What is Chi and how to develope it [Archive]

LilBunnyRabbit

09-Aug-2004, 11:59 AM

When you eat and breath you take energy, thus you take Qi.No you don't. You take on board the chemicals required for respiration, which is the first step in a long process that eventually produces a chemical called ATP which causes muscle fibers to contract. Where exactly along this point does the chemical energy contained in the food and air become Qi?

The difference between expending energy and conserving is also Qi, because it is a matter of energy.I don't see that this actually makes sense at all. You're saying that Qi is a measure of work done in an energy-exchange process?

Most things we come across are made up of atoms, an atom is energy, it has a positive charge and a negative charge, in-between the two is a neutral charge.Firstly yes, matter-energy equivalency does exist, but while they are interchangable that does not mean that an atom is energy. Yes, there's a lot of debate about this, and various theories, but we still have matter and energy as seperate concepts.

As to the positive and negative charge, there are thousands of different elements, all of which have a different atomic structure. Some of these do contain neutrons, which do not have a neutral charge, but have no charge, this is not the same thing as having a neutral charge. Then for even more fun we can play with isotopes, which are variants on the same atomic structure. And of course you can always add or remove electrons to alter the charge, again preventing the atom from being neutral.

Human thinking and language is dualistic, there is no right or wrong, because there is both right and wrong, existing at the same time and individually.But there is right and wrong, as they're an aspect of human thinking rather than actual objects. They are abstract concepts, and have as much meaning as you want to give them. Besides, human thinking isn't purely dualistic, neither is human language, unless you only ever pay attention to the most basic levels.

Internal martial arts allow you (through constant practice, unless you’re special) to use consciousness or parts of the mind that are non dualistic, but can see and experience existence in a singular neutral manner without being skewed to either side or extreme (in Taoism known as the primordial), this state of mind allows you to perceive without judgment/bias, this in turn allows you the state of mind that can be trained to control energy or Qi.So in other words it allows you to be objective, and this supposedly gives you psychic control over energy? Somehow I doubt that.

But, this is all very mish mash and in reality, no amount of explanation can be used to explain this, only experience.How convenient, so there's no way to study it but to actually learn it. And if you go through all of the teaching and careful studying and still don't get it, then evidently you're not 'enlightened' enough, because obviously it works. The guy next door told me so.

MartialArtsSnob

09-Aug-2004, 12:56 PM

Silly Rabbit, The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao. It is impossible to explain the "REALITY" of Qi. Why do you think that Christ taught in parables or anyone trying to "EXPLAIN" the truth for that matter? The truth transcends language. The best that can be hoped for is that on occasion someone comes up with the poetry to momentarily change our thinking in a way that expands our perspective of the truth.

That said, I think ZillaBilla has done a fine job in showing us another piece of this puzzle.

Mr. Grumpy,
The way I look at it is like this, Energy is found in several forms strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and electromagnetism. The gurus in physics are trying to find the formula (Grand unified theory) which explains to them (in mathematics) how they are related and ultimately come from the same source. Energy = mass, there is a constant process that seems to be going on where energy manifests as mass and mass is decaying into energy. The Gurus of the eastern religions are trying to EXPERINCE this process, they are trying to “Find the state of unity”, “Become one with the universe”. How this relates to Qi is that Qi is that energy which flows through us (our breath, food, sunlight, electromagnetism, sexual energy, etc….). Feeling and developing Qi is the process of bringing TO CONCIOUSNESS these processes. The beginning practices involve relaxation (think about Yoga, Tai Chi, etc…). Stress impedes the flow of energy through our bodies. Once you get a handle on how to open your body and bring your awareness to all of its parts, you will indeed feel its flow very easily. You can then begin to affect its rate of flow. If anyone tells you “Qi is…”” they are lying, if they say, “Qi is like”, or “You can look at it like this…” you might get something from what they say next.

I personally think that when people talk about “Grand circulation of the Qi”. I think that it has something to do with the bringing to consciousness the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid throughout the connective tissue of the body. The movements of the plates of the scull and the movement of the Sacrum pump this fluid up and down the spinal cord and around the brain. This same fluid is found inside all of the connective tissue of the body.

ZillaBilla

09-Aug-2004, 12:57 PM

Yes Bunny, you are right, I’m just a immense cretin. In fact, everything I wrote in my previous post is a load of excrement. I was just making it up to make myself look smart, but unfortunately for me, your supreme intellect has caught me out. You are the best. Perhaps your supreme royal greatness 'The Littlest Bunniest Rabbit', would care to enlighten me with his supremely divine answers to the following questions.

What is consciousness ?

Why does each of our individual consciousnesses exist?

I would like to offer my utmost gratitude to your highness, for even considering to answer such a dim-witted question posed by me, the immense cretin.

Polar Bear

09-Aug-2004, 01:22 PM

Chill Zilla,
You tried to play the science card and got caught out. If you believe in Chi, Qi or Ki then keep to the theological side because there you cannot be contradicted for inaccuracies. Scientists want to quantify and describe the universe and get very upset when theologists try to twist scientific theory to fit their dogma.
I understand exactly how bunny feels when he hears these arguments. We aren't trying to be supreme beings but avoid the misuse of science.

The Bear (BSc Physics)

LilBunnyRabbit

09-Aug-2004, 02:11 PM

What is consciousness ?

Why does each of our individual consciousnesses exist? What do either of these have to do with your misuse of science and atomic theory?

TkdWarrior

09-Aug-2004, 02:32 PM

What do either of these have to do with your misuse of science and atomic theory?

why not... just think is farting in public would be conscious decision... :D it's scientific... lol

I think we r analyzing too much on the matters of chi...
-TkdWarrior-

ZillaBilla

09-Aug-2004, 03:07 PM

Hey Bear,

Thanks for the chill pill, I will now approach this matter in the form of a sloth on valium. With regards to ‘theology’, the comments I made were all on a theological grounding, though I see how it can be seen that I was taking it in a scientific manner. Now the reason you may have detected a bit of cynicism in my comments towards ‘Littlest Bunny Rabbit’ and his clue stick, is firstly we are in an IMA forum not a Theology vs Science discussion group, so when someone comes along and egotistically, as can be seen through Bunnies writing, tries to discredit a topic of which he appears to have no knowledge of. Well, it makes it look like an ignorant and self aggrandising individual is trying to make his head even bigger than what it appears to be. Thus, it makes me want to balance the situation out for everyone’s benefit, or perhaps greedily my own. Which in turn brings me back to Bunnies most recent post “What do either of these have to do with your misuse of science and atomic theory?”. Firstly it looks like Bunny has jumped on to the Bear’s band wagon, understandable since he’s so self-centered, and since we’ve already established that this forum is more theological than scientific, the band wagon jumping was not good enough even for such a springy rabbit. Since Bunny’s question is no longer relevant, I will continue to demonstrate the relevance of my questions posed to Bunny. If you don’t know what you are, of what importance is anything else? Dam, now see what you made me do rabbit, now I’m the egotistical, self aggrandizing Zilla.

LilBunnyRabbit

09-Aug-2004, 03:16 PM

Oh, ouchie. I'm stung to the quick by your comments, mortally wounded. I find it interesting that you've resorted to name-calling, but there we go.

As to having no knowledge on the subject. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they have no knowledge. You'll find that I'm quite happy to accept some people's accounts of chi, and not others. Yours was one of the ones I wasn't happy to accept since you were trying to put forward an invalid scientific view. If you'd left out the comments about energy and atoms I'd probably have let the whole matter lie.

As far as I am concerned, my personal opinion is that chi is a high level of biomechanics. Proper body alignment and motion can do some incredible things, which don't need a mystical force brought in to explain.

To this forum being more theological than scientific then I'm afraid we disagree on a very basic level. I view all martial arts, both internal and external, as being highly scientific. It is possible to analyze the motions in a technique, using science, and use that knowledge to try and improve a technique. That'd be science. If you want a theological debate I recommend the philosophy forum, if you want a debate on internal martial arts then you might want to stay here. Just be prepared for people to disagree with what you think internal martial arts are.

MartialArtsSnob

09-Aug-2004, 03:20 PM

Don't sweat it Zilla, I am quite sure that The Bunny will chime in any second now and tell us the Truth about Qi. I can't wait since I have been looking for someone with answers for quite some time now............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........still waiting........................................... .................................................. ...................................Oh enlightened bunny wabbit..........

Maybe Elmer finally got lucky.

LilBunnyRabbit

09-Aug-2004, 03:25 PM

Don't sweat it Zilla, I am quite sure that The Bunny will chime in any second now and tell us the Truth about Qi. I can't wait since I have been looking for someone with answers for quite some time nowWhile we're waiting could you by any chance give me one iota of non-anecdotal evidence that qi actually exists at all as something other than advanced biomechanics and technical excellence?

ZillaBilla

09-Aug-2004, 03:51 PM

ZillaBilla

09-Aug-2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:
When you eat and breath you take energy, thus you take Qi.

No you don't. You take on board the chemicals required for respiration, which is the first step in a long process that eventually produces a chemical called ATP which causes muscle fibers to contract. Where exactly along this point does the chemical energy contained in the food and air become Qi?

So, Bunny, collectively these processes produce energy, did I miss something?

Quote:
The difference between expending energy and conserving is also Qi, because it is a matter of energy.

I don't see that this actually makes sense at all. You're saying that Qi is a measure of work done in an energy-exchange process?

No, I’m saying, if there is potential for conserving or expending energy than, that potential is also energy, whether positive or negative.

Quote:
Most things we come across are made up of atoms, an atom is energy, it has a positive charge and a negative charge, in-between the two is a neutral charge.

Firstly yes, matter-energy equivalency does exist, but while they are interchangable that does not mean that an atom is energy. Yes, there's a lot of debate about this, and various theories, but we still have matter and energy as separate concepts.

As to the positive and negative charge, there are thousands of different elements, all of which have a different atomic structure. Some of these do contain neutrons, which do not have a neutral charge, but have no charge, this is not the same thing as having a neutral charge. Then for even more fun we can play with isotopes, which are variants on the same atomic structure. And of course you can always add or remove electrons to alter the charge, again preventing the atom from being neutral.

If we split an atom, we get a big boom, or release energy, right? I’m no physicist/chemist, but as you yourself say “there's a lot of debate about this, and various theories”, in other words you don’t know.

Quote:
Human thinking and language is dualistic, there is no right or wrong, because there is both right and wrong, existing at the same time and individually.

But there is right and wrong, as they're an aspect of human thinking rather than actual objects. They are abstract concepts, and have as much meaning as you want to give them. Besides, human thinking isn't purely dualistic, neither is human language, unless you only ever pay attention to the most basic levels.

You just proved my point with your subjective rant.

Quote:
Internal martial arts allow you (through constant practice, unless you’re special) to use consciousness or parts of the mind that are non dualistic, but can see and experience existence in a singular neutral manner without being skewed to either side or extreme (in Taoism known as the primordial), this state of mind allows you to perceive without judgment/bias, this in turn allows you the state of mind that can be trained to control energy or Qi.

So in other words it allows you to be objective, and this supposedly gives you psychic control over energy? Somehow I doubt that.

Well, if you read properly it says “this in turn allows you the state of mind that can be trained to control energy or Qi”, so, I guess you cant read properly.

Quote:
But, this is all very mish mash and in reality, no amount of explanation can be used to explain this, only experience.

How convenient, so there's no way to study it but to actually learn it. And if you go through all of the teaching and careful studying and still don't get it, then evidently you're not 'enlightened' enough, because obviously it works. The guy next door told me so.

So, me admitting that my explanation is not very understandable because the nature of the subject at hand is such. Thus, you think I’m taking some easy way out. Hmmm, you don’t know much about this topic, do you?

FATSAN

09-Aug-2004, 04:13 PM

Chi is the sum of all it's parts. The Whole being the world around us. Unfortunately, from a science perspective, explanations fall short of hitting the mark because our science is incomplete. We neither understand nor have identified all the parts that go to making up the world we experience.

We however, an integral part of the world, and are capable of experiencing it. By coming to understand ourselves we gain a deeper understanding of the world in which we reside. A person’s inability to articulate that understanding into words does not necessarily mean that their experience and understanding is wrong. Sometimes it becomes necessary to read between the line get the essence of what they are trying to communicate.

ZillaBilla

09-Aug-2004, 04:17 PM

well said.

MartialArtsSnob

09-Aug-2004, 04:44 PM

While we're waiting could you by any chance give me one iota of non-anecdotal evidence that qi actually exists at all as something other than advanced biomechanics and technical excellence?

I thought that you would never ask, and you can try this experiment in the privacy of your own home. Chi in my opinion is the stuff that makes us different from a corpse. Have someone hold a pillow over your face and stand on it for a while. When you have stopped moving report back to us on how it works out for ya.

LilBunnyRabbit

09-Aug-2004, 09:21 PM

Oh great the old you’ve resorted to name calling line. No, not really Bunny, I’ve resorted to observing your behavior and the mood of your comments, which are as per my previous post, generally unfriendly. And no there not unfriendly because you disagree, they are unfriendly because of your mood.I assume the claims of me being self-centred would be because I refuse to automatically accept anything that I've not personally experienced, even though I've tried to find it before? Wait. You only believe what you've seen and felt too. You must be self-centred. Gasp.

Anyway, I will believe that which I have seen and felt, you can believe anything you want.I'm also believing exactly what I've seen and felt, backed by the things I have researched carefully. When exactly have you seen chi in action?

then you bounce along and start trying to discredit opinions that are not yours to discreditSomeone walks up to you and starts telling you all about the theory of chi, after about ten seconds you realise that all they've done is take a few words, and make up a bunch of stuff that isn't even consistent. Do you feel that you have the right to correct them, or do you let them go off believing in something that isn't true?

Furthermore, you seem to have plenty of comments but no answers, and why have you not commented or answered my questions to you yet “If you don’t know what you are, of what importance is anything else?”. Lost for words?Not at all, I know exactly what I am, I just don't see why that should concern you or in fact is any of your business.

So, Bunny, collectively these processes produce energy, did I miss something?
Collectively all these processes do is convert energy from one form, to another, and to another. There is no gain or loss.

No, I’m saying, if there is potential for conserving or expending energy than, that potential is also energy, whether positive or negative.
This is where you've lost me. Potential for conserving or expending energy is not energy, it is a potential. There's a world of difference between the two. Energy may be required to get something to the point where it can expend energy, but that does not make the fact of it being there energy in and of itself.

