore meant 'ignorant' or 'foolish'. Somehow I doubt that if I said someone I knew was 'nice' that anyone on this forum would assume I was 'literally' saying they were stupid.
To understand what a word or character means, no knowledge of the original language is needed. What is needed is a good, hard look at the way the word is currently used. In the case of 'qi' the word is being used as a catch-all to hold any possible meaning in the hopes that something will stick. That presents a problem, because a word that can mean anything really ends up meaning nothing.
Within a few minutes of clicking at random, I found some very intersting things:
1. A character composed of two elements, one depicting children under a roof and the other depicting a woman, means "alphabet" (zimu)
2. A word made of four radicals (two hands grasping a moon, a mouth, and evening) means "famous" (youming)
3. Three characters meaning 20 hands together make the character for "Communist China" (OK, that one almost makes sense).
To say that any of these have some deeper meaning, or that you can tell what they 'actually' or 'literally' mean by looking at the character elements just isn't the case.
English has something very similar, with roots, prefixes, and suffixes that combine to make words. Some words obviously take their meaning directly from these elements. For example, 'philosophy' comes from two Greek roots that literally mean 'love of wisdom'. However, language is not static, and neither is culture. Sometimes the connection between a word's current usage and its ancient history or development is only historical, or vague, or non-existant. The English word 'nice', for instance, comes from a root and a prefix that mean literally 'without knowledge'. In Middle English, 'nice' therefore meant 'ignorant' or 'foolish'. Somehow I doubt that if I said someone I knew was 'nice' that anyone on this forum would assume I was 'literally' saying they were stupid.
To understand what a word or character means, no knowledge of the original language is needed. What is needed is a good, hard look at the way the word is currently used. In the case of 'qi' the word is being used as a catch-all to hold any possible meaning in the hopes that something will stick. That presents a problem, because a word that can mean anything really ends up meaning nothing.
Application is really the point at issue.
For example, in Japanese, there is a word:
[SIZE=+1]大君 ta-i-ku-n
Meaning, a prominent monarch or shogunate.
This word is the origin of the English word tycoon. However, our definition and application of the word is usually different:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tycoon
[/SIZE]ty·coon
Pronunciation: \tī-ˈkün\ Function:noun Etymology:Japanese taikun Date:1857 1: shogun
2 a: a top leader (as in politics) b: a businessman of exceptional wealth and power : magnate
For example, I could say that there are a number of threads in the study about tycoons lobbying for bailout money. To state the Japanese defintion of taikun and point out that this sort of lobbying isn't happening because there aren't any of the shogunate on Capitol Hill trying to get bailout money is not something intrinsic to the argument of bailing out American industries (and their wealthy execs).
As a skeptic, an internal arts student, and a teacher, I'm going to suggest something that might seem a little absurd. Perhaps "chi" and the entire umbrella of techniques and phenomenon the term encompasses is the best way we have to teach various internal arts that are currently taught.
For four years, I had an excellent tai chi teacher who was also a trained TCM practitioner and when I think of all the times he explained something in terms of chi and then try to imagine replacing that with perhaps a half understood western analogue, my mind is boggled. The non-educator is going to have a hard time imagining the amount of research and work it would take to translate an entire cultural lexicon into the context of a different culture.
It's not a simple as one thinks, especially when one begins to look at qigong and the relationship between that and good tai chi technique. There are some very subtle things happening in that relationship that regard psychology and physiology and I'm sure very few people could accurately explain it in correct scientific terms.
I realize this point diverges from the current discussion, but I'm trying to throw both sides a bone here. For the skeptic, I have to say that I don't think its possible right now to just toss the word "chi" out on its ear and to preserve the depth and efficacy of many internal martial arts. For the beleiver, I think it should be recognized that the phenomenon classified under the label chi can be explained by other methods at least to a certain extent.
For both, a little less certainty and a little more thoughtfulness, may go a long way. I've always considered the concept of chi as a fascinating and valuable cultural artifact. I don't really beleive that their is a special energy that I am drawing on when I am playing push hands with someone, but I have found that by "playing along" I have learned a lot about how to do it better.
