Re: Three men make a tiger

<hal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ql04949g6ncc1018a3hc21f21ceplucnah@xxxxxxxxxx
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.

Most of the ladies I know consider one-finger handstands rather far down
on the list of things that impress.

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?

Actually, I wish you'd _stop_ repeating yourself, listen to what people
are trying

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.

"Whoosh" right over your head.

The question at hand in my above post wasn't your continuing broadening
of the definition (so now anything that includes "visualization" and "focus"
and "explosive power drills" however defined is chi?) It's the point that
even though he can do something I can't I don't find any need to question
whether his training really works.

Your argument about "you can't do it so you pretend it doesn't exist"
fails because people here really have no problem with people being able to
do things they can't. It's certain proposed explanations for those supposed
feats, along with the putting forward the actual supposed feats without
demonstrating that they actually happen as described.

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Clearly a vast majority of Asian martial arts use
chi training to some degree.

And?

As least in it's advanced levels. Look
at all the accomplishments martial artists can claim.

The key word here is "claim." Claims are easy. Evidence is hard.

The very best
fighters in the world have as least some background in traditional
arts.

That's like saying the very best runners in the world have at least some
background in crawling. Not evidence that crawling is useful for running.

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.

Actually, I'm asking for you to provide evidence for your claim.

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.

Why? What benefit would acrue? How do I know? Why should I give your
suggestion any more weight than that of the guy down the street making
recommendations on avoiding the "mind control rays"?

There are lots of people making lots of suggestions on things that I (or
others) should "try." Many of them are mutually contradictory. Why should I
give _your_ suggestion any more weight than the guy who gives advice on the
proper wear of tinfoil?

You have presented no more evidence, after all, than he has.

Or some internal
styles.

Same question

Or at least try to get to advanced levels in ANY art.

Same question.

Your
training is so sadly lacking.

Coming from you, that's really funny.

--
--
David L. Burkhead -- Cold Servings, a webcomic
mailto:dburkhead@xxxxxxx -- http://www.coldservings.com
http://www.cafepress.com/coldservings <- OSHA for criminals

"The quickest way to end a war
is to lose it."
George Orwell


.

Quantcast