If we split an atom, we get a big boom, or release energy, right? I’m no physicist/chemist, but as you yourself say “there's a lot of debate about this, and various theories”, in other words you don’t know.
If you take a battery, and plug it into some device, you get electrical energy. But the battery itself isn't energy. Best analogy I could come up with for the moment, if you want I'll go into more detail.

I thought that you would never ask, and you can try this experiment in the privacy of your own home. Chi in my opinion is the stuff that makes us different from a corpse. Have someone hold a pillow over your face and stand on it for a while. When you have stopped moving report back to us on how it works out for ya.So in other words, the answer is no? You cannot show any measurable effect from chi? You have to suggest that I kill myself in order to understand your point? See, mine can be understood with some elementary science, no murders necessary.

Where exactly is chi in the chemical process of respiration, that's removed by smothering? The oxygen in the air? Glucose in the blood? Water and carbon dioxide? Various other chemicals produced as a bi-product? The electro-chemical energy that runs through nerves? Which bit of this is chi exactly? Or have we moved onto the more abstract 'soul' now?

TkdWarrior

10-Aug-2004, 02:24 AM

man bunny reminds of CKD guy... he was damn good when it came to physics. hell I can't even spell physics :D

PS: hey somebody tell him, he is being missed ;) :woo:
-TkdWarrior-

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Aug-2004, 04:45 AM

Ahem, if you're talking about CKDstudent, then I'm a rename. :p

savage

10-Aug-2004, 06:48 AM

i have an oppinion as always
i think chi is just energy suck as adrenaline

Polar Bear

10-Aug-2004, 07:07 AM

I'm afriad I'm going to have to come down on the side of bunny on this one. I believe the effect of chi is just the heightened effeciency of the muscles. Where this is achieved is by better control of the central nervous system. IMO qi gong and other exercises mearly train the body to effciently fire signals to the muscles and the result is an increase in strength and control.
The mystical side of qi, I think, came as a teaching tool because in chinese culture, religion would have been the easiest way to explain, to an uneducated student, complex and abstract concepts. Much like in western society god is used to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding. As our education and knowledge grows the need for god as an explaination receeds. However, there will always be those who need the mystical to help them as a tool. It is not wrong but do not think it is the truth.

The Bear.

savage

10-Aug-2004, 07:26 AM

woah
very well put you to
tuche

TkdWarrior

10-Aug-2004, 08:33 AM

damn is that u jimmy???
-TkdWarrior-

ZillaBilla

10-Aug-2004, 09:08 AM

FATSAN

10-Aug-2004, 10:19 AM

I’m not sure that chi is some identifiable energy in the same way that electrical and chemical energy is. Maybe it is the same as a painting consisting of many different colours to produce an image. The image is just a collection of carefully selected colours used in the right places with the right intensity but produces a picture that someone will recognise. Obviously, some people are better at it than others.

Within a given individual there are many different systems that can contribute to the successful completion of a task. As there are many elements that may work against its completion. If everything that could possibly contribute to any given task is employed and anything that could work against it, reduced; a person may produce impressive results. Maybe to a point where someone may believe that some other mystical energy must have been at play.

I have found that most of the really good people who are attributed to using chi, or its equivalent, never really claim to use any extra-ordinary powers. It seems this idea comes more from the people who do not understand what they are seeing.
Also, a lot of the misconceptions come when people are asked how they achieved it. Just because they can do it does not mean that they are in a position to explain it. Just because a person can speak perfect English does not mean he/she can go into the technical details of how the language is structured. Which probably goes for most of the English speaking population!
Also there’s always a problem with describing something to someone who has no experience of what you are talking about. It’s like trying to describe the sun to a blind man. He might understand your description but will never appreciate in the same way as a person who can see.

Cultivation of chi comes form an awareness of nature, not just our environment but ourselves and understanding how use it to its full potential.

Martial Mark

10-Aug-2004, 10:38 AM

Quiet an interesting read here.

http://www.fengshuigate.com/qimancy.html

I talks about feng shui but it kind of goes into detail of qi and qimancy.

I cant say that this has convinced me there is such a thing as chi/qi but still intersting though and I like to keep an open mind about this kind of thing.

MM

Knight_Errant

10-Aug-2004, 11:08 AM

Chi is an old-fashioned chinese philosophical concept to explain life. Certain oriental supremacists have got hold of this idea and- wrongly- assumed it to refer to some kind of magical forcefield. This attitude has been picked up in the west by the hippies. Clinging to chi as a construct is like insisting on the greek explanation of why things fall to the earth instead of listening to, say, isaac Newton.

YODA

10-Aug-2004, 11:42 AM

Much like in western society god is used to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding. As our education and knowledge grows the need for god as an explaination receeds. However, there will always be those who need the mystical to help them as a tool. It is not wrong but do not think it is the truth.

The Bear.
Excellent explaination PB! I agree wholeheartedly.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 12:03 PM

Bunny,
I am sorry for the suggestion to kill yourself; my frustration is better placed in spurring me on to a better explanation of my position. The problem is indeed the idea that Chi is something mystical, nothing could be further from the truth. Like many forces in nature we do not see it, can you tell me what electromagnetism looks like? Can you tell me what gravity or any of the forces look like? No. All you can do is show me their effects. Actually all you can do is observe an event and measure the changes. You can then make up a theory of what you think happened then label the different aspects of your result. At no point do you SEE any thing. Indeed on a fundamental level we will actually see what we want to see, No? The accepted understanding of the forces of nature are changing all the time. Is it so hard a stretch of the imagination to think that we will know more tomorrow than we do today?
What I find so hard to get across to people is that when we talk about Chi we are not talking about some "thing" which we can label and say "this is Chi", it is simply another label for some things that we in the west have broken down into "parts". We are taught to use the scientific approach to our understanding. We believe that by constantly breaking down nature into its parts and studying them we get a very granular and "more complete" picture. To a great degree this is true and of great benefit. It is however not the only way to look at things.

You asked:
Where exactly is chi in the chemical process of respiration, that's removed by smothering?
The oxygen in the air? Glucose in the blood? Water and carbon dioxide? Various other chemicals produced as a bi-product? The electro-chemical energy that runs through nerves? Which bit of this is chi exactly? Or have we moved onto the more abstract 'soul' now?

If I told you something like “It is all around you” would you accept it? You see this is like me asking, “Where exactly is this gravity you speak of ? Yes it is in the oxygen, yes it is in the glucose, and yes it is in the water and CO2, yes it is in the Electro-chemical energy that runs through the nerves. Chi is not a bit! It is a way of looking at the PROCESS. You can call anything you don’t understand and “abstract soul” or “Mystical” or “Magic” if you like. I don’t think the eastern view of the physical world is any better or worse than that of the west, a more complete understanding would arise from a long hard look at both. Throughout history when a radical change in understanding occurs it takes a long and bumpy road to reconcile that with the commonly held “Way things are”. Some of the labels are different, some of the “Proofs” are different, and some of the “theories” are different, but we are all talking about the same things. I can’t tell you what Chi is any more than you can tell me what magnetism is.

You said in an earlier post:
“I know exactly what I am, I just don't see why that should concern you or in fact is any of your business.”

Look at this statement……………. I think that you will find that in the end you do not know exactly what you are, his business or not. It was said earlier that we use God to fill in the gaps in our understanding. It could just as easily be said that we use science to fill in the gaps of our understanding of God.

teacher

10-Aug-2004, 12:11 PM

Great reply PB.
I wonder if I could expand it a little.
If you are not willing to drag God into it why not use some poorly understood physics as it sounds very modern and impressive. I have a similar reaction to LBR whenever I hear someone trotting out something about Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and wave particle duality when the endpoint is about stopping someone from breaking your nose.

I am more than willing to consider chi and its existance but not when utterly irrelevant partial science is used as window dressing.

Oh yeah BSc physics also.

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Aug-2004, 12:51 PM

Bunny, I think I'll have to say "agree to disagree". However, a bit of advice, I don’t know what MA you do, but if it is internal than I would strongly suggest that you stop intellectualizing your beliefs on ‘Qi’, as such conduct hinders your progress by limiting and closing off your experiences, you could call it being narrow minded.Fair enough, I'll agree to disagree. However, a bit of advice. I don't know what MA you do, but if it is internal then I would strongly suggest that you start intellectualising your beliefs on 'Qi', as such study, thought and research can massively enhance your understanding and potential. In fact through various different methods of modeling what is supposed to be 'qi', such as biomechanics, you can make use of the massive amounts of research others have made rather than trying to learn through philosophy.

Like many forces in nature we do not see it, can you tell me what electromagnetism looks like? Can you tell me what gravity or any of the forces look like? No. All you can do is show me their effects. Actually all you can do is observe an event and measure the changes. You can then make up a theory of what you think happened then label the different aspects of your result. At no point do you SEE any thing.Electromagnetism can be seen and predicted by the effects that it has upon various things. For example if we take a wire, and a magnet, and put them near to each other, then run a current through the wire you will see a definite measurable change in the system. Alternatively the best way to 'see' magnetic fields is to use iron filings on a sheet, and use a solenoid to show the field lines via motion of the iron filings.

Gravity can be seen in various fun effects, including the gravitational lens, and the refraction of light by large bodies of mass. It can also be demonstrated in a lab using rather simple apparatus, again, a measurable effect is demonstrable.

Indeed on a fundamental level we will actually see what we want to see, No?Except in the case of certain mental disorders, or when using ambiguous data or experiments, no, you will see what is actually there.

We are taught to use the scientific approach to our understanding. We believe that by constantly breaking down nature into its parts and studying them we get a very granular and "more complete" picture.You're missing a very important step. Once we have an understanding, or at least an approximate system that replicates one of the parts, we start to stick them back together to make a more complete system. This way we can actually explain, predict and understand the system.

If I told you something like “It is all around you” would you accept it? You see this is like me asking, “Where exactly is this gravity you speak of ?Which theory would you like for the gravity? There's various different ones that all produce the same predictions, but I can at least give you an explanation. My favourite is Einstein's rubber-sheet explanation. Lets say you live in a two-dimensional universe, which happens to be an infinitely large rubber sheet. Put two objects on the sheet and they'll deform it, making curves which will cause other objects to roll towards them. Extend this up a dimension, and you've got one possibility. This theoretical model can actually, and has been, tested. It produces accurate results, the model itself may be way off mark, but its close enough result-wise as makes no odds.

I can’t tell you what Chi is any more than you can tell me what magnetism is.Probably the simplest theory suggests that its similar to the interaction between charged particles, whereby like-charged particles repel one another while opposites attract. Naturally objects with no magnetic potential are unnaffected.

I think that you will find that in the end you do not know exactly what you are, his business or not. It was said earlier that we use God to fill in the gaps in our understanding. It could just as easily be said that we use science to fill in the gaps of our understanding of God.I've yet to see someone accurately model a gravitational system using religion as a basis. I seem to remember the closest attempt being the theory of crystal spheres.

Knight_Errant

10-Aug-2004, 01:18 PM

Actually, I'd argue that it IS wrong- mot 'chi' practitioners do so for the purposes of telling lies in order to make money.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 02:22 PM

Bunny,
Look at what you have said:
Electromagnetism can be seen and predicted by the effects that it has upon various things. For example if we take a wire, and a magnet, and put them near to each other, then run a current through the wire you will see a definite measurable change in the system. Alternatively the best way to 'see' magnetic fields is to use iron filings on a sheet, and use a solenoid to show the field lines via motion of the iron filings.

Gravity can be seen in various fun effects, including the gravitational lens, and the refraction of light by large bodies of mass. It can also be demonstrated in a lab using rather simple apparatus, again, a measurable effect is demonstrable.

Which theory would you like for the gravity?

Einstein's rubber-sheet explanation

Probably the simplest theory suggests

Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that the world of science has no more real answers to these questions than any mystic or madman, just a great many theories. Theories that change to a startling degree. They do not answer anything, including how not to get hit in the face. You have so much invested in the answers that you have decided upon that you cannot change your perspective. This is a reoccurring theme in the history of physics, in the past people have even been killed who suggested that the established ideas though useful at the time were built with feet of clay. I don’t even mean to suggest that modern theories are wrong, I would however suggest that they are incomplete. Chi is not even an idea contrary to what you know, it is only perceived as such.

Let me try again to illustrate what I mean by Chi. When the wind blow or lightning strikes you could call the lightning “electricity” and the wind, moving air particles, but you could also call it Chi of the earth. Calling it two different things does not change what it is, nor does it invalidate either term. I can tell you that when we eat, breath or lie in the sun we are taking in Chi from nature. You can say NO its oxygen, proteins and photons!!!! Who is right? Who care? Just don’t tell us that the way we view the world is wrong just because you look at it differently.

Live by the lies that keep you safe, happy, and warm. Kurt Vonegut

Polar Bear

10-Aug-2004, 03:12 PM

Hi ALL,
I know this theory debate and you can use empirical data to develop theory. However most scientific theory we have today is based on one principle. Whether the theory can be proven mathematically, once this is possible, then the search for experimentation to prove the theory begins. To effectively provide evidence for the existence of chi as a type of energy then it must exist mathematically, but it doesn't. Magnetism does as with all the other examples some have be using.
However this doesn't mean that the concept of chi doesn't exist. Chi can still be used as a term to describe a particular effect gained from training in a certain way. As long as you are clear on this then I can happy accept chi.

The Bear.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 03:50 PM

Bear, thank you. It is very nice indeed to told that it is O.K. to think for ourselves. And by the way Chi is accepted best when "happy".

Look out we might have to come up with EVIDENCE of the existence of emotions otherwise we will be doomed to never experience them.........after all there just chemical reactions.........it's not like they are REAL or anything right bunny?

Knight_Errant

10-Aug-2004, 04:35 PM

Rubbish. Emotions are palpably, demonstrably real, they produce a measurable effect and have a scientific explanation. 'chi' has none of these things.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 04:53 PM

Where are the pillows...........................