For four years, I had an excellent tai chi teacher who was also a trained TCM practitioner and when I think of all the times he explained something in terms of chi and then try to imagine replacing that with perhaps a half understood western analogue, my mind is boggled. The non-educator is going to have a hard time imagining the amount of research and work it would take to translate an entire cultural lexicon into the context of a different culture.
It's not a simple as one thinks, especially when one begins to look at qigong and the relationship between that and good tai chi technique. There are some very subtle things happening in that relationship that regard psychology and physiology and I'm sure very few people could accurately explain it in correct scientific terms.
I realize this point diverges from the current discussion, but I'm trying to throw both sides a bone here. For the skeptic, I have to say that I don't think its possible right now to just toss the word "chi" out on its ear and to preserve the depth and efficacy of many internal martial arts. For the beleiver, I think it should be recognized that the phenomenon classified under the label chi can be explained by other methods at least to a certain extent.
For both, a little less certainty and a little more thoughtfulness, may go a long way. I've always considered the concept of chi as a fascinating and valuable cultural artifact. I don't really beleive that their is a special energy that I am drawing on when I am playing push hands with someone, but I have found that by "playing along" I have learned a lot about how to do it better.
Uchinanchu
Green Belt
I read a very interesting book a few years ago, and was wondering if anyone else here has read it. Its title is ‘The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism’ by Fritjof Capra. Some of it can be quite a bit “heady” at times, but for the most part, it is quite an interesting and intriguing read. To give you some idea of the contents, I’ll cite a passage from chapter 14, Emptiness and Form,(pg.221~223):
The field theories of modern physics forces us to abandon the classical distinction between material particles and the void. EinsteinÂ’s field theory of gravity and quantum field theory both show that particles cannot be separated from the space surrounding them. On the one hand, they determine the structure of that space, whilst on the other hand they cannot be regarded as isolated entities, but have to be seen as condensations of a continuous field which is present throughout space. In quantum field theory, this field is seen as the basis of all particles and of their mutual interactions.
The field exists always and everywhere; it can never be removed. It is the carrier of
all material phenomena. It is the ‘void’ out of which the proton creates the
pi-mesons. Being and fading of particles are merely forms of motion of the field.
The distinction between matter and empty space finally had to be abandoned when it became evident that virtual particles can come into being spontaneously out of the void, and vanish again into the void, without any nucleon or other strongly interacting particle being present. Here is a ‘vacuum diagram’ for such a process: three particles—a proton (p), an antiproton (-p), and a pion (rr)—are formed out of nothing and disappear again into the vacuum. According to field theory, events of that kind happen all the time. The vacuum is far from empty. On the contrary, it contains an unlimited number of particles which come into being and vanish without end.
Here then, is the closest parallel to the void of Eastern mysticism in modern physics. Like the Eastern Void, the ‘physical vacuum’—as it is called in field theory—is not a state of mere nothingness, but contains the potentiality for all forms of the particle world. These forms in turn, are not independent physical entities but merely transient manifestations of the underlying Void. As the sutra says, ‘Form is emptiness, and emptiness is indeed form.’
The relation between the virtual particles and the vacuum is an essentially dynamic relation; the vacuum is truly a ‘living Void’, pulsating in endless rhythms of creation and destruction. The discovery of the dynamic quality of the vacuum is seen by many physicists as one of the most important findings of modern physics. From its role as an empty container of the physical phenomena, the void has emerged as a dynamic quantity of utmost importance. The results of modern physics thus seem to confirm the words of the Chinese sage Chang Tsai:
When one knows that the Great Void is full of ChÂ’i, one realizes that there is no such
thing as nothingness.
I myself am not trying to argue for or against the existence of Ch’i. I simply wish to point out that there may be answers to our questions concerning this matter. If we truly wish to extend our knowledge of the world (and universe) that we live in, we need to approach such an endeavor with an open mind and heart and look at not only the ‘here and now’ but also how past discoveries may tie in directly with, and help support present and future discoveries. As one of my favorite physicists, Albert Einstein once said, ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is…comprehensible’.
