Re: A bone for Ollie

Renli wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:15 am, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Replacing one label with another isn't an answer.

Any answer is just a label, David.

That's why they have to be referenced to the real world. Words,
defined solely in terms of other words, invariably lead to circular
definitions and nothing more than navel gazing.

Okay, but that's a claim - i.e. I can see how you might be right, but
for much the same reasons you might be wrong.

Old "Nancy" comic strip. Nancy is looking up the word "Frustrate."
Panel 1: "Frustrate. To Baffle."
Panel 2: "Baffle: To confound"
Panel 3: "Confound: to foil"
Panel 4: "Foil: To frustrate."
While the comic is amusing in that the sequence of words, by
demonstration, actually do show the meaning of the words involved, it
illustrates the deeper meaning. Words are just labels and are, quite
frankly, arbitrary. If they weren't, there wouldn't be all the languages
out there. While the words defined in terms of other words is useful, in
the end, you have to be able to point to something in the real world to
anchor the meaning.

Example: triboluminescence.
Get some wintergreen Lifesavers. In a dark room, while watching
yourself in a mirror, chew some of the Lifesavers. Now, while your mother
probably told you to chew with your mouth closed, don't do that here. Now,
if your night vision is reasonably good and your eyes are dark adapted you
will see small flashes of blue light as you crunch down on the minty
candies. The sugar crystals in the candy give ultraviolet light as they are
crushed and the wintergreen flavoring converts the ultraviolet light to
visible light. The effect is not completely understood and is called
triboluminescense.

See one word, triboluminescense, is defined in terms of a bunch of other
words. But those words, in the end, are defined in terms of things in the
real world, things you can point to. Without that real world referrant
there's no way to come to agreement on what words mean. And without
agreement on meaning of the words, communication is impossible. And even
when you think you have a refferant, you have to be capable. Say I use the
word "clordvak" and explain that it's what I feel after eating a double
cheese pizza. Since we're talking about something I feel, by itself that
doesn't say much. Maybe I'm lactose intolerant in which case "clordvak"
means "bloated, gassy, and uncomfortable" or maybe I react strongly to the
tryptophan in the cheese and "clordvak" means "sleepy."

And _that_ is why just tossing out the phrase "peng jing," without a lot
more explanation than you have been wont to give, does _not_ answer the
question of naming something that can be done with "chi" that cannot be
explained in terms of conventional, non-chi factors. Until you provide that
more extended explanation, the question remains unanswered.

Frankly, considering how reticent you are to name anything
concrete that can be done with "chi" that isn't entirely replicable
by a combination of LMATE (for observable results) and a vivid
imagination (for the "feelings" of participants), it looks very much
like Niven's Law of Magic* applies.

You don't know if I am being reticent or not, as you've already
admitted to not understanding what I am even talking about.

You seem to think that a lack of understanding on my part is a failing
of _mine_ rather than the result of your substituting word salad for actual
explanation on your part.

"If the student didn't learn, the teacher didn't teach."

The lack of understanding is _because_ of your reticence. I think we
can take it as a given that my command of the English language is better
than yours. If you are capable of explaining it, I am quite capable of
understanding the explanation.

It's looking very much like you avoid clarity for the simple reason that
clarity works against your case.

You want
something linked to the real world which is not possible on this
newsgroup - anything anyone ever says here could be just a claim..

So are you saying that there are _no_ real-world examples you can point
to? You cannot describe things in words for which we have a common
referrant?

just a label. So I will cut out all the crapola related to this basic
argument of ours. I'm not interested in playing ring around the rosy
with you David. You had your chance.

_My_ chance? I'm not the one making claims and expecting people to
believe them. Nice attempt to turn things around, but you demonstrate once
again that you've got nothing.

You could prove that assessment wrong quite easily: all you
have to do is describe a situation, what one would do, what actual
results are caused by "chi" (describe in detail--use as many words
as you need to describe it in English since just saying there's a
word for it in some other language is not a description) and how the
result differs from the nearest duplicate result without chi. You
won't do that, of course. You'll just drop a Chinese term or two as
if that were an answer to the question.

Well, i'll give you a back door; come up with an english defenition of
peng (shouldn't be too hard, I have several) and I will complete your
request.

This is what I mean. Instead of simply explaining, you require the
person asking the question to do your work for you.

I'm not interested in your "back door." If you can't be bothered to
answer a knock at the front door, that pretty much says all that needs to be
known about taking you seriously.

Consider it a form of payment, David. Show me that you are
interested and that you think my answer has value. This is your quest.