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Aug-2004, 05:26 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that the world of science has no more real answers to these questions than any mystic or madman, just a great many theories. Theories that change to a startling degree. They do not answer anything, including how not to get hit in the face. You have so much invested in the answers that you have decided upon that you cannot change your perspective. This is a reoccurring theme in the history of physics, in the past people have even been killed who suggested that the established ideas though useful at the time were built with feet of clay. I don’t even mean to suggest that modern theories are wrong, I would however suggest that they are incomplete. Chi is not even an idea contrary to what you know, it is only perceived as such. So basically, you're saying that what I'd use scientific terms to describe, you'd call chi? That strikes me a little as explaining computers to a kid as 'its magic'. Show me a single, demonstrable, measurable effect of chi. One that can be replicated in experiments reliably, and I'll quite happily revoke everything I've said.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 05:39 PM

So basically, you're saying that what I'd use scientific terms to describe, you'd call chi? That strikes me a little as explaining computers to a kid as 'its magic'. Show me a single, demonstrable, measurable effect of chi. One that can be replicated in experiments reliably, and I'll quite happily revoke everything I've said.

My god bunny I think you are begining to get this!

It is more like showing a kid the benifit of using a computer but realizing that showing him how to log on is more useful to a kid than trying to explain TCP/IP.

a single, demonstrable, measurable effect of chi?
1. Move your hand up and down.
2. Measure how far you move it, be sure to keep good records so we don't all have to do this.
3. Repeat!

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Aug-2004, 05:42 PM

a single, demonstrable, measurable effect of chi?
1. Move your hand up and down.
2. Measure how far you move it, be sure to keep good records so we don't all have to do this.
3. Repeat!So basically, from my worldview, chi may as well not exist, since its simply a convenient name for you to use for natural biochemical processes?

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 05:56 PM

Well I could even more easily say that you simply use convenient (and very new) names for Chi. Who cares? Just don't say that something does not exist just because you give it a different name or you break it down into different catergories.

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Aug-2004, 06:16 PM

One slight difference is that the categories I use can be quantified, and described in simple terms, as well as being modelled. The other difference is that the terms I use don't carry associations of mysticism/magick/fireballs/etc. I'm not saying that chi includes any of this, as I'm well aware that most people's chi doesn't, however it still unfortunately carries the connotations.

MartialArtsSnob

10-Aug-2004, 06:26 PM

Well I am sure that you will be of great help now in dispeling that notion (mysticism/magick/fireballs/etc) with your new found underdanding. You are absolutly right about the quantification and discriptions being very different. It does come from an entirely different culture after all.

Knight_Errant

10-Aug-2004, 07:13 PM

so...
if I were interested in your 'chi', what kind of exercises would I have to do, and what COULD I expect from it?
In the interests of keeping on-topic...

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 09:23 AM

Qi, is it real or not, can it be felt or not, all very good, but the fact is that we could debate this topic till we are all dead and still not have any definite answer.

Now, it seems to me that some people on this thread have no experience in 'Qi Gong' or an IMA, and it also seems that these same people are the ones arguing against the existence of Qi. Thus, if a person has no experience in a subject, yet argues for or against it, well, it seems a bit strange to say the least. In fact it seems a bit ridiculous, something like me (a non musical instrument player) telling a Jimmy Hendrix that he doesn’t know what real music is. So, this brings me to a question, which has also been brought up by sir Knight "if I were interested in your 'chi', what kind of exercises would I have to do". Do you sir Knight & Bunny have any experience in IMA or 'Qi Gong'? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but from my own experience, before I started practicing Tai Chi and Qi Gong, I had the same sort of notions as our fellow non believers. However, after enough work, Qi moves from being a philosophical or theoretical concept to something tangible, literally something you can touch, as real as the keyboard under my fingers, well, unless that’s not real. So, non believers, perhaps it would give you a more balanced view if you had some experience, and as a final note I'll leave you with the words of Jimmy Hendrix, are you experienced?

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 09:41 AM

Do you sir Knight & Bunny have any experience in IMA or 'Qi Gong'? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but from my own experience, before I started practicing Tai Chi and Qi Gong, I had the same sort of notions as our fellow non believers.I've practiced Tai Chi for a time, I've also had various people attempt to demonstrate chi on me, ranging from empty force, to iron shirt, to reiki healers. I've yet to have any of it work.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 10:00 AM

Hey Bunny,

When I first started training 'Qi Gong', I had a difficult time for the first two weeks, the difficulty came from my mind wanting to feel this new mysterious thing I heard about (Qi). Well, I did not feel a thing, other than stressed out. Then after two weeks, I kept training and persevered. mainly cause I already paid for the course, and at a very specific point when I gave up the intention of trying to feel something I wanted, I started to notice some strange feelings in my hands and body. This in turn, brought me to a realization that as long as you want to feel ‘it’, you actually block the ability to feel, the importance is to feel with a neutral relaxed frame of mind. From that point, the feeling of Qi has grown stronger with practice, I think because my mind overcame the struggle of whether to believe or not. I have also taught 'Qi Gong' to a few people, with mixed results in the beginning, but those who persevered eventually achieved results. So, the only thing I can say is, if it interest you, practice and persevere, and then you can speak from experience. I’m sure if you want something to practice, practitioners on this forum, including myself can provide adequate information for beginning.

FATSAN

11-Aug-2004, 10:04 AM

What would be a working demonstration of iron shirt? And what non-working demonstration did they provide?

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 10:13 AM

Zilla,
I have practiced Aikido and Tai Chi for a number of years. I have trained with practioners who believe in Qi and those who do not. I have not noticed any difference in Tai Chi and Aikido Practioners who believe in Qi and those who do not. This is the reason why I don't "believe" in Qi. If it made a difference I could be convinced but to put it simply it doesn't, therefore it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not.

The Bear.

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 10:15 AM

So, the only thing I can say is, if it interest you, practice and persevere, and then you can speak from experience. I’m sure if you want something to practice, practitioners on this forum, including myself can provide adequate information for beginning.I tried it for six months, during which time I worked hard at it, and didn't 'want' to feel anything, nor did I refuse to believe, since this was before I had the evidence against it starting to stack up in front of me.

What would be a working demonstration of iron shirt? And what non-working demonstration did they provide?The non-working one was simple enough, I wasn't even looking for a demonstration at the time, was simply tempted to join a kung fu class so went along to have a look. Anyway, in showing off the instructor told me that I should hit him as hard as I could in the stomach, and he'd use his chi to ignore the blow. I hit him. He doubled over and threw up. I walked out of the class.

b33p

11-Aug-2004, 10:20 AM

just subscribing to this thread, ill read it later :D

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 10:22 AM

I hope I can throw in a bit of support to Zillabilla.

It's important to understand that chi is a concept central to eastern medical discourse. You can't talk about chi in western scientific terms because it located in an entirely different archive.

However we can compare certain areas of archival knowledge that overlap.

An example: For well over a thousand years chinese medical science has been advising a balanced diet (a good mix of meat, veggies etc). This is evident in traditional eastern cooking. The concept of Chi plays an important in this!

Now, western medical knowledge has only recently realised the importance of a varied diet. Victorian era medical experts believed that fresh green veggies were bad for you - (they thought cocaine was very good though!!!)

Now of course, western science has come a long way since then!

However that doesn't mean that you should dismiss out of hand eastern sciences. - there are still lessons to be learnt. Western medicine is seriously starting to pay attention to established eastern practices. For instance acupuncture is covered by many medical insurers and health organisations like the UK's NHS.

Likewise to trash ideas like chi, when they have played a central role in developing very useful knowledge is just plain silly, especially when western science is not yet in possession of the technology to prove or disprove the idea. - Its not just silly, its unscientific!

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 10:54 AM

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 11:38 AM

Yeah, western medicine sucks.

the bear.

Chill dude! I never said western medicine sucks, or that eastern science is superior to western. All I pointed out was that the same western medical fraternity which you appear to support has not dismissed eastern medical theory out of hand in the same way you have.

Just out of interest, doctors in the west were also keen on prescribing mercury for a wide range of ailments not too long ago. Both sides make mistakes!

Also the life expectancy of China is very good if you compare it to countries in similar economic positions (economic markers are more important - geography 101). Again, evidence that their medical insights can't be dismissed out of hand. You need to compare like with like, not apples and pears. It's basic science.

MartialArtsSnob

11-Aug-2004, 11:46 AM

If you want to feel Chi here is what you have to do. Get out of the way. This is why internal arts are so difficult to "grasp", because you can only feel it by "not grasping". Cheng Man Ching said "Invest in loss", this has meanings on many levels. Ask any artist of any medium, music, painting, dance, etc... the one common thing that they talk about is that when they are at their best is when all goes quiet and they seem to "Watch themselves from outside". This in the martial arts we call "The stillness in motion". This "State" can only be achived through "loss of ego". The harder you "try" the less "In the groove" you find yourself. Tai Chi practice is not a process of building up like other martial arts are, it is a pearing away. What is pared away is stress. Chi (Here we will call it the "bringing to awarness you bodys natural energetic processes") does not "flow" very well through tension.

MartialArtsSnob

11-Aug-2004, 11:52 AM

When it comes to trauma care, Western Medicine is the best in the world by far. You can be shot up and beat up pretty good and as long as you have a pulse when you get emergency help you stand a good chance of making it. This is not so in China. On the other hand the people are living longer than they statisticly should because to them, medicine is about maintaining their health.

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 12:07 PM

MartialArtsSnob : On the other hand the people are living longer than they statisticly should because to them, medicine is about maintaining their health.

Definately agree with you there, their primary health care system is pretty good.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 12:11 PM

Bunny,

The only thing I can say to your comment from my limited amount of knowledge on your experience is ‘you can judge a teacher by his students’. If you have the time and resources to visit the school where I trained, I guarantee you wont be disappointed. The sad fact of the matter is that most IMA schools only teach a very watered down version of the arts, and it takes work to find a competent school. Secondly you would also expect the practitioners of these arts in specific schools to be able to demonstrate the level of their skill, this once again is unfortunately quite rare. There are over 10 million Tai Chi practitioners in China alone, I would estimate that less than 1 % have been taught a true essence of the art, so you can see how finding a good school is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. Non the less there are some very skilled teachers around, if you put the effort in to finding them. Furthermore, the Iron Shirt experience that you had seems like no Iron Shirt at all. The master at one of the schools I have been to in the Far East tested his skill in public by having a three ton army truck with 28 soldiers in it ride over his abdomen, also his students would do similar acts with lighter vehicles. In addition to the above, they would also do al the usual stuff you’d expect from such schools, i.e. bending spears on various body parts, getting hit by the public, smashing brick and coconuts, etc.

Bear,

In case you did not know, the founder of Aikido, Morei Ueshiba studied ‘Ba Gua’ for six years in China before developing his art. And I’m sure you will agree when I say there has not been a single Aikido practitioner that has been able to pull off the sort of feats that the founder could. Furthermore, you say you have come across practitioners that don’t use ‘Qi’ in their Tai Chi. That’s like saying you can drive a petrol engine without petrol. I don’t know where you studied and under which master, or who was your masters master, but it seems to me these individuals were practicing the external aspects of Tai Chi. Tai Chi is a Taoist discipline, it was developed in part, on the basis of the ‘Yi Ching’ and Huang Ti’s (Yellow Emperor, also known as the father of China) writings on internal medicine, both texts emphasize the importance and function of ‘Qi’ in its different manifestations. Furthermore, could the people that you learned from manifest the different energies of IMA’s, or ‘Jing’ (fa jing, peng jing, etc), I highly doubt they would be able to without the use of ‘Qi’. Basically what I’m trying to say is, if the people you learned from had no internal skill, it’s not surprising that your attitude towards ‘Qi’ is as it is. If you expect your comments to be taken seriously, I expect you to show that you practiced with a competent teacher, not some random guy who after spending a month in China, studying from some other random guy, moved back to his city and opened a school. Furthermore with regards to life expectancy the grand master at our school lived to a 104, with no ill health, fully mobile, and very highly skilled. It is more important to know the quality of life the people had before they died, with regards to health and well being, than it is the number of years that they lived. Western medicine can keep a brain dead person alive almost indefinitely, but that is not really life. In the same way western medicine drugs people to strafe off their symptoms and as a result these people live long but painfully horrible lives, you could call them the living dead. I don’t consider that long life.

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 12:49 PM

[QUOTE=ZillaBilla]
Tai Chi is a Taoist discipline, it was developed in part, on the basis of the ‘Yi Ching’ and Huang Ti’s (Yellow Emperor, also known as the father of China) writings on internal medicine, both texts emphasize the importance and function of ‘Qi’ in its different manifestations. Furthermore, could the people that you learned from manifest the different energies of IMA’s, or ‘Jing’ (fa jing, peng jing, etc), I highly doubt they would be able to without the use of ‘Qi’. [QUOTE]

Nonsense. Everything you body can do is limited by it's mechanics. The body cannot break the laws of physics no matter how much you want it to. Therefore 'Qi' is just the flowery description of mechanical processes much in the same way that driving is use to describe the mechanical processes use to drive a car.
To me you sound like the group of African guys who got a potion to make themselves bulletproof then instead of testing it on a hand, they all fire on one poor guy who *amazingly* died. Sad but true. I knew that the guy wouldn't be bulletproof but he believed it, much like you believe in 'Qi'. All I can say is test it. Go to an External MA club that does full contact sparring and ask to fight their best fighter and see how powerful your 'qi' is. Call it proof of concept.

The Bear.

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 12:57 PM

Tell you what, lets make this argument simpler. Can all of you agree on a definition of what you believe chi is, all of the properties it has, and the things it allows you to do. If you can all agree on that, we'll work from there.

binski20

11-Aug-2004, 01:00 PM

Seems to me this thread has derailed. If you dont believe in chi, don't worry about it. It's much like a person believing in God, asking a question and having a non believer butting in trying to say the question is pointless.

I don't believe in chi, but those are my beliefs. If someone else does and wants to ask a question then let those who share the same beliefs help him out.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 01:52 PM

Hey Bear,

Yeah I read about those guys in Africa as well, pretty funny stuff. There is no point in me going to an external MA school and testing my Tai Chi skill, because it is not high enough. However, that is not to say that I have not tried it the other way around. As I mentioned previously I have tested the higher students at the school where I studied before signing up. Before studying Tai Chi, I have had 1 year of Judo, 1 of Karate, 1 of TKD, and 3 years of Kong Chang, on top of which I played rugby for three years and worked consistently for around 4 years, so you could very much say I was an external martial artist and overall muscle and not ‘Qi’ user. The individuals I tested looked like every day people, normal body types, not lean or muscular, in other words someone you would think was completely non martial in appearance, and this includes women. I could not put a finger on these people, unless they let me hit them, from which there was no result anyway, and when I let them hit me the results were so apparent that at that point I (metaphorically) threw everything I thought I knew about strength and martial arts out the metaphoric window, and started from the beginning.