Though we may have proven certain past ‘facts’ to have been false, that in no means should suggest that our intellects are by any means superior to that of our ancient brethren. We certainly do not have “all the answers” as of yet and have actually been proven wrong at times by the so-called superstitious and/or religious beliefs from ancient cultures. Point in fact, can someone please tell me when and who discovered that the earth was round? Before people start quoting certain Greek astronomers, let’s take a look at a couple of passages from a book written roughly three-to-four hundred years before the Greeks.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” Isa. 40:22
“He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon
nothing.” Job 24:7
As most of you probably already know, these are quotes from the Christian bible…just something to ponder upon. What we think we know to be true is only “true” within the limited extent of our understanding of things.
The field theories of modern physics forces us to abandon the classical distinction between material particles and the void. EinsteinÂ’s field theory of gravity and quantum field theory both show that particles cannot be separated from the space surrounding them. On the one hand, they determine the structure of that space, whilst on the other hand they cannot be regarded as isolated entities, but have to be seen as condensations of a continuous field which is present throughout space. In quantum field theory, this field is seen as the basis of all particles and of their mutual interactions.
The field exists always and everywhere; it can never be removed. It is the carrier of
all material phenomena. It is the ‘void’ out of which the proton creates the
pi-mesons. Being and fading of particles are merely forms of motion of the field.
The distinction between matter and empty space finally had to be abandoned when it became evident that virtual particles can come into being spontaneously out of the void, and vanish again into the void, without any nucleon or other strongly interacting particle being present. Here is a ‘vacuum diagram’ for such a process: three particles—a proton (p), an antiproton (-p), and a pion (rr)—are formed out of nothing and disappear again into the vacuum. According to field theory, events of that kind happen all the time. The vacuum is far from empty. On the contrary, it contains an unlimited number of particles which come into being and vanish without end.
Here then, is the closest parallel to the void of Eastern mysticism in modern physics. Like the Eastern Void, the ‘physical vacuum’—as it is called in field theory—is not a state of mere nothingness, but contains the potentiality for all forms of the particle world. These forms in turn, are not independent physical entities but merely transient manifestations of the underlying Void. As the sutra says, ‘Form is emptiness, and emptiness is indeed form.’
The relation between the virtual particles and the vacuum is an essentially dynamic relation; the vacuum is truly a ‘living Void’, pulsating in endless rhythms of creation and destruction. The discovery of the dynamic quality of the vacuum is seen by many physicists as one of the most important findings of modern physics. From its role as an empty container of the physical phenomena, the void has emerged as a dynamic quantity of utmost importance. The results of modern physics thus seem to confirm the words of the Chinese sage Chang Tsai:
When one knows that the Great Void is full of ChÂ’i, one realizes that there is no such
thing as nothingness.
I myself am not trying to argue for or against the existence of Ch’i. I simply wish to point out that there may be answers to our questions concerning this matter. If we truly wish to extend our knowledge of the world (and universe) that we live in, we need to approach such an endeavor with an open mind and heart and look at not only the ‘here and now’ but also how past discoveries may tie in directly with, and help support present and future discoveries. As one of my favorite physicists, Albert Einstein once said, ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is…comprehensible’.
Though we may have proven certain past ‘facts’ to have been false, that in no means should suggest that our intellects are by any means superior to that of our ancient brethren. We certainly do not have “all the answers” as of yet and have actually been proven wrong at times by the so-called superstitious and/or religious beliefs from ancient cultures. Point in fact, can someone please tell me when and who discovered that the earth was round? Before people start quoting certain Greek astronomers, let’s take a look at a couple of passages from a book written roughly three-to-four hundred years before the Greeks.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” Isa. 40:22
“He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon
nothing.” Job 24:7
As most of you probably already know, these are quotes from the Christian bible…just something to ponder upon. What we think we know to be true is only “true” within the limited extent of our understanding of things.
tellner
Senior Master
The Tao of Physics mixes enough of two disparate subjects so that people who are only conversant in one give it a pass. A student of religion and philosophy will say "Capra conflates a whole bunch of things tht don't belong together. His understanding of Buddhism, Indian religion and Chinese philosophy is weak. But the physics is interesting, and the connections are fascinating. " A scientist will say "Capra hideously over-simplifies. He pushes questionable interpretation way beyond what's reasonable. And the theories he used were out of date when he wrote the book. But the connections with Eastern religion are interesting." After his fifteen minutes were up the two sorts got together and went away less impressed with TToP than when they first read it.
