Re: The power of the gods: Re: Extend your chi

On Aug 9, 9:44 pm, h...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT), Renli

<oliver.rich...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If hal's definition is incorrect it does not imply mine is correct.
However, it does not imply my definition is worthless either. I think
you have your wires crossed on this one Peter.

one thing that gets me about these guys is they keep insisting that
our differing definitions somehow invalidates our claims yet none can
explain how our definitions are in any way contradictory.

Oke of the things Mike Sigman is on about, is that "we're not all
talking about the same things". Well, that may be true to an extent,
but you have indeed touched upon something interesting here. It's
possible that our definitions overlap in a consistent way. The big
difference, I think, is that I am focused on what goes on inside
jingluo to try and recapture the classical definition of chi as moving
energy in english; you seem more focused on the "end-user effects". I
am at least forced to concede that you probably use training methods
similar to mine so the results can't be that far off anyways.

Still, I've invested a great deal of time and effort to link the
methodology to the theoy from step one to the final goal. You should
have a look sometime. It's very complete.

and yet, to make things even more amusing, they use differing
definitions of chi as an excuse for it's invalidation,

On a similar note, if Kirk Lawson (to use an example from burkhead-
renli) does not have a definition of chi he would not be able to say
it does not exist with any authority. Even if he did have a definition
he couldn't say that mine didn't exist. Where the argument that we're
seeing *now* breaks down, is that the definition that someone like
mike k. would have (i.e. chi bolts) has absolutely nothing to do with
what chi is supposed to be or do. Really the truth is that the
"differing opinions" they posit are their own definitions. They want
to disprove chi bolts and magic forces, but they don't want to talk
about body chemistry, real medicine, or physics at all. Strangely
absent in these discussions is mention of work such as, for example..

* Lin-Chen "Exploratory Studies of External Qi in China" which lists
various indicators which were used to detect chi, including for
example as a catalyst in reacting hexane and bromine. (University of
Medicine and Dentistry of NJ)

* Yujiro Ikemi's "Integration of Eastern and Western Psychosomatic
Medicine" (Kyushu University Press, 1996) in which he uses
radioisotopes to trace meridians.

* Langevin-Yandow, "Relationship of acupuncture points and meridians
to connective tissue planes." (Department of Neurology, University of
Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT) quote: "We found an 80%
correspondence between the sites of acupuncture points and the
location of intermuscular or intramuscular connective tissue planes in
postmortem tissue sections."

The list goes on. No really, the Chi FAQ has collected hundreds of
such references.

All ignored by the likes of those here who bicker over such ridiculous
arguments as "some people disagree therefore it's worthless to discuss/
doesn't exist/whatever".

In fact I would go so far as to say those people are no longer
important in this discussion. They've shown that they simply are not
able to keep up with the work.

but as I
pointed out it's ok for them to have drastically differing AND
CONTRADICTORY explanations for God yet most readily accept a belief
without any regard for the fact that most of the rest of the world
thinks they're nuts. Yet they readily accept their definition of God
as gospel. They accept other's definitions of God. They accept
other's belief in God. And even if they don't believe in God
themselves they accept the likelihood that there is probably a God out
there somewhere, but vehemently deny the possibility of chi.

Strangely absent from these discussions is a mention of Holroyd Jean's
"Science of Meditation and the State of Hypnosis” from the American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Oct 2003, in which he demonstrates that
Chi Kung activates unique areas of the brain not activated by any
other known form of meditation (physical or mental) including TCM,
Zen, various forms of Yoga... which, of course, implies that Chi Kung
(and chi) is something unique and singular in it's definition and use.

Poor Mike. Poor Peter. Poor Shuurai. Poor Burkhead, Kirk, et al.
They've been left behind. The real scientists have stepped up to the
plate and the game is now over. Chi is real, it's scientific, it's
falsifiable, and furthermore the work has already been done. Now the
truth has finally come out: they have been unable to accept it. The
problem, my dear hal, is with them - completely - not with you or me
or our definitions.

I pray they never find out just how small and insignificant this forum
is compared to many others in the internet martial arts community.
It'd break their heart to realize they're barking at a wall.

-
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The power of the gods: Re: Extend your chi
    ... explain how our definitions are in any way contradictory. ... You cannot escape the simple fact however that you both have very different views of what chi is, and I've no interest in choosing sides. ... Richman doesn't want to discuss the 'reality', just whether he has more chi-cred so *his* definition will be accepted. ... Yet they readily accept their definition of God ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Ki?
    ... > Thats correct. ... > Just as you can not proove there is a God.. ... so you admit that your belief in Chi is religious? ... theres no substitute for having such an experinece. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Chi? ---The Human Body: Pushing the Limits
    ... physiological responses. ... of the existence of chi via your personal experience is no different ... idol on my deak and you meant kali the hundu god of death, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Chap 3 Violence Chemical Cocktail & Mushin
    ... the word "God" in and of itself explains nothing. ... your definition of "chi" without presenting a shred of evidence that it's ... are simple human reactions to stress. ... "beneficial energy" in the space around you. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Tin ddo^`n " DDu+c Me. khoc " theo lo^i nha^.n xet ca nha^n .
    ... > God la` ai? ... God chi? ... Nhu+ to^i dda~ no i, ... cho chu ng ta ddi theo, ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
Loading