Bunny, it is hard to understand the subject of ‘Qi’, it is even harder to talk about objectively. The reason behind this, once again very difficult to understand without experience, is that the parts of the brain responsible for thinking and feeling are completely different. In other words we can try and take western scientific approaches to explain it but they will not work. These western scientific approaches are manifested from a different part of the mind than that with witch the ‘Qi’ is associated with. The best way to know it is to feel it for yourself, which in turn requires a whole load of conditions, external and internal, to be met. Difficult, but not impossible.

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 01:57 PM

All I can say is test it - Polar Bear

Actually it has been tested quite thouroghly, even western scientists acknowledge it. Tai chi does what it says on the box:

Improved: Blood circulation, flexibility, aerobic capacity, strength, balance.

In addition it assists in warding off: heart disease, diabetes, rhuetism (spelling??), hypertension etc etc

All of the above is very valuable to any martial artist, even top fighters in external MA clubs!!!!

Therefore 'Qi' is just the flowery description of mechanical processes much in the same way that driving is use to describe the mechanical processes use to drive a car. Polar Bear

Again, you're comparing apples and pears. If you want to be scientific about all of this (the way you claim to be) then use proper scientific wording. You're making basic errors, you need to stick to discursive outcomes, otherwise you start losing scientific credibility.

(Off the topic abit but does anyone know of the link to the kyukoshin vs kung fu challenge match, strangly the only guy to come out of it unscathed was the tai chi guy. )

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 02:00 PM

Actually it has been tested quite thouroghly, even western scientists acknowledge it. Tai chi does what it says on the boxAll of those benefits are also benefits of swimming, or any regular exercise. That includes external martial arts, as well as internal. There's a suprise, Tai Chi is a form of exercise, and exercise is good for you. Shock.

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 02:09 PM

No Gyaku,
You are missing the point. I am not say tai chi doesn't work. I am saying that Qi doesn't exist as a real force. I said to zilla to test his Qi not his tai chi, he admitted he could not. I have been told that I have very strong Qi when pushing hands however I don't believe in Qi, so I assume what my instructors mean is that the effect I produce is the same as their idea of Qi.
Do you believe in empty force also?

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 02:16 PM

There's a suprise, Tai Chi is a form of exercise, and exercise is good for you. Shock.LilBunnyRabbit

I'm not sure of your point? It would be great if you could explain it a bit further ;)

These western scientific approaches are manifested from a different part of the mind than that with witch the ‘Qi’ is associated with. ZillaBilla

Now ZillaBilla is mixing comparing apples and pears! As I said before, if you want to have a rational discussion on chi, you got to start at points of archival overlap. Right now you're going around in circles.

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 02:26 PM

I am saying that Qi doesn't exist as a real force. Polar Bear

How can you claim that one either way? From a scientific rational point of view the jury is still out.

I don't believe or disbelieve it. I do believe its theoretical outcomes like good posture (focus on developing core stability), moderate diet etc suggest that it cannot be dismissed out of hand, as I mentioned before, even western science is taking in interest in chi theory. If I take up your extreme point of view without good cause I risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 02:27 PM

I'm not sure of your point? It would be great if you could explain it a bit further Basically that Tai Chi having the same benefits as a decent exercise routine is neither suprising, nor any evidence of chi.

How can you claim that one either way? From a scientific rational point of view the jury is still out.No, the jury isn't still out. The jury's made up its mind, however that does not stop people continuing research since there's always the possibility that everything we know is wrong. However there is still absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 02:44 PM

Basically that Tai Chi having the same benefits as a decent exercise routine is neither suprising, nor any evidence of chi.

It would be from a chinese medical point of view. But again there is that apples and pears thing again!

The jury's made up its mind

No it hasn't. Chinese medicine has made some inroads into western medicine. The number of dual practising GP's is quite staggering and growing. All this with good cause. Even the NHS ascribes to it for aspects of primary and palliative care. They're not doing this 'just in case they're wrong'.

If you want to talk about serious scientific evalutions of chi, you would have to find some way of operationalising and measuring it. Until then, the jury is out - I suspect though that the whole apples and pears issue is here to stay.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 02:47 PM

Forest animals,

I’ve know of quite a few cases, where people who have been given up on by modern medicine have made quite remarkable recoveries, (can send a link if you want, though its not the same as speaking with them) though I would not go as far as saying it’s a guarantee. With regards to IMA’s being the same as other exercises, yes if done only externally, it is very true, which is also unfortunately the majority of the cases. But, when done internally, there is no other sport that can constantly elevate your skill, and allows you to practice, more or less till you’re dead. My great grand master lived to 104, and remained fit, flexible and extremely powerful till his death. No other discipline can offer that. You will find this case repeated with many great masters.

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 02:53 PM

ZillaBilla

So if we take what you are saying further: that taichi, will elongate for life more than external systems?

Not happy with that one. Statistics show that the okinawans have greater longevity than anyone else in the world - shouldn't taichi practioners take up okinawan karate instead?

Knight_Errant

11-Aug-2004, 02:56 PM

Western people throwing gonads at chinese medicine? AS IF! In my experience, it's the ignorant holists who try and shout down the westerners. I've read stuff by people to whom 'western' is a dirty word. They should shut up a lot more.

Qi, is it real or not, can it be felt or not, all very good, but the fact is that we could debate this topic till we are all dead and still not have any definite answer.

That is a non-argument, and frequently a trollish one.

In any case, if it is real, how can you develop it, by what yardstick do you measure your success, and what methodology is behind its development?
if nobody can answer all three of these questions, I'll have no alternative but to declare chi bunk.

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 02:58 PM

So ,ok.
Do you believe in all the eastern teachings? Or are you just picking and choosing what suits you? Come on what about empty force and the supposed ability to knock people over at distance with chi? Any takers?

The Bear.

timmeh!

11-Aug-2004, 03:01 PM

In any case, if it is real, how can you develop it, by what yardstick do you measure your success, and what methodology is behind its development?
if nobody can answer all three of these questions, I'll have no alternative but to declare chi bunk.

One way would be to do Tai chi, or Bagwa Zhang, or one the softer forms of Aikido for a period of time.

I hated the water till I was taught to swim.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 03:14 PM

In any case, if it is real, how can you develop it, by what yardstick do you measure your success, and what methodology is behind its development?
if nobody can answer all three of these questions, I'll have no alternative but to declare chi bunk.

1) Developed through Qi Gong or IMA's, though they intertwine anyway.

2) Measure, in terms of martial, what can you break, how many opponents can you take on, how much 'jing' can you manifest. Some masters can feel your level of Qi. Your body resilience. The possibilities are endless.

3) Methodology, the Taoist canon (a vast and ancient collection of texts on this matter), and many more esoteric and more modern texts.

This is where I study www.namwahpai.com .. have a read if you wish, I think it will answer alot of your questions. You may find this link inforamtive as well http://web.singnet.com.sg/~limttk/ . And bear, who was your last comment to?

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Aug-2004, 03:23 PM

It would be from a chinese medical point of view. But again there is that apples and pears thing again!Wow, I've been practicing my chi for years without even realising it, by doing swimming.

I’ve know of quite a few cases, where people who have been given up on by modern medicine have made quite remarkable recoveries, (can send a link if you want, though its not the same as speaking with them) though I would not go as far as saying it’s a guarantee.Yep, and there are also cases of people recovering entirely on their own. Occasionally it happens, occasionally people who're completely healthy fall over dead. Individual cases are not statistically reliable.

If you want to talk about serious scientific evalutions of chi, you would have to find some way of operationalising and measuring it.So the fact that every single experiment or investigation done into chi has turned up no evidence other than anecdotal is simply because Western science is insufficient, and has nothing to do with the possibility that in fact nothing has been discovered, because there's nothing to discover.

My great grand master lived to 104, and remained fit, flexible and extremely powerful till his death. No other discipline can offer that. You will find this case repeated with many great masters.Grandmaster Choi of CKD is currently in his 70s (I think, can't quite remember), in my opinion he is perhaps the best martial artist I have ever seen, remaining fit, flexible and extremely powerful, as well as having excellent technical ability. There is no chi aspect to Choi Kwang Do, so do you think it might be that there are some remarkable people out there who train and work their entire lives, and just stay good throughout?

One way would be to do Tai chi, or Bagwa Zhang, or one the softer forms of Aikido for a period of time.Done six months worth of Tai Chi, nearly a year of Aikido (yes, under an instructor who believes in chi and teaches it). Yet to see anything convincing.

Measure, in terms of martial, what can you break, how many opponents can you take on, how much 'jing' can you manifest. Some masters can feel your level of Qi. Your body resilience. The possibilities are endless.So basically if someone has pretty much supernatural strength, fighting ability and toughness, then we can say that chi exists? I wouldn't say that having a master feel someone's level of chi is exactly a convincing argument for its existence.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 03:24 PM

Unlucky then mate. Mybe its just not your path.

Polar Bear

11-Aug-2004, 03:53 PM

You Zilla.

ZillaBilla

11-Aug-2004, 04:03 PM

Bear..

Empty force, well never seen it, though have seen people moved from a distance by a Qi Gong master, for healing purposes. Also saw the same master, stick about 30 mobile phones to his torso (that’s without adhesive). With regards to eastern teachings, and ancient western teachings, we'll call them esoteric schools of thought, I study those that come my way, from my understanding, they all have the same principles in common, that includes Christianity and Islam. Anyway work is over, I’m going home, enjoy.

timmeh!

11-Aug-2004, 04:12 PM

Done six months worth of Tai Chi, nearly a year of Aikido (yes, under an instructor who believes in chi and teaches it). Yet to see anything convincing.

It's good you have an open mind to it - which is the first stage to feeling it.

All I can say is you need to do it for longer ;)

MartialArtsSnob

11-Aug-2004, 04:22 PM

It's good you have an open mind to it - which is the first stage to feeling it.

All I can say is you need to do it for longer ;)

Or maybe just better?

Gyaku

11-Aug-2004, 11:13 PM

Come on what about empty force and the supposed ability to knock people over at distance with chi? Polar Bear

Good point PolarBear - I agree with you! I think that if people were to me make these kinds of claims they would need to provide some credible proof. Personally I would like to see some kind of evidence from ZillaBilla regarding that mobile phone stunt.
It's a bit far fetched, I don't know of any genuine qi gong theory that would argue that its even possible...

Wow, I've been practicing my chi for years without even realising it, by doing swimming.LilBunnyRabbit

Short answer - yes. qi gong theory argues that pretty much any exercise (unless it causes physical or mental damage) is beneficial to qi development - even Choi Kwang Do!

So the fact that every single experiment or investigation done into chi has turned up no evidence other than anecdotal is simply because Western science is insufficient, and has nothing to do with the possibility that in fact nothing has been discovered, because there's nothing to discover.LilBunnyRabbit
1. More money and time has gone into finding a cure for cancer. So far that hasn't been found. If we took your extremist line of argument it never will be found.
2. Western science IS insufficient. A fact that is agreed upon by pretty much every major scientist and philosopher this century and the last. Khun, Popper, Hawking, Foucault, Penrose, Shroedinger....
3. You're still comparing apples and pears again!

Individual cases are not statistically reliable.LilBunnyRabbit
Ok, this part of your argument is more intelligent, you're not comparing apples and pears, you're using sound operationable arguements. Good!

BUT, you're ill informed...

There is a great deal of research into the positive effective
of chinese scientific outcomes like taichi and acupuncture. Even if you take the placebo effect into account, qi theory based practices have been shown to be significantly effective in dealing with a wide range of ailments such as hypertension and chronic pain relief. It has been for this reason that medical experts in the NHS have taken on chinese medical practices.

They should shut up a lot more. Knight_Errant

I thought western science was about the free exchange of information and ideas?

Smee

12-Aug-2004, 12:13 AM

Nice discussion. Lilbunnywabbit and polarbear had a go at me over on the kick ass moves BBC3 thread as well and I must admit, I considered crying at one point - Chi - not real?? Surely NOT!!!.......nasty lil mammals....

zillbilla et al - you'll see a sympathetic ear over in that thread.

Anyways, classic egomaniacal world domineering scientists against touchy feely tree huggers argument. Don't you just love it?

I think the main point to be extracted from the posts so far is the incredible damage done to "chi" through the charlatans and fakers that exist out there. For those with a very narrow field of vision its one strike and you're out.

Also, have to laugh at the iron shirt demo. Iron shirt isn't just Qigong breathing exercises - it's mainly about repeatedely striking the body to condition it against various blows combined appopriate breathing techniques. Don't for one minute think that Iron Shirt is achieved through some tai chi type of approach. It is painful and very, very long term, hard work.

I can call something Iron Shirt but that doesn't mean it IS iron shirt. For "scientists" I see a very quick rush to judgement. Shouldn't you guys seek out a representative sample?

Paul

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:21 AM

I think the main point to be extracted from the posts so far is the incredible damage done to "chi" through the charlatans and fakers that exist out there. For those with a very narrow field of vision its one strike and you're out.Paul

Nice post, you took the words out of my mouth!

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 01:07 AM

More money and time has gone into finding a cure for cancer. So far that hasn't been found. If we took your extremist line of argument it never will be found.Not true, treatments for cancer have been found, not definite cures, but treatments, so that we know its possible. Also a cure for cancer is a life or death subject, whether chi exists or not isn't. There are also promising lines of research on cures for cancer, ones where results are actually visible. Not instant cure results, but improvements.

Western science IS insufficient. A fact that is agreed upon by pretty much every major scientist and philosopher this century and the last. Khun, Popper, Hawking, Foucault, Penrose, Shroedinger....Western science is incomplete, it does not contain a complete description of the universe. I'd say that the scientific method though is fairly effective, and so far chi hasn't passed the proof stage, or even the evidence stage.

Even if you take the placebo effect into account, qi theory based practices have been shown to be significantly effective in dealing with a wide range of ailments such as hypertension and chronic pain relief.Tell me, have any sceptics been helped by qi theory based techniques? Has an actual disease been cured through it, or is it more nervous conditions and pain relief?

I think the main point to be extracted from the posts so far is the incredible damage done to "chi" through the charlatans and fakers that exist out there. For those with a very narrow field of vision its one strike and you're out.Not true, I have an open mind, I just don't keep it so open that my brain falls out. I ask for evidence, scientifically acceptable evidence, that's all.