Exactly backward. Show me that your answer has value, that what you
claim to have is worth _my_ time and I might consider this as being worth
more than entertainment value (which is where it stands right now). Until
that time, you don't get to assign quests to me, and there simply aren't
enough hours in the day to spend much time on every crackpot with a theory.
Until you demonstrate that you've actually got something that's all you
remain, just a crackpot with a theory. And I'll "play" with you as long as
it amuses me to do so and not a moment more.

Here's an example. Two martial arts masters meet. They each
grasp the other lightly. And then they stand, to all appearences
perfectly still. Onlookers report that they don't appear to move
more than maybe the faintest of twitches from time to time. Then,
suddenly, one of them finds himself flying, his legs whipping
ceilingward an instant before he comes crashing down to the floor.
The other master, however, to all appearence, has hardly moved. If
one had a report of something like that, would you consider it an
example of "chi"?

chi was likely present in one of them, although the result is based on
lmate, simple physics, push and pull etc.

Funny thing is, neither of them trained in "chi." I am thinking about a
particular Judo match (from a time before all the rules of minor scores and
stalling penalties and the like changed the face of Judo competition). This
very case was brought up in discussion about how modern "sport rules" have
changed the modern practice of Judo.

Ask Mike Sigman.

I'm asking you.

The "ask Mike Sigman" _was_ an answer. Why it's an answer would
be obvious if you'd been paying attention. (Again, to the best of my
knowledge, he doesn't claim chi being anything other than a useful
metaphor for training LMATE and yet he, and the folk he has trained,
do quite well in push hands, including winning competition in China.)

I have asked Mike in the past. I'm on his forum (are you?)

The "are you" is irrelevant.

and I read
it almost every day. I contribute in my pathetic, turtled way, and the
comments I post seem to have some value for the other people there. So
when I ask you a question, saying "ask mike sigman" feels very small
to me. I *have* asked mike sigman. I've done a lot of research into
what he has said because I found his western equivalent interesting.

Given your past history, if his answer actually supported your case, you
would trumpet it to the skies.

But I am not going to initiate a discussion of it with you, because
you don't understand all of what he is saying, let alone what I am
saying, and you are incapable of comprehending on what level I feel
there is a difference. I'm really not being elitist. If you're capable
of doing so, do so. I would welcome any such discussion but I won't
start one.

Your "understanding" of so many things has proven to be so fallacious
that the above falls flat.

Of course you won't start a discussion. That would involve you actually
trying to talk about things rather than just throw out word salad.

Also, the problem isn't that I don't understand what you are
saying--it's that I do, and what you are saying is nonsense--word salad,
pure and simple.

...i'm waiting...

still waiting

If you keep rejecting answers you don't like, you will wait a
very long time.

hint.

Here's a hint right back at you: a good way to ensure that your world
view gets completely divorced from reality is to keep rejecting answers you
don't like. You're only harming yourself that way.

Yes, you are in the habit of making empty claims.

Like you just did?

Um, no.

Yes.... :)

So you still don't know the difference between claims and conclusions.
Got it.

No, but that's not what chi is.

So you don't consider those to be demonstrations of chi. Good.

I've said as much 50 or 60 times recently. No, that's not hyperbole.

And yet you've

Do you, then, consider those who present them _as_
demonstrations of chi to be engaging in fraud? After all, they are
claiming something as a demonstration of "chi" when it is, in fact,
no such thing.

If someone claimed that, for example, the unbendable arm was directly
linked to chi flow, as I've seen it demonstrated (especially in
aikido) then yes, it would be an example of fraud. I for one would be
interested in where this notion comes from. Did morihei ueshiba say
that chi was the skill behind unbendable arm? Or did someone
(drumroll) MAKE IT UP ALONG THE WAY???!

Yes, someone made it up along the way, much like you are in the habit of
doing.

In essence, *you're not listening*. You asked, I
answered, but you're just not listening.

Actually, the problem is that I _am_ listening. You're just
spouting nonsense.

If you ignore every answer you don't like, you're going to be waiting
a long time.

Like, dislike, I don't care. I just want a direct answer to a simple
direct question.

I don't think peng jing is vague - it's quite precise.

Then describe it. Put it in clear words in a common language
(if you have trouble with English, you could try Japanese or
Russian--I'd have to gear up for Russian since it's been along time,
but if I have any trouble with any Japanese terms.

I'll lay odds you can't do it. If it were so precise, and
actually had an objective reality, you could.

Well technically I've asked you to do this.

I'm not the one claiming the existence of chi. So why should I do your
homework for you.

I'm a little tired of you
denying everything I say out of hand.

Then say something with a little evidence to back it up.

If you want a defenition of peng
you're going to have to go look one up yourself.

IOW, you've got nothing.

