Re: Three men make a tiger

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:14:41 -0400, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhead@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<hal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t5u394564nu97kb4747da7r274f9nabt1d@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:07:43 -0400, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhead@xxxxxxx> wrote:



Actually, let's go back to Hal's claim here. Exactly what is it these
people can do that whoever Hal is referring with his "you" (most likely
you,
Shuraii, but probably also me and quite a few others here) cannot?

you is typically considered plural in these discussions meaning anyone
taking the same viewpoint as you singular.


So, tell, Hal. What is it that these folk can do that Shuraii and I
cannot?

lot's of things. I saw this thing where this Shaolin monk dude did
handstands on just one finger. Can you do that?

"I saw this thing"? And _I_ saw this thing where a guy made a tiger
appear in a box. And another thing where he sawed a woman in half and put
her back together. Can you do that.

More detail of what exactly you "saw," under what circumstances it
happened, and how long it took "this Shaolin monk dude" to achieve that
would be helpful.

Then there's the question of whether I can or not, why would I want to?

impressing the ladies, of course. That's why men do everything.


And is chi actually _required_ to do it or could someone like, say the
late
Kyuzo Mifune, have done it _without_ relying on "chi"?

that is the key mistake you keep making. Chi is not magical nor
unique as a method of human performance. The mere fact that someone
can perform the same feat without the claim of chi does not invalidate
chi.

Then you _don't_ need chi to do it? Let's be clear on that.

If you can do it without chi, then how do you know that they're really
using chi?

And if someone can do it without chi, why should they bother with "chi"
to do it.

IT'S A TRAINING SYSTEM !

sheesh, how fucking many times do I have to repeat myself?

And if one doesn't need chi to do it then all your arguments
about "they can do things you can't" fall by the wayside. You don't see
anybody here questioning whether "weightlifting" is real because Hossein
Rezazadeh could clean and jerk 262.5 kg do you? He certainly does something
that I'm pretty sure nobody here can do.

well, for one thing, the guy has genetics on his side. And secondly
he's probably using visualization and focus and explosive power drills
exactly like internal arts training.


What is it that one can do with "chi" that cannot be done without it?

the question is not if it CAN be done without chi by anyone, the
question is if the person in question could perform that task without
chi.

And the bar moves once again.

Here's something to try. Pick a goal. Just about any goal will do.
Get a group of people. Get a second group as similar to the first as
possible (age, sex, body type, weight, body-fat, general fitness level,
etc.). Teach one group using "chi" methods to do the goal. Teach the other
using "conventional" methods. Give both the same amount of time. Test
periodically against the goal. See which group tends to achieve the goal
faster.

ok. Fair enough. My money is on the group who is taught
visualization, focus, and explosive power drills over the people who
are taught nothing but muscular power. Any day. Are you saying
visualization and mental training is not critical to physical
achievement?


As I've explained, the study of chi is a study of maximizing
human performance.

As you've claimed repeatedly anyway.

With _zero_ evidence of whether it actually does that.

of course it does. Clearly a vast majority of Asian martial arts use
chi training to some degree. As least in it's advanced levels. Look
at all the accomplishments martial artists can claim. The very best
fighters in the world have as least some background in traditional
arts.


By harnessing the ower of chi through training and
exercise a person can learn to perform feats they otherwise would not
be able to do.

Now this is a claim. It's a completely unsupported claim, but it is a
claim.

[ 8< ]

After
all, if one doesn't need "chi" to accomplish the same results, then one
can
hardly be jealous of folk for their knowlege of "chi."

stop it with your absurd mutual exclusivity clause, and we might get
somewhere.

It's not a matter of "mutual exclusivity" it's a matter of necessity.
Why should I be jealous of someone's claims about the wonders of what they
can do with "chi" if I don't need chi to do it.

you've already stated you don't care to. You dismiss everything
others can do that you can't by indifference.


You haven't demonstrated _anything_ that _anyone_ does that _needs_ chi
to accomplish. You haven't even demonstrated that the people (so far
carefully unnamed) "needed" chi to accomplish whatever feets you attribute
to them.

why don't you take a few qigong classes sometime. Or some internal
styles. Or at least try to get to advanced levels in ANY art. Your
training is so sadly lacking.


Hal
.

Quantcast