Smee

12-Aug-2004, 01:09 AM

It's a bit late but thought this might add a bit of chi to the discussion. ;)

From Yang Jwing Ming's White Crane Book (and I apologize for paraphrasing) - " Often people ask me the same question; is jogging, weightlifting, or dancing a king of QiGong practice? To answer this question let us trace back Qigong history to Qin and Han dynastic periods. Then you can see that the origins of many Qigong practices were actually in dancing.Through dancing the physical body was exercised and the healthy condition of the physical body was maintained. blah blah blah....african and native american dancers....blah blah... NATURALLY, JOGGING, WEIGHT LIFTING OR EVEN WALKING ARE A KIND OF QIGONG PRACTICE. THEREFORE WE CAN SAY THAT ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS ABLE TO REGULATE THE QI CIRCULATION WITHIN THE BODY IS A QIGONG PRACTICE."

"blah de blah.....The more physical effort and less mind is needed ( the more Yang). This can be aerobic dancing, walking etc etc where the mind useage is relatively little in comparison with the physical action. ....this is classified as layman Qigong (no real specialist training needed)."

"in the mid point, the mind and the physical activity are almost equally important. This kind of Qigong will be the slow moving Qigong commonly practiced (tai chi etc)"

"However, when you reach a profound level of Qigong practice the mind becomes more important (YIN)- bleh de bleh de blih blah bleh....."

"THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, IN ORDER TO HAVE GOOD HEALTH, YOU WILL NEED TO MAINTAIN YOUR PHYSICAL CONDITION AND ALSO BUILD UP ABUNDANT QI IN YOUR BODY. THE BEST QIGONG FOR HEALTH IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR MODEL, WHERE YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO REGULATE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY AND ALSO YOUR MIND. FROM THIS YIN AND YANG PRACTICE, YOUR QI CAN BE CIRCULATED SMOOTHLY IN THE BODY."

What's so mystical about this? In other words, by practicing Qigong you will be more "in control of yourself", "less stressed", and "more relaxed" - enabling you to circulate and express "energy" more freely within your body i.e "have more energy", "be more enthusiastic", "have more get up and go". Wow - these chinese medicine guys are really at odds with modern thinking!!!!

As far as martial arts Qi Gong goes - some people like to push in a certain direction to achieve a certain purpose. However, the principle is the same e.g iron shirt. No-one really is suggesting that you can achieve amazing resistance to blows through basic breathing exercises - there is a balance to be struck between hard and soft activities. But like the taiji symbol - you cant have all yang or all Yin. There must be some yin within yang and vice versa.

It's only mystical if some clown tells you that its mystical.

Paul

gerard

12-Aug-2004, 06:58 AM

Sorry if I disagree Paul but the qi you are describing is EXTERNAL QI (wai qi) very different than the one practiced by doing either QiGong or the internal arts. The latter is called internal qi or "nei qi". Ideally we should train both, but by training only the former you are just fooling yourself if you think you can compare yourself to a Taiji or Qigong master, for example.

Regards, Gerard.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 08:03 AM

It's amazing, If you have spend 13 years in martial arts, 5 of which training in IMA and you say that you have never seen anything that can't atributed to normal body function, you have not studied enough. However if you have seen a guy stick some phones to his body (nice radiation) then you are on the path to enlightenment. This is a joke, surely, exactly the reason that IMA are getting laughed at.

The Bear.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 08:51 AM

so far chi hasn't passed the proof stage, or even the evidence stage. LilBunnyRabbit

Apples and pears again. You really don't know much about the scientific method do you? You can't directly study chi from a scientific point of view because you can't operationalise or measure it. However we do know that qi theories have produced (independantly of western science) some extremely useful practise, some of which the west has only recently discovered.

Tell me, have any sceptics been helped by qi theory based techniques?

Good point - and something that we can operationalise and measure...

Lets give an example (one that CAN be oprationalised and measured):

Acute injuries have no significant placebo connection. Lets say we amputate your little finger as an experiment. Chinese medicine argues that the wound needs to be cleaned and dressed with a clean dressing, the dressing should also be kept clean, and replaced when it gets dirty. This is considered good practise in western medical circles, although we've only come to appreciate it about 150 years ago.

Now this is just one of many scientifically verifiable positive outcomes of chinese medicine.

The fact that so many positive outcomes have emerged from chinese medicine strongly suggests that it is not just a random crack pot theory. It's too consistant! Chinese medicine is growing in popularity amongst western doctors - and as I mentioned before even medical experts in the NHS (the UK's National Health Service) and major medical insurers have begun to embrace chinese medicine.

I think the genuine article has been smudged over by too many crack-pots and fraudsters - see mobile phones!

It's only mystical if some clown tells you that its mystical.Paul

Another brilliant post Paul - no mobile phones to be seen!

Sorry if I disagree Paul but the qi you are describing is EXTERNAL QI (wai qi) very different than the one practiced by doing either QiGong or the internal arts. The latter is called internal qi or "nei qi". Ideally we should train both, but by training only the former you are just fooling yourself if you think you can compare yourself to a Taiji or Qigong master, for example.Regards, Gerard.

Not too sure Gerard, Paul has cited a pretty good reference in Yang Jwing Ming. I'm inclined to agree with Paul.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 09:23 AM

Bear, it would be better if you would actually say who you’re speaking to.

Anyhow, a phrase keeps coming to mind ‘Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it’, and if you did not work hard enough or your teacher was crap, well then, unlucky.

Bear, why do you keep mentioning enlightenment ? no one has brought that up, its not even a Taoist belief, its Buddhist & Hindu. If you are trying to be a smart ass, well, let me enlighten you, you just making yourself look a fool.

Believe don’t believe, do what ever the frig you want. I couldn’t give two big bear craps, but trying to convince people that they have not seen and felt what they have seen and felt, is insulting, its like calling someone delusional or a liar. In case you have not noticed, we are living on a ball that is spinning very fast around other spheres in a constantly expanding vacuum. We don’t know what we are or what we are for? What consciousness is and whether its even real? And you think the concept of ‘Qi’ is bizarre. How about Quantum Physics, does that seem strange to you ? People used to think the world was flat too. The only thing you can be sure of is humans don’t know anything about existence, and all the science in the world might make you feel safe, like you know what’s going on, but in reality its no questions have been answered. ‘People fear what they don’t understand’, I’m sure you’ve heard that before. If you feel safe and satisfied hiding behind science, its your life.

IMA’s getting laughed at ? Well, its funny you should say that. Lao Tzu - a wise man practises the Tao, the middle man admires it, the fool laughs at it.

FATSAN

12-Aug-2004, 09:27 AM

The problem here is that the people on the side of science are only prepared to accept what has already been proven – Therefore there can be no discussion and they will just sit there and tear apart everyone who tries to step outside the box. It’s a very safe position to take on a discussion forum only putting forward other peoples work. They can never provide anything new as they are only prepared to tread where others have gone before. I’m sure there are many people that today are regarded as notable scientists, however, in their time, were regarded as fools because they spent years searching for something that their experiences and instincts suggested was there but they could not prove it and were ridiculed because they did not agree with the accepted science of the time. And it’s possibly worth mentioning that had you been around the same time as them, you would probably be doubting the very peoples shoulders you stand upon today.

Not to say you don’t have a use in science discovery – Your un-yielding single minded attitude has probably provided the drive for some of the greatest discoveries

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 09:31 AM

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 09:48 AM

Regarding the mobile phone thing, if you don’t believe me, feel free to fly down to Singapore, enjoy the sunny tropical climate and far eastern cuisine, and I'll give you the address of the Qi Gong masters practice so you can go see for yourself, oh and bring your mobile. ZillaBilla

You paying for it? ;)

Obviously that isn't practical, but surely there must be some kind alternative evidence you could provide, a link to a newspaper article, video clip, something! I mean, getting a bunch of mobiles phones to stick to you is pretty impressive.

but trying to convince people that they have not seen and felt what they have seen and felt, is insulting, its like calling someone delusional or a liar

You've knowingly gone on a public forum..people argue, thats what the forum is for. Surely you didn't think everybody would just believe you when you mentioned the mobile stunt? I'm an advocate of qi gong and even I'm skeptical.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 10:14 AM

Na, sorry man, don’t really have any evidence, though I got some links to videos and a pic in this thread http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18610, though I wouldn’t call it evidence. However, I have seen a documentary on discovery channel, It was something regarding IMA's from what I remember, there was an Indonesian man who could make a chain stick to his body, and pull a car with it, and some other weird stuff, though I don’t fully believe or disbelieve anything untill I see it or try it myself. But yeah I'll get you that ticket to Singapore... right after I buy that private jumbo jet with 40 playmates, portable micro brewery and hemp plantation, will keep you posted on that one.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 10:18 AM

I'll give you the address of the Qi Gong masters practice ZillaBilla

Well at least give me the address, something I can work on!

Johnno

12-Aug-2004, 10:51 AM

You don't need to believe in chi. You don't need to believe in gravity either, but you won't fall off the face of the earth!

The concept of chi was developed by the Chinese way back when. They developed a number of concepts to explain natural phenomena. Thousands of years later, Western science investigates the same natural phenomena and comes up with explanations which fit with what the Chinese discovered by observation, but which use different terms and which were arrived at by a diametrically opposite approach.

The western scientific approach breaks things down into smaller and smaller parts, always searching for answers but simply discovering more and more questions. The ancient Chinese took the opposite approach and tried to explain how the whole universe worked. So when they deduced the fundamental principles behind matter, energy, etc. they came up with concepts like chi to explain them. It was like a 'top-down' approach, as opposed to 'bottom-up'. They tried to explain the whole and then applied the principle to it's parts, rather than just trying to explain every part individually. I think its called a holistic approach or something like that.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 10:54 AM

Man Cheng Acupuncture Qigong Centre
Blk 328,
Clementi Ave 2,
#01-204,
Singapore
Tel: 6776 3903

However, if you’re actually going down there, then do let me know, there are a load of Qi Gong masters and organisations in Singapore, I’ve seen a few of them, but would have to check with my master about which exact one we saw do the mobile phone thing, though I do think that its the one who’s address is above, though I did not write down the postcode and have no clue what his name is, though he was the head at that organisation. Plus there are a lot of other interesting IMA demonstrations to have a look at in Singapore. Like I say if youre really thinking of checking it out, let me know and I'll send you more detailed info.

Knight_Errant

12-Aug-2004, 10:57 AM

I thought western science was about the free exchange of information and ideas?
Yup. Ideas that are ratified by research and trials. If you published any of this 'chi' stuff in a normal journal, you'd be thrown out of the establishment- and deservedly so.

Chi is not 'holistic'. I have great respect for REAL holistic work. It is pseudoscientific. There are no effects that need explaining, therefore any explanation is bogus.

For those with a very narrow field of vision its one strike and you're out.
You guys just can't make any point without insulting science can you? I take it by 'narrow field of vision', you mean people who choose not to believe something if it can't be proved?

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 10:58 AM

Zilla,

I don't know if your are clinically delusional or not, however, I know that people who want to believe things delude themselves every day.

You see, I keep my mind open but and try to be objective, this means you must prove everything. I have no faith. Anthing built on faith is built on a house of cards. Without faith you can accept reality and prepare for the challenges. Faith is the slavery of the mind. The 'QI' system requires faith, and therefore it is enslaving it's practioners. It may make you feel warm and cosy to believe it but it is a cage none the less. Like all faith systems it is a well constructed trap. If it fails it is either your fault or destiny, if it suceeds it takes the glory.

The faithless road will not bring inner peace, there will never be answers, but the journey is worthwhile.

The (faithless) Bear.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 11:06 AM

I had a look at their website no mobile phones. However I have emailed them to verify your claims. It would be useful if you had the chaps name.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 11:15 AM

Hey Gyaku,

I'll try and get it for you, though may take a while.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 11:17 AM

There are no effects that need explaining, therefore any explanation is bogus.Knight_Errant

Not sure what you mean.

you'd be thrown out of the establishment- and deservedly so.

I think the NHS would be counted as 'the establishment' and medical experts there have shown a growing increase in chinese medicine, acupuncture etc.

Chi is not 'holistic'
How is it not holistic? It covers the relationship between diet, exercise etc A pretty non-reductionistic view. Seems holistic to me. Do you know what holistic means?

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 11:19 AM

The Tiger has to hunt
The Bird has to fly
Man has to sit and wonder why, why, why

The Tiger has to rest
The Bird has to land
and Man has to tell himself that he understand.......

Kurt Vonagut

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 11:23 AM

Bear,

You may need a bit of faith in the beginning, as with everything, or you’d never do anything. But if you work at it you can feel and see the results. So, no its not like I go around going I believe, I believe, that’s just <<watch your language please>> . When you can feel it in your self, its as evident as the earth under your feet, no faith required.

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 11:28 AM

You really don't know much about the scientific method do you? You can't directly study chi from a scientific point of view because you can't operationalise or measure it. However we do know that qi theories have produced (independantly of western science) some extremely useful practise, some of which the west has only recently discovered.I'm sorry, but the scientific method involves research, experimentation and evidence. I don't see why you can't study chi from a scientific point of view, if it exists then it supposedly must have actual effects and so those can be measured. Seems simple enough to me. Is it just that every time chi is tested by science it fails, so of course science must be getting it wrong?

Chinese medicine argues that the wound needs to be cleaned and dressed with a clean dressing, the dressing should also be kept clean, and replaced when it gets dirty. This is considered good practise in western medical circles, although we've only come to appreciate it about 150 years ago.Yep, good practice. What does it have to do with chi? Yes, the theory may have produced some effective results, or alternatively someone could have noticed that with washed wounds people tend to live longer, and have built something into the theory to explain why.

Anyhow, a phrase keeps coming to mind ‘Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it’, and if you did not work hard enough or your teacher was crap, well then, unlucky. Because of course the system is perfect so if it fails its the fault of the teacher or student. Or from other experiences I've had the acupuncturist, or the reiki healer.

And you think the concept of ‘Qi’ is bizarre. How about Quantum Physics, does that seem strange to you ?Quantum physics has actually been tested time and time again, by people who desperately wanted to disprove it. Once the evidence reached a satisfactory level it was accepted.