If it matters to you,
just type peng jing into google and we can discuss what you come up
with.

If it's that simple, why don't you? And cut and paste the relevant
sections. You're the one claiming that chi exists. Well, back up that
claim. And start by _defining terms_.

It's understandable that
you'd do that, of course. When people _do_ make assertions about
what they
can do with "chi" that is not LMATE-explainable, folk like Dillman
or Yellow
Bamboo or Richard Mooney (one with whom I went a few rounds myself
some years back, right here on r.m-a.), their failures run from
the inevitable to
the ubiquitous--once they stop demonstrating on the indoctrinated
and start
trying their abilitys on those who have just a tad more skill in
critical thinking. I will give the Yellow Bamboo crowd and
Richard Mooney this though: they were at least willing to put
their abilities on the line and
subject them to test. That gives them a lot more guts than you
have. (The
excuses will now begin.)

Excuses? You mean like how none of the people above do tai chi?

I guess it's your contention now that the only place where "chi"
is actually developed is tai chi.

When I say chi, when I talk about push hands, then yeah, we are
talking about chi in tai chi.

Let's make this perfectly clear: I'm not talking about "chi in tai
chi." I'm talking about chi _period_.

You see, I'm actually giving you more room to work. You don't _have_ to
limit yourself to tai chi, unless of course its your contention that tai chi
is the only thing in which this "chi" thing is expressed (if so, then it
moves a long way from "unlikely but very interesting if true" toward "a
waste of time whether true or not"). _Any_ expression of "chi" that is
distinguishable from and not reproduceable by conventional science would
satisfy my questions.

But, as usual, you've got nothing.

If some jackalope from "yellow bamboo"
talks about chi, then clearly it is something completely different.

So the only true chi is tai chi chi? That is your contention? This
"chi," whatever it is, _never_ appears outside of tai chi? Is that your
contention? If it is, then we pretty much come to the conclusion that the
whole issue of chi is a waste of time. If it isn't then, by what criteria
do you distinguish "another expression of this "chi" stuff from "clearly
something completely different.

That's like saying that talking about the electricity coming out of the
AC adapter in your house is something completely different from the
electricity out of a dry cell battery.

Kind of like cold fusion.

In that it's a mixture of misconceptions and outright fraid, just like
chi. Yep.

Richard Mooney was also a person who--as a self professed
proponent of chi kung--came online making all sorts of claims for
what Chi can be used to do. He would come online and make wild
claims, belittle anyone who disagreed with him, claim that he could
"prove" it, gave conditions under which he would do so. (He once
told me that he would demonstrate for me--under controlled
conditions which would demonstrate that the claimed effects were
real--if I were just to provide him with travel expenses to my
location. Well, I offered to put the requisite funds to reimburse
his travel expenses into escrow, payable on his simply demonstrating
his claims under controlled conditions. The excuses as to why that
wasn't good enough were deafening.)

I don't think I've ever had a discussion with richard mooney.

I have.

I was
somewhat impressed with some parts of his books. But anyways, I think
I could determine pretty quickly if richard was for real or not, as
long as he was willing to answer a few questions :)

Richard Mooney claimed to be able to heal with "chi" and to be able to
knock people over using chi without touching. That you were "impressed"
with some parts of his books speaks volumes.

Although he punked when it came to my offer, he eventually did work up
the courage to submit his claimed abilities to examination--and failed
utterly.

So far, you haven't given me any reason to believe that what you claim
is any more real than what Mr. Mooney claimed.

Claims are not evidence.

What evidence would you like me to provide in this discussion,
David?

Actually, you have presented much evidence. Your various videos
are evidence. Unfortunately, they are not evidence of "chi." The
results obtained in the videos, at least the ones that don't involve
outright charlatanism, are entirely consistent with LMATE and no
"chi" is required to explain the results. That you post the videos
as evidence of chi is, in and of itself, evidence. Indeed, that you
post a video where the charlatanism is blatant as "ownage" is,
itself, evidence.

Exactly - no evidence I could possibly provide would be sufficient to
prove chi to you.

The above doesn't refer to evidence that you could, in principle,
provide. It refers to the evidence you _have_ provided.

Your "no possible evidence" presumption is only true if you start from
the position that there is nothing that can be done with chi that does not
admit to alternate explanation.

You think chi is something which isn't falsifiable -

That is not what I said and you know it.



that's YOUR problem, David. Not mine. Chi is clearly falsifiable to
me, and that's because I know what it is. I have a working defenition
which, well, works.. for lack of a better term. I can try and explain
it to you, tell you what to do to get it, explain why I feel it is
different from x, y or z.. but the more you trumpet your insistence
it's just a lower form of physics (which is your speciality)... the
longer you try to subjugate it with your judo mentality (which has
very little, actually, to do with tai chi).. the more you will THINK
you understand.