It's a lot like a conversation Carl Sagan had with an archeologist. Sagan had already demolished Velikovsky's "science" but thought that the history and religion were interesting. His colleague said that of course the folklore and Ancient history were complete garbage but the physics was interesting. They both played intellectual Three Card Monte.
It's a lot like a conversation Carl Sagan had with an archeologist. Sagan had already demolished Velikovsky's "science" but thought that the history and religion were interesting. His colleague said that of course the folklore and Ancient history were complete garbage but the physics was interesting. They both played intellectual Three Card Monte.
Beyond that, the physics in The Tao of Physics is crap. It uses a model of elementary particles which was abandoned thirty years ago even by its main proponent, Geoffrey Chew. It was completely superseded by the the Standard Model in the Thunderdome of predictive success: the analysis of hadrons as quark combinations has been validated on several dozen independent fronts, while the so-called S-matrix 'nuclear democratic' model can't produce the goods for just about any experimental results in the past generation of results. It certainly cannot account for the electroweak unification, for example. The Standard Model has its problems, for sure. But S-matrix theory isn't even in the race, at this point. If you're trying to provide scientific credibility for a marginal proposal, the last thing you want to do is try to bring in a discredited hypothesis in support.
The point is made Peter Woit in his book Not Even Wrong, about the emerging empirical bankruptcy of string theory. He writes:
(pp. 144–145) The Standard Theory has, in fact, has a 100% success rate in predicting every major experimental result from the past 30 years in particle physics. That is to say, thousands of experiments. With an accuracy of nine places to the right of the decimal point. The failure of Chew's S-matrix model to correctly predict these results is... well, as Woit notes, complete. That's why virtually no one active in theoretical particle physics uses Chew's model... including, according to several sources I recall from a few years ago, Chew himself.
Woit's comments shed light on the pitfalls for non-physicists trying to use the technical details of modern physical theory—which are mathematically abstruse to the point of being surreal, but which get the answers bang-on right—to make sense of even familiar phenomena, let alone stuff at the outer margins of plausibility.
The point is made Peter Woit in his book Not Even Wrong, about the emerging empirical bankruptcy of string theory. He writes:
Capra... went on two write two chapters [in the Tao of Physics] explaining the inadequacy of quantum field theory and the wonders of the bootstrap philosophy. The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution [the discovery of the J-psi particle, which turned out to be a bound state of a charmed and anti-charmed quark, providing massive confirmation of the quark model and the 'asymptotic freedom' property of the strong force, i.e., stronger at greater distances, weaker at closer distances—exile] had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at the time). What is harder to understand is the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened...even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore... the bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.
(pp. 144–145) The Standard Theory has, in fact, has a 100% success rate in predicting every major experimental result from the past 30 years in particle physics. That is to say, thousands of experiments. With an accuracy of nine places to the right of the decimal point. The failure of Chew's S-matrix model to correctly predict these results is... well, as Woit notes, complete. That's why virtually no one active in theoretical particle physics uses Chew's model... including, according to several sources I recall from a few years ago, Chew himself.
Woit's comments shed light on the pitfalls for non-physicists trying to use the technical details of modern physical theory—which are mathematically abstruse to the point of being surreal, but which get the answers bang-on right—to make sense of even familiar phenomena, let alone stuff at the outer margins of plausibility.
Last edited:
So I'm confused. I see a lot of people talking about whether Qi is the cause of something. As it was explained to me, and As I'm reading in The Tao of Bioenergetics, Qi isn't really the cause or effect of any particular phenomenon, necessarily, but rather the phenomon itself. I was told that Classification of qi was more a classification of various phenomena.
That doesn't make sense though. If there is a phenomenon, then soemthing has to happen. Ergo there is a cause and an effect. If you feel you've been thrown across the room...then something had to do that, soemthing had to act upon your body. If that something was was a judoka utilizing a hip throw, that's one thing....if it's some guy that never touched you and he claims "ki" that's another.
If ki "just is" and doesn't result in causes and effects (as you indicate), then it's, for all practical purposes, nothing and can do none of the things that are attributed to it.
So, either ki is something that interacts with the world as we know it and thus is subject to the same "laws" of physics as anything else in the world (and this is where the bone of contention seems to lie) or it is nothing and interacts with nothing and is nothing ot get all worked up about.
Peace,
Erik