The problem here is that the people on the side of science are only prepared to accept what has already been proven – Therefore there can be no discussion and they will just sit there and tear apart everyone who tries to step outside the box.If by outside the box you mean anyone who's putting forward a theory with no evidence or experimentation to back it up then yep, I will sit there and tear them apart. However if someone were actually to perform a genuine, carefully thought out experiment on the area then I'd listen to their results. So far though no one seems willing to do this.

They can never provide anything new as they are only prepared to tread where others have gone before.Which is where of course Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Planck, and many others all trod, isn't it? No. They followed the path that was laid out until they got to a bit they didn't like, then stepped off it and tried to find their own way, backed up by experimental evidence.

but trying to convince people that they have not seen and felt what they have seen and felt, is insulting, its like calling someone delusional or a liar I've seen and felt things that I know are illusions, or rather hallucinations, I know exactly how much the human mind can construct in order to support an idea it likes.

You may need a bit of faith in the beginning, as with everything, or you’d never do anything. But if you work at it you can feel and see the results. So, no its not like I go around going I believe, I believe, that’s just bollocks. When you can feel it in your self, its as evident as the earth under your feet, no faith required.People say the same thing about religion, what's your point?

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 11:54 AM

I've seen and felt things that I know are illusions, or rather hallucinations, I know exactly how much the human mind can construct in order to support an idea it likes.

People say the same thing about religion, what's your point?

Well, since Qi Gong and IMA work directly with the mind and its various aspects, i.e. delving in to the depths of the mind for various purposes, then arguably the practitioners know more about the workings of the mind than you do.

Like I say, anything a man does requires some faith, let me give you an example, if I go to turn on my PC I have faith that it will turn on, otherwise I would not do it. Another, I go to the shop to get groceries, i have faith that I will be alive tomorrow to eat them groceries. And you have faith in your argument, otherwise you would not bother. So, it seems to me it requires as much faith as everything else does. Would you practice your MA if you did not think it had beneficial results? Oh, wait but you can see the results, well so can I.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:14 PM

but the scientific method involves research, experimentation and evidence

There is where the problem lies. Before you can scientifically begin to experiment on something you need to be able to operationalise the variables. You can't do that in this case. So you get stuck before you begin. This is Research Design 101. So from a scientific point of view you can't talk about 'testing' chi. The experiment would unfortunatly be invalid before its even conducted.

What does it have to do with chi? Yes, the theory may have produced some effective results, or alternatively someone could have noticed that with washed wounds people tend to live longer, and have built something into the theory to explain why.

Not sure about your point? See top. Can you explain it a bit further?

if it exists then it supposedly must have actual effects

Again you're doing the apples and pears thing again. You're assuming that it MUST behave in the manner a western model predicts it should or should not. Apples and pears! They come from two different discourses. They're NOT compatible.

I've seen and felt things that I know are illusions, or rather hallucinations, I know exactly how much the human mind can construct in order to support an idea it likes.

Good point, I agree. But don't forget, this arguement goes both ways.

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 12:20 PM

Again you're doing the apples and pears thing again. You're assuming that it MUST behave in the manner a western model predicts it should or should not. Apples and pears! They come from two different discourses. They're NOT compatible.If it doesn't have effects, then why bother arguing that it exists? If the effects can't be measured then there's no evidence even for those who practice it that they're doing something effective.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:33 PM

I'm not saying there are no effects, its just that we can't operationalise them in terms of a valid scientific discourse.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 12:34 PM

If it doesn't have effects, then why bother arguing that it exists? If the effects can't be measured then there's no evidence even for those who practice it that they're doing something effective.

Right on Bunny. If 'qi' has an effect then it should be able to be measured.

The Bear

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 12:35 PM

I'm not saying there are no effects, its just that we can't operationalise them in terms of a valid scientific discourse.

Why Not? What is so different that it cannot be measured?

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 12:39 PM

No effects, seems like a reasonable comment, or completely mad. There are at least three high level martial arts based on it, and various other ones. If 'Qi' doesn’t exist, then they don’t exist either. But wait, they do exist.. hmmm... since they are fully internal and based on 'Qi', well maybe 'Qi' exists as well... or maybe these people are just delusionaly wasting their time.. hmmm, well that would mean that there has been a lot of time wasted along the different lineages, centuries if not millennia. What about people like Yang Lu Chan, the founder of Yang Style... he must have been a nut.. deluding himself and all around.. but wait he was never defeated and was an imperial bodyguard, that’s weird.. or how about the Ba Gua practitioner who single headedly saved the Dowager princess, well maybe he was mad too. Can you prove that you exist, and that its not some kind of illusion or dream?

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:41 PM

Polar Bear.If 'qi' has an effect then it should be able to be measured

How would you measure it to show it isn't there? You can't. You can't even operationalise it.

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 12:41 PM

You measure it the same way as happieness.....you don't. You just feel it and smile.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 12:47 PM

You measure it the same way as happieness.....you don't. You just feel it and smile.

But you can measure happiness. The brain chemistry changes when you feel emotions. So what is different about 'qi'?

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyaku
I'm not saying there are no effects, its just that we can't operationalise them in terms of a valid scientific discourse.

Why Not? What is so different that it cannot be measured?
Today 01:34 PM

Note: I said operationalise, not measure! You can't measure BEFORE you operationalise. What you are suggesting is scientifically invalid.

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 12:50 PM

I keep looking and looking but I can't see the forest......there are just too many darn trees.................

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 12:54 PM

But you can measure happiness. The brain chemistry changes when you feel emotions. So what is different about 'qi'?

So bear, where is this hapiness measuring machine youve been hiding from us.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:55 PM

But you can measure happiness. The brain chemistry changes when you feel emotions. So what is different about 'qi'?

Well in the case you're presenting above, then you can measure chi, chemical and physiological changes (changes in heart rate etc) can also be measured after a session of tai chi. However as in the above example, in actual fact you're measuring chemical changes, not qi or happiness. Neither of which are part of scientific discourse. So both peices of research would techniically be invalid.

teacher

12-Aug-2004, 12:56 PM

Gyaku why cant you operationalise it? Because it produces no measurable effect?

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 12:57 PM

So bear, where is this hapiness measuring machine youve been hiding from us.

I hear the pixies want it back...just a joke! We take ourselves so seriously sometimes - and thats me included!

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 01:00 PM

How would you measure it to show it isn't there? You can't. You can't even operationalise it.In which case you also can't show that it is there, so it may as well not be.

teacher

12-Aug-2004, 01:01 PM

Sorry Gyaku my contributionwas a little late.
One of my teachers said it was enough to consider chi as a way of bringing about relaxation. That does not mean it exists as anything other than a mental attitude that might help my progression. I was happy with that.
It's when I hear people trying to make something more out of it that I get a bit uneasy. And I am afraid many chi supporters will persist in trying to use poorly understood physics to actually bolster their arguments.
The electron can be a wave or a particle and western science doesn't know :eek:

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 01:04 PM

teacher:

You need to operationalise before you measure. Otherwise how do you know what you're measuring?

Because 'qi gong' comes from a non-scientific discourse you can't operationalise it in valid scientific terms. It would be like trying to explain an apple in terms of a pear. I suppose another way would be to explain, is that you would be defining it out of context.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 01:11 PM

It's when I hear people trying to make something more out of it that I get a bit uneasy

No arguement from this end. There was an earlier piece about some guy and 30 mobile phones. Now that made me feel uneasy!

teacher

12-Aug-2004, 01:13 PM

Gyaku the term operationalise is not one in common usage and you wield it well. I accept that it is good practice to clearly establish your procedures but if the effects of chi affect the physical world then there is a physical effect to be measured. If it has no effect on the physical world then it may be a useful psychological tool.I have seen beginners who are so self conscious they try too hard , relaxing may allow them to make better progress.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 01:28 PM

but if the effects of chi affect the physical world then there is a physical effect to be measured.

But that is problematic. Let me provide an hypothetical example. We take 1000 randomly chosen tai chi practitioners and hook them up to various electrodes etc

We get them to do a set of tai chi. We record in all cases there is an upward change in heart rate.

Now how do we interprete this data?

Unfortunatly, just because there is a measurable effect does not prove that 'chi' was the factor. Effectivly the measurement is meaningless. Why do we have this problem? Because of poor operationalising.

Nice to have someone on the thread who actually knows a bit about science! ;)

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 01:41 PM

No arguement from this end. There was an earlier piece about some guy and 30 mobile phones. Now that made me feel uneasy!

Did you not say you e-mailed them ? Any reply yet? (they are 8 hours ahead of GMT though)

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 01:57 PM

Here is a quote from the shaolin temple UK website, doesn’t really explain much, but I though I would post it anyway.

http://www.shaolintempleuk.org

Qi Gong

Qi gong is a slow internal practice where the breath and movement are co-ordinated together to develop and store the Qi. The Qi is a special energy in the body that cannot be seen or measured, and which can only be experienced and developed through continuous practice.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 01:57 PM

But that is problematic. Let me provide an hypothetical example. We take 1000 randomly chosen tai chi practitioners and hook them up to various electrodes etc

We get them to do a set of tai chi. We record in all cases there is an upward change in heart rate.

Now how do we interprete this data?

Unfortunatly, just because there is a measurable effect does not prove that 'chi' was the factor. Effectivly the measurement is meaningless. Why do we have this problem? Because of poor operationalising.

Nice to have someone on the thread who actually knows a bit about science! ;)

yeah but you could devise better tests than that one. Anyone can devise a crap test, the people who know about science devise a test that could produce valuable results.
Ask the tai to push without chi and with chi. Measure the force, measure the brain activity, measure muscle activity and model the posture. See if there are differences.
Am I still talking apples and pears.

The Bear.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 02:01 PM

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 02:07 PM

If it can't be seen or measured how do you know your not just imagining it?
I can imagine I'm the strongest man in the world but it has no impact on anyone else but me.

But thats the thing, you can see techniques that use it, and use it very effectively.

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 02:10 PM

If it can't be seen or measured how do you know your not just imagining it?
I can imagine I'm the strongest man in the world but it has no impact on anyone else but me.

That is funny that you say that since most all very high level athletes will tell you that imagining is one of the most powerful tool in their training to get results.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 02:39 PM

Well guys it's been fun but I think we've came to a stalemate.

I will stick to my western values. It has built the greatest martial forces in history and to me it's more about the winning the fight than feeling the 'qi'.

The Bear.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 02:44 PM

So what do you mean by "greatest martial forces". I hope youre not talking about guns n stuff like that..

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 02:48 PM

I took some art lessons a while back and something that he said to me stuck. He said "Success in your art is not determined by the skill with which you hold your pen, rather it is a skill of SEEING. He told me "don't draw the lines, draw the light". For me it produced measurable results, what was my standard of measure you ask? Why I liked my drawing better!

The Chinese say that the Yi(mind) leads the Chi(energy) and the Chi leads the Li(body). The way to move the Chi is with the mind, using your imagination is quite possibly your greatest tool.

A few posts back the conclusion was come to that Chi "theory" is looking at the same exact natural phenomena that physics is looking at (the same reality). Why is it so hard to imagine that the tools of investigation of physics don't work with an investigation into Chi? It is not like the Chinese would demand that if you can't explain the world of physics in terms of Chi theory and say "well I just don't believe that the physical world exist if you can't explain it in my terms"! That would be just plain silly.

Or would it?
You talked about the fact that Quantum physics is now an accepted theory. Why is it that in quantum theory you can say "If you know a particles velocity exactly than it ceases to be a particle and IS IN FACT A WAVE (ENERGY). When you measure its mass exactly it ceases to be a wave and IS IN FACT A PARTICLE (MATTER). So we can say that on a fundamental level modern science sees exactly what it wants to see based on the goal of the experiment. Indeed the IMAGINATON of the observer is precisely what drives the results. Is this not true?

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 02:50 PM

Nope I mean victory on the battlefield.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 02:55 PM

Actualy I think Genkhis Khan's Empire and the Ottoman Empire captured the most land mass, which would mean eastern, not western. But hey I may be totaly wrong.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 03:03 PM

No the British empire was larger in landmass. Bit of a cheat though Canada and Australia were kinda empty for the most part.

ZillaBilla

12-Aug-2004, 03:07 PM

Oh well, my future 'Zilla Billa Chi Qi Empire' will do even better.

Polar Bear

12-Aug-2004, 03:16 PM

Zilla,
I'll let Mr. Bush know.

The Bear.

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 03:20 PM

So we can say that on a fundamental level modern science sees exactly what it wants to see based on the goal of the experiment. Indeed the IMAGINATON of the observer is precisely what drives the results. Is this not true?Not at all actually, knowing the velocity does not turn a particle into a wave and knowing the mass does not turn a wave into a particle, its quite a bit more complex than that. Wave particle duality means that at times a wave can act as a particle, or a particle can act as a wave, and have the properties of one another. The imagination of the observer has nothing to do with it, the fact of the observer is what changes the results.

MartialArtsSnob

12-Aug-2004, 03:42 PM

The imagination of the observer has nothing to do with it, the fact of the observer is what changes the results.

I guess I don't understand. Can you explain this statment further, It seems a bit murky for the scientific mind?

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 03:44 PM

yeah but you could devise better tests than that one. Anyone can devise a crap test, the people who know about science devise a test that could produce valuable results.
Ask the tai to push without chi and with chi. Measure the force, measure the brain activity, measure muscle activity and model the posture. See if there are differences.
Am I still talking apples and pears.
The Bear.

This post is a bet better but...

Lets say we use a tai to perform his techniques in the manner in which you suggest. We measure it. Lets for arguements sake say that the results are positive, everytime he uses his chi he pushes harder. Have we proved the existance of chi? No we haven't...

There are several confounding variable here. I'll just address one for simplicities sake.

The tai will use mental imagery to use his 'chi'. However we know that similar mental imagery techniques have been proven effective in enhancing physical performance - visualisation has been used successfully by top athletes like from Arnold Swesenager (how do you spell that) to Tiger Woods for over 30 years.

So when it comes to analysing the results you wont be sure if you've measured the effects of chi or visualisation. A basic operational error, so yes, apples and pears again.

Do you understand now what I mean when I talk about operational problems? The measurement is useless without it.

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 04:21 PM

I guess I don't understand. Can you explain this statment further, It seems a bit murky for the scientific mind?OKay, Ill give it a try. The observer can imagine whatever they want to imagine while looking at the results, but the change in the system will be the same no matter who the observer is, or what they imagine. It is not the observers thoughts that matter, or their imagination, or anything else, its simmply the fact that they are there.