The above paragraph merely demonstrates that you haven't understood a
single thing I've said. The only question is whether that's from native
inability or deliberate obtuseness.

I'm not making any grandiose claims here about what chi can do.

Which is fortunate since apparently what chi can do is . . . nothing.
Forget grandiose, _any_ specific claim.

I am
trying to express to you that you need to have a more open mind about
what we're talking about.

The trouble is you want that mind so open that your listener's brains
fall out.

Stop trying to frame everything in physics
and judo.

How about demonstrating that there is actually something there that's
_not_ covered in physics. So far you've come up empty.

And we are left with examples such as Mr. Sigman who, last
time I heard
(and, as always, IIRC) does not claim more than LMATE, and yet he
and folk
he's trained have done quite well in push hands.

Mike Sigman certainly does claim more than LMATE - he's on record
doing so. He may have changed his tune since then but I haven't seen
any evidence of that.

Cite?

Well if you want a quote where Mike mentions LMATE you're an idiot.

Since I coined the term LMATE, why would I epxect that.

Let's hope you're not that stupid. "Learning to constantly propagate
peng to all parts of the body gives great strength and increases the
qi."
-http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/issue-1/how-to.htm

You are an acknowledge master of the out of quote context. When Mike
has been here (at least before he got all wierded out on the subject of Judo
and sufficiently personally abusive that I finally gave up on paying any
attention to him) he was pretty clear that he used "qi" exactly as I have
mentioned not having a problem with--a useful training metaphor.

Right then. So now you see that my linkage of peng and qi isn't just a
fantasy I invented on my own (which it is, as I've done my own
research) but now you see it's Sigman's fantasy as well.

He doesn't talk about LMATE here because LMATE can not produce Peng.
QED.

We're not talking about Querdlops here because Querdlops cannot produce
Frengshin.

That's about as meaningful as what you have above.

You still have to get your own defenition of Peng though. Consider
it... homework for the interested.

How about I consider your way of trying to avoid admiting that you've
got nothing. That appears to be a more accurate assessment.

You're the one demonstrating that peng demonstrates chi. Support your
own claim or simply accept that you're going to look like the Emporer
prating on about his sartorial finery.

If not, then what's the point of the "that's a claim, not
evidence."

That only becomes an issue when there is disagreement about what
is being claimed.

And since you have made
contrary-to-fact statements about LMATE with remarkable regularity,

Nice claim. It's not evidence though.

It's a conclusion. Your posts are the evidence.

All of them? Hmm, intetesting hyperbole there, David. I don't buy it.

Please point out the use of the word "all" in the above. I didn't say
it. You demonstrate once again why your claims carry no weight. You can't
even get it right when it's quoted right there.

your
assessment on whether or not it actually could be done with LMATE
is unreliable at best.

Another claim?

Another conclusion.

It can't be so since you have provided no evidence.

You're the one who provided the evidence, pretty much every time you've
made a statement about what can and cannot be done with LMATE and what an
LMATE response to something would be. ("stiffen up and resist"? Sheesh.)

Another claim, David?

Yawn.

I know exactly how you feel.

No you don't.

Kind of like how you wanted to "conclude" an "assumption" at "*"
above?

Not quite.

Excuse. No wait, conclusion, right? Another one of david's
evidenceless conclusions. lol

So you really think that anyone buys this inanity? All you are doing is
making yourself look foolish.

It took more time to snip than to reply, David. Please try to keep
your thoughts together.

Please try to have some.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@xxxxxxx "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: :-)
    ... language, not hatred towards anyone who disagrees with you. ... Chwarae teg i chi am ddysgu'r Gymraeg "er" mai Sais ydych chi. ... to North Wales without learning Welsh? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Marriage is under fire!!
    ... so low kidney energy causes a flare up of heart energy. ... benefits stomach chi. ... > contours on the body and brain electrochemical responses can occur. ... language for describing this, and using it to treat sickness. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: :-)
    ... language, not hatred towards anyone who disagrees with you. ... Chwarae teg i chi am ddysgu'r Gymraeg "er" mai Sais ydych chi. ... wouldn't move to Marseille without learning French. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: problema coi frames
    ... Grazie in anticipo a chi mi risponde ... please remember that the official language in this newsgroup is English. ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: Extraordinary feats. Re: When Chi goes wrong.....
    ... you cannot accept any evidence. ... explained without "invoking" chi, ... method of "maximizing and controlling extraordinary human strength." ...
    (rec.martial-arts)