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 04:22 PM

Lets say we use a tai to perform his techniques in the manner in which you suggest. We measure it. Lets for arguements sake say that the results are positive, everytime he uses his chi he pushes harder. Have we proved the existance of chi? No we haven't...Its possible with very advanced modelling to calculate how much force should be produced by a specific movement, I'd imagine that if chi exists the force produced should be greater, otherwise it would be safe to say that chi is only visualisation.

Gyaku

12-Aug-2004, 07:50 PM

Its possible with very advanced modelling to calculate how much force should be produced by a specific movement, I'd imagine that if chi exists the force produced should be greater, otherwise it would be safe to say that chi is only visualisation.

To assume that the force produced should be greater is obviously an error. Visualisation and qi gong both use mental imagery to enhance physical performance. What you would really be measuring is which method of mental imaging enhances performance better. Not the existance or non-existance of chi.

We would still be no closer to understanding whether chi was or wasn't involved. The problem isn't with the measurement itself, but what operational process you use before you start measuring. What you have done here is assume the apple is a pear - Again!

Now if you could operationalise this process in a scientifically valid way you would be very rich and very famous - nobody has done it yet!

LilBunnyRabbit

12-Aug-2004, 10:03 PM

We would still be no closer to understanding whether chi was or wasn't involved. The problem isn't with the measurement itself, but what operational process you use before you start measuring. What you have done here is assume the apple is a pear - Again!Wait a second, so saying that you calculate the force that a movement should produce, and then see if chi has actually done something on top of that doesn't make it clear whether or not chi was involved? Surely if the force produced is that which the movement should produce, then you're simply using visualisation for better technique, whereas if you're gaining force somewhere then there's something else going on.

And if I hear the word operationalise one more time then I'm going to scream. I got enough of that in my physics course. Besides which there is no real need to define the variables quantitively, qualitive measurement would work just as well assuming you could use an objective viewer.

Capt Ann

13-Aug-2004, 12:52 AM

Its possible with very advanced modelling to calculate how much force should be produced by a specific movement, I'd imagine that if chi exists the force produced should be greater, otherwise it would be safe to say that chi is only visualisation.
To assume that the force produced should be greater is obviously an error. Visualisation and qi gong both use mental imagery to enhance physical performance. What you would really be measuring is which method of mental imaging enhances performance better. Not the existance or non-existance of chi.

Good point. Pehaps I can devise an experiment to isolate the effects of chi.

Step One: Attach a wrecking ball, weighing approximately 200 pounds, to a crane. Swing the ball towards a brick wall. Use a pressure gauge to measure the force, and videotape the resulting impact on the wall, for documentary purposes.

See picture:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/areagan/chipic.bmp

Step Two: Attach a martial artist of approximately 200 pounds, practicing Qi Gong, to the crane. Repeat above procedures. Compare measured results.

See picture:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/areagan/2ndchipic.bmp

Evaluate: did the chi of the martial artist alter the force of impact?

Now, will you guys PLEASE stop arguing ??!?! :D

LilBunnyRabbit

13-Aug-2004, 01:20 AM

Actually, I love that experiment. Now if I could just get some chi practitioners to volunteer. :D

serious harm

13-Aug-2004, 04:24 AM

All is Vibration (http://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp)

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 07:07 AM

Gyaku,
I don't agree we are talking apples and pears. Even if you can't measure chi quantatively you could measure it qualitatively. But it doesn't matter, if 'qi' makes you feel more powerful, enjoy. It is the same delusion the god following masses have used to hold back the fear.

Oh and a wee anti-jargon quote for you:

"The problem with OPERATIONALIZE is not just that it's ugly, but that it is so sprawling a word-like an ill-planned building with too many additions-that it suggests something complicated, demanding, and obscure. It tries to awe the reader with its sheer unruliness, as if it contains so many ideas that it might be dangerous to unleash them all. Yet the closer you look, the more likely the thing is to mean nothing more than "do." It's a Texas-size word that, as Texan Lyndon B. Johnson once said of some Lone Star poseur, turns out to be "all hat and no cattle.""
Bad Words for Good by Tony Proscio, 2001.

The Bear

gerard

13-Aug-2004, 08:25 AM

To Gyaku, sorry but he has only cited part of the whole story for his own convenience making the blind believe that being blind is better than no blind, kind of commentary that reminds me the Matrix movie.

To all non believers that have been basically trolling in this thread:

Who do you think you are arrogant Westerners teaching us the Chinese about "qi", which was discovered by Taoists thousands of years ago while you Europeans were living naked in dark caves hunting deer with stones and scared of lighting?

Just shut up and learn. And if you don't like to hear stuff about Qi's existence and validity go elsewhere. This section of the forum is only for Taoist/Buddhist serious devotees not for imbeciles.

感謝

Gyaku

13-Aug-2004, 08:25 AM

ZillaBilla,

Here is the reply:

My company just organises the Holistic Living festival, we do not
employ or endorse any practitioners. We also do not have any chi goong
people involved with the event or the company.
Best wishes... Neil Riley

Bit a dead end

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 09:15 AM

Oh well, maybe I was wrong about the address/organization, but Im gonna be down in Singapore end of this month, I'll try and to check the guy out again hopefully get some evidence for all to see, though I dont know how he will react to such an endeavour.

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 10:42 AM

MartialArtsSnob

13-Aug-2004, 11:47 AM

Bear, Bunny,
Come on guys, have you ever been around somone who is "High Energy"? Why is it so hard to understand? "High Energy" or "Strong Presence" are perfectly acceptable terms even though we don't Quantify it. You don't say "That persons energy level is 45% higher than his" and just because we can't quantify it we don't say "Well since we cant give it a number there is no such thing as two people with different energy levels". The Chinese would say "Lots of Chi" and even though they are screaming to you "We are talking about the same thing", you refuse to belive them. Chi will indeed give you "Super Natural Powers"! It will not however give you OTHER THAN NATURAL POWERS! Somone said earlier that they were training their Chi through swimming, YES YOU WERE! don't you get it. And the one who was told that they had "Strong Chi" even though they did not "belive in it", yes you do indeed have strong Chi. This conversation is like trying to convince someone in the existance of sunlight, they don't belive in it yet it makes them able to see none the less. The problem with Chi is that people say they don't belive in it until they are taught how to identify the feeling of its movement and once they get it they say "Oh, I've always felt that to some degree or another but I nerver "Called" it Chi!

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 12:14 PM

Hello Bunny, Bear and fellow MAP forest dwelling animals.

As you all may have noticed this thread has turned in to a very thick mess of views and opinions from which it is difficult to see anything coming to light. Due to this I would like to apologise to my fellow MAP'ers for making this mess thicker with my various attempts at explaining what 'Qi' is. Thus, I have once again gone back to the drawing board and devised an explanation that I believe may be more palatable to the more scientific minded MAP'ers. My only wish is that my fellow MAP'ers will forgive my prior transgressions and give their valuable time to examine my new explanation, and offer their opinions and suggestions whether positive or negative. Additionally I apologies for the length of this explanation, though I think it was necessary.

What is ‘Qi’?

‘Qi’ is the name given to the energy of the mind. In other words, ‘Qi’ is your consciousnesses, focus, intention, awareness, you are your consciousness, thus, you are your focus, intention and ‘Qi’. Your focus/intent is your awareness of your external world (trees, people, buildings, etc), and your internal world (feelings, thoughts, emotions, instincts, sensations, etc). The way ‘Qi’ moves in your body is by following your focus/intention/awareness, in addition, internally the blood follows the ‘Qi’, hence, where your focus falls externally or internally ‘Qi’ follows.

A simple test to feel your ‘Qi’ is to straighten out one of your index fingers, and concentrate on feeling the tip of your finger, (this will take various amount of time to work for different individuals). After, intently feeling the tip of your finger for however long, you should feel your blood pulsing in the area of your focus, if your focus is strong enough, you can feel past the pulsation and feel the ‘Qi’ or energy put on your finger by your intent/focus/awareness, this feels like a warm, numb, expansive feeling. This feeling is your ‘Qi’, it is very subtle and requires relaxation and strong focus to feel, with practice the awareness/focus/intention grows stronger, thus the ‘Qi’ also grows stronger. Now we have to look at what consciousness is.

Consciousness is awareness, which is in turn your focus/intent/awareness. A living conscious being is always focusing on something, whether it be consciously or subconsciously, the intent is always on something, either internal (dreams, feelings, thinking, fantasizing, etc) or external (eating, walking, doing, etc). Thus, we may say that in a living conscious being the ‘Qi’/focus/intention/awareness is always active whether internally, externally, consciously, subconsciously or any combination of these. Hence, we may also say that a non-living being, is not conscious, and has no ‘Qi’, intent, focus, awareness.

The ‘Qi’, focus/intent/awareness can be trained, this may be trained by any means that directly require your concentration/focus/intent/awareness to be stable and strong, thus it may be said that we can train ourselves in everything we do by being more aware/intent/focused. However, there are specific exercises called ‘Qi Gong’ (Internal Martial Arts are high level ‘Qi Gong’) that specifically and very cleverly train the focus/intent/awareness and with practise move to more subtle levels that we call ‘Qi’. The way ‘Qi Gong’ works is by gaining awareness of all of your being internally (organs, muscles, fascia, thought, feelings, emotions, etc) and externally (touch, sight, hearing feeling, etc). Through these exercises we strengthen our intent/focus/awareness/’Qi’, thus in turn we gain fine control (this increases with practice) over our internal and external components.

How do ‘Qi’ and ‘Qi Gong’ relate to martial effectiveness. By increasing our control over ourselves by means mentioned above. An internal martial artist gains superior control and coordination over the body. This control is in turn used to move the muscles, joints, fascia in wave like motions. In other words, the controlled yet relaxed coordination and movement allows an individual (after a lot of practice) to stack the energy from different parts of the body in to one or several points, creating an increased force at the point of contact. This is in turn increased by moving intention/focus/’Qi’ in circular patterns (like gears), aside from increasing the force generated it also overcomes inertia, allowing the practitioner to move seamlessly and fluidly. This method of coordinating the various parts of the body, with all the different parts in turn circulating, can both produce and absorb large amounts of energy, it works similarly as gears would work to decrease and increase power. On higher levels this circular coordination becomes more and more internal with practice. Thus at these higher levels the internal movement of the practitioner is not visible to the eyes of the opponent, yet create powerful energy vortexes in the practitioner that may be used to absorb and emit energy, this is known in Internal Martial Arts as ‘Spiral Force’, and is one of the first levels of attainment of martial proficiency. However, in order for this force to grow stronger and become one with the practitioner a lot of practice is required. This is to make the ‘Spiral Force’ inert in the practitioner, down to a subconscious level, so that the practitioner can manifest this force spontaneously in any external movement, wit the same natural manifestation as a sneeze would be if you got pepper in your nose.

The reason ‘Qi Gong’ is good for a practitioners health is as follows. As mentioned previously the focus/intention/awareness leads ‘Qi’ in the body, the ‘Qi’ in turn leads the blood. Some ‘Qi Gong’ exercises work directly on the internal organs, by focusing, moving your intention and being aware of your internal organs you can in turn lead the ‘Qi’ to them, which will in turn lead the blood. The blood will increase circulation in the internal organ, and bring extra oxygen and nourishment to it, thus helping it regenerate and enliven the organ. At higher levels when the ‘Qi’ is strong, one may even enliven the organs to such high levels that they operate beyond their normal capacity (like supercharging an engine). This regeneration and optimization of the internal organs directly effects the performance of the brain, which in turn increases focus/awareness/intent/’Qi’ which then revert positively by allowing you to optimize your internal organs to even higher levels, it is a self contained beneficial cycle. This is why the first step in Internal Martial Arts is to gain health, thus in turn affecting ones focus/intent/awareness/’Qi’ positively.

However, the ‘Qi’ is imbued within the ‘Tao’. The ‘Tao’ being the way or path of ‘Taoist’ self cultivation, for the perfection of the human, for the benefit of all and everything. It is impossible to explain how far reaching and profoundly deep the ‘Qi’ and in turn the ‘Tao’ are within existence, but I will humbly try and point the reader to some of its all encompassing splendour. Though I forewarn that I am no expert and anything from here on may be quite bizarre, this is also coupled with the fact that this topic at higher levels transcends language, or at least normal ability of language users.

Consciousness being awareness/intent/focus, thus in turn ‘Qi’ may be cast on to anything internal or external, thus it may be understood that your attention/focus/intent/awareness may observe anything. This discipline of ‘Qi’ cultivation is of Chinese ‘Taoist’ origin and several facts about the Chinese language must be understood. The Chinese language, unlike English is character based. Each character may represent an number of different meanings, when spoken this would be down to pronunciation to differentiate between meanings, whereas when written it would be down to the interpretation of the reader. An example of this is the character ‘Wu Li’, this character has several meanings, one being ‘Physics’, another ‘Patterns of Organic Matter’, another ‘Enlightenment’, these are just a few. In the same manner the character ‘Yi’ means ‘Mind’, ‘Change’, ‘Intent’, ‘Focus’, and more. Thus in classic ‘Taoist’ texts it is said that the ‘Qi’ follows the ‘Yi’ and the blood follows the ‘Qi’, this is the main basis of all Internal Martial Arts of ‘Taoist’ origin.
There is a multitude of ‘Taoist’ classics on all manner of subjects, but the greater ones were written by people imbued with the ‘Tao’, in other words those who cultivated their ‘Qi’. Thus it is hard to find the correct interpretation of these texts, or what the author meant, without yourself not cultivating the ‘Qi’, because the ‘Qi’ once again relates to the mind. In order to understand correctly one must reach a level of awareness/focus/intent/’Qi’ to the a level comparable with the author. This will allow one to grasp the correct, objective meaning. Since awareness/intent/focus, thus in turn ‘Qi’ may be cast on to anything internal or external, it may be said that ‘Qi’ is everywhere. So it may also be said that anywhere your ‘Qi’ may fall, that on which the ‘Qi’/focus/intent/awareness is on at the moment may in turn influence your level of ‘Qi’/intent/focus/awareness. In to the above paradox the Yin/Yang diagram comes in to play (Yin/Yang diagram is called ‘Tai Chi’), this diagram represents balance, this balance is stands for objective awareness/focus/intent/’Qi’. Thus, in other words it is a balanced state of mind that may perceive and react without being skewed towards any extreme. This sate of mind is in turn what is used to perform martially in Internal Martial Arts. However, on higher levels this sate of mind is moved to ‘Wu Chi’ which is complete emptiness or void, from this ‘void’ state of mind, all and everything may be perceived perfectly. There are various other concepts that come in to play here, but are to complex and require practice of ‘Qi’ cultivation and objective study of ‘Taoists’ classics to be understood. Thus, they will not be discussed here.

Conclusively, I hope that the reader may now have a feel for the depth and immensity of the ‘Qi’ cultivating arts. Particularly the understanding that everything one does internally or externally, consciously or subconsciously has an effect on ones ‘Qi’. Thus, one may see why Internal Martial Arts are more than a hobby or pastime and are more akin to a way of life, and perhaps understand why myself and fellow IMA’ists have been defending the concept of ‘Qi’ so fervently.

ZB

LilBunnyRabbit

13-Aug-2004, 12:21 PM

Who do you think you are arrogant Westerners teaching us the Chinese about "qi", which was discovered by Taoists thousands of years ago while you Europeans were living naked in dark caves hunting deer with stones and scared of lighting?I'm sorry, but this is just plain amusing. The Saxons, Norse, Romans, Celts, Picts, they were all just sitting in caves were they? Maybe you should try reading some ancient history which hasn't been rewritten to suit propoganda purposes.

Just shut up and learn. And if you don't like to hear stuff about Qi's existence and validity go elsewhere. This section of the forum is only for Taoist/Buddhist serious devotees not for imbeciles.Ooh, ouch. I'm an imbecile apparently. Oh well. Actually this is a public forum, in fact its a public discussion forum. If you can't quite work out what that means then I'll explain for you. Public means open to anyone, sure, we have rules such as no personal attacks or profanity, but basically anyone over the age of thirteen is allowed to join. Discussion is defined as an earnest discourse on a topic, or consideration of a subject by a group. It is not a conversation where everyone must agree with you, think how boring that'd be.

You don't say "That persons energy level is 45% higher than his" and just because we can't quantify it we don't say "Well since we cant give it a number there is no such thing as two people with different energy levels".Notice the various comments above about qualitative measurement rather than quantitive. Apparently you've decided to ignore this.

The Chinese would say "Lots of Chi" and even though they are screaming to you "We are talking about the same thing", you refuse to belive them. Chi will indeed give you "Super Natural Powers"! It will not however give you OTHER THAN NATURAL POWERS! Somone said earlier that they were training their Chi through swimming, YES YOU WERE! don't you get it.In which case why use an archaic system, which is covered with mystical associations and repeatedly misused for marketing purposes leading to it being laughed at to describe what is basically fitness?

MartialArtsSnob

13-Aug-2004, 12:35 PM

Throws hands in the air, bows respectfully and wanders off to practice Tai Chi.........................many thanks for the disscussion.

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 12:44 PM

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 12:52 PM

Exactly bunny.
All the effects that are being described, are what happens when you train hard and practice your art. Funnily enough this is the same secret that afore mentioned Ueshiba Morihei said was the secret of aikido. No secret techniques, No dim mak, no mystical energy, just practice very hard every day! Oh and I think some guy called Mushashi kinda said same thing when he was saying that if you want to use a cut, practice the cut 1,000 times a day. Now that is wisdom. Training 1000 techniques a day for 1 year will produce a better effect than 10 years feeling your 'qi'.

The Bear.

I see, no one bothered reading my new vast explanation on pg 11.
In that case, there is not much more to be said to the un-believers.
Thanks but no thanks. Qi is everything, without it you are merely scraping on the door of the great. Good luck scraping.

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 01:01 PM

I see, no one bothered reading my new vast explanation on pg 11.
In that case, there is not much more to be said to the un-believers.
Thanks but no thanks. Qi is everything, without it you are merely scraping on the door of the great. Good luck scraping.

He He, Zilla you say the funniest of things. I think of it as more clawing and the hinges could be weakening. Run! The forest animals are gathering. :eek:

The *clawing* Bear.

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 01:06 PM

The door has a lock on it, the lock is beyond the animals. I feel safe.

LilBunnyRabbit

13-Aug-2004, 01:21 PM

The door has lock on it, the lock is beyond the animals. I feel safe.Sounds good to me, you lock yourself away nice and safe and we'll go and explore the real world.

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 01:22 PM

Ha, How ironic. 'qi' practicioner feels safe behind locked door with no hinges. Is that your inside the door training?

The *Not So Dumb* Bear.

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 01:23 PM

ha ha, not quite, me and fellow IMA'ists will go explore reality, while you animals can sit behind the door and squeal, we may let you in later. If you behave.
Question Bunny, have you read my new explanation on pg 11, I wrote it for the benefit of you animlas..

teacher

13-Aug-2004, 01:25 PM

Well I enjoyed the to and fro. Thanks for the contributions. Look at that we didn't convince each other but we did find some thing we could explore together.
You may be right about chi, good luck to you all.
I'll finish where I started my main cause for irritation is when chi practitioners try to use the obscure areas of science that are poorly understood as some kind of validation. Zilla and Gyaku thanks for your input. You haven't tried to tell me that Einstein or Hawking proves you were right and for that I'll get the first beer in when we meet. :)

Gyaku

13-Aug-2004, 01:37 PM

Ok, I won't use the 'O' word anymore, just thought we were having a nice scientific discussion, where I thought it was ok to use a nice scientific word...open a nice science journal and for some strange reason you'll find it all over the place...oh well I must be wrong eh!

I'm officially bowing out of this thread. To all the people (teacher et al)who discussed things in a nice and polite fashion thank you very much, I enjoyed your input, it has made me think, and that goes to people from both sides of the debate.

Polar Bear

13-Aug-2004, 02:14 PM

*Polar Bear sniffs air*

hhmmmmm, can smell any 'qi'che, they all must of left.

*turns and head back to head home to the north polar, since polar bears don't live in the forest.*

sheesh all that wisdom and don't know where a polar bears come from. They gotta get out more. Right Bunny.

Campaign for plain Glaswegian:
For all non-glaswegians please refer to Robert C. Nesbit for the definition of 'qiche'.

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 02:26 PM

What a sad day it is for some, came close but got nothing, and left with nothing, due to own ignorance and laziness, well, at least there is room for improvement.

LilBunnyRabbit

13-Aug-2004, 02:33 PM

What a sad day it is for some, came close but got nothing, and left with nothing, due to own ignorance and laziness, well, at least there is room for improvement.Who those people are is a matter of opinion though.

ZillaBilla

13-Aug-2004, 02:42 PM

indeed.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

13-Aug-2004, 02:48 PM

Can everyone here take a chill pill, and please stop insulting each other? Thank you.

Capt Ann

13-Aug-2004, 05:10 PM

Can I step in here, please? (Preferably without getting hit??)

Something I've noticed in this thread: Most of the time, the two sides are speaking two different languages. If your goal is (genuinely) to understand what the other side is saying, and to help the other side to understand your points (and not just prove how much you 'know'), then I'd like to suggest that it is very important to state your points in the language the other side is using.

I *might* be able to help here, since I speak both Geek and Touchy-Feely. :)

ZB, Gyaku, and MASnob: I've noticed that you repeatedly refer to Chi as an energy, and sometimes as a force. These words (energy, force) have very specific meanings. I know you mentioned that language is inadequate to describe chi or Tao, but an inadequate word will at least give a partial picture of what you're trying to describe. An incorrect word will give a false picture of what you're trying to describe. If you try to use the words 'energy' or 'force' to mean something other than what they already mean, you will be working against yourself.

As an example, 'energy' in science refers to the ability to do work. In other words, it is part of the definition of the word that, if there is energy, it will do something. If it does something, we should be able to observe, or measure what it does. This is why LBR and PB keep asking, 'What does chi do?' I think it would be very useful to this and other threads for you gentlemen to put together a list of the things you believe chi can 'do'. This will help PB and LBR understand what you are saying, and it can tell them if chi should be important for them to investigate (i.e., if chi development guarantees better muscle strength or faster reflexes, they might be interested, but if chi just makes you feel nice, they probably won't).

In past discussions on the forum regarding chi, the number one hindrance to any useful discourse has been the lack of agreement on a single definition or description of what chi is or what it does.

For Gyaku: I've noticed that you refer to science and Chinese philosophy as describing two different paradigms (forgive me for using a grossly overused word :(, I think you refered to it as 'apples and pears' ), and that you can't use scientific reasoning to describe chi, or vice versa. I would have to disagree. If any approach is correct (science, religion, Chinese philosophy, etc.), then it should serve as a model for areas where these disciplines overlap. PB and LBR (and me, for that matter) really like to include the scientific approach, even in understanding martial arts, because of the benefits it provides. In the scientific method, the goal is to build a model that describes reality well enough for you to predict what will happen next, and improve your results. You don't have to know everything exactly (how gravity works, whether space/time is warped or not, or if the universe is expanding or contracting). If I have a scientific model for my martial art that says that 'body mechanics and gross gravitational effects are the dominant factors', then I can use that theory to improve my martial art performance--this theory predicts that I should improve core muscle strength (abs, lower back, hips) for better balance and stability, should twist and use my hips/torso to improve power in my punches, and emphasize speed over muscle mass for kinetic energy delivery. Didn't mean to get boring, but I hope I made my point: a truly scientific theory will allow me to predict how to improve. If increased chi flow is critical to martial arts performance, then you need a theory of what exactly will increase chi flow to specific areas of the body, to improve a specific aspect of MA. This goes back to the original question of "What does chi do?"

To LBR and PB: Please consider that intuition may be as valid an approach to achieving knowledge of a subject as rational thinking (it's that left-brain/right-brain thing). Both methods provide valuable insight. I think you are correct in using logic and rationality to evaluate the claims of the other side, but please make sure you are not dismissing their claims out-of-hand because they were not arrived at through a rigorous logical process. Also, please don't expect a non-scientific crowd to use rigorous definitions for scientific terms. Give the guys some grace, if they use 'energy' or 'force' incorrectly, but make sure you let them know what it is you heard when they used those terms....then ask for clarification of what they mean. I'd stick to asking what does chi do, as I think that might be the central issue.

Also, please beware of dismissing the subject out-of-hand because of exposure to a caricature of it. This would be like a kindergartener drawing a stick-figure-and-scribble drawing, and having another lean over and ask, "What's that?" When the first says, "It's a picture of my Mommy,", the other responds, "Boy, she sure is ugly!" Obviously, you can't tell what "Mom" really looks like from a crayon drawing--first, get a real picture before you decide if she's ugly or not. In the same way, it is easy to dismiss any discussion of chi that includes throwing fireballs at people, levitation, telekinesis, and other things that can easily be verified (or not). Please don't assume ZB, et al., have nothing worth saying because some others have thrown up this caricature drawing of 'chi'.

For PB: I am especially sensitive to the above concern about caricatures because of my religious beliefs. I have seen many (including some of your) posts disparage faith by dismissing a caricature drawing of it, and not the real thing. If my religious beliefs were as you described (using god as a crutch to fill in the blanks for things not otherwise understood, or as a salve for fear), then quite frankly I would reject them, too.

For All: I *highly* recommend that the chi-believers put together two things: first, a list of those things that you believe chi does, and second, a description you can all more-or-less agree on, as to what chi is. This would be a tremendous benefit to all future discussions. And interestingly, there are already active threads on this forum to discuss both of these topics.

If anyone's interested in my views on the 'Great Chi Debate', I've written scads of posts elsewhere.

Thanks for listening

(Capt Ann runs and ducks for cover)

Kinjiro Tsukasa

13-Aug-2004, 07:23 PM

(Capt Ann runs and ducks for cover)
No need to run, Capt Ann, I think you made a good post, here!

I'd like to make one more comment about religious beliefs. Everyone here is free to believe/not believe as he or she sees fit. To imply, however, that people having a particular form of religious belief are "deluded", or using a "crutch" is quite rude and offensive, in my opinion. No one person here holds a monopoly on what is "real" and "correct". We all have our own beliefs; we don't have to share the beliefs of others, but we have to respect their right to have them.

And now, back on topic!

Smee

13-Aug-2004, 11:47 PM

Here is an interesting post that I've copied from another poster on another forum. Hope they don't mind but I thought it was a good post.

"I think sometimes subjective experience is more relevant than objective evidence. Quantum physics tells us there's no such thing as objective observations anyway, since the instrument of measurement always comes into play. I think we humans have pretty darn good instruments in our senses, and even though seeing is not necessarily believing (esp. if all you do is watch demonstrations), we do have the ability to tell authentic from fake if we take up a practice and experience for ourselves. Of course, we have to choose our criteria for evaluation wisely. Qi cultivation is for health and increased vitality to live our lives. If we have an idle goal of lighting up a newspaper from distance just to impress people and win a million dollars, we'll likely get the wrong answers about qi and about life.

I believe our experience of qi (or anything for that matter) is somewhat limited by our linguistic upbringing. For example, certain cultures cannot tell the difference among shades of colors and experience them as all the same because they don't have separate words for them. The concept of "qi" came from oriental cultures, and has been roughly translated as "life force" in western literature, but people here in the west do not grow up with this world view, so they end up regarding qi practices like tai chi as mysterious or even mystical, something that requires a leap of faith. On the other hand, for the millions of Chinese practitioners who go to the park every morning for tai chi, the experience of qi is as self-evident as char siu bao." (roast pork)

Paul

LilBunnyRabbit

13-Aug-2004, 11:52 PM

Quantum physics tells us there's no such thing as objective observations anyway, since the instrument of measurement always comes into play.Just as a favour, please don't try and bring quantum physics into this. It has nothing to do with chi, and the misuse of science is part of what caused this whole thing in the first place.

Smee

13-Aug-2004, 11:53 PM

BTW - Dr Yang Jwing Ming attempts to give a scientific "Modern Definition of Qi Gong" in his book "The Essence of Shaolin White Crane" on pages 48-61.

There's too much to type and would not want to paraphrase so you are free to go and search out the book.

Paul

Smee

13-Aug-2004, 11:55 PM

LBR

I didn't bring quantum physics into it. It's a copy of someone elses post.

Paul

Smee

13-Aug-2004, 11:56 PM

And - if you read it properly - he wasn't suggesting quantum physics had anything to do with Qi. Don't twist the post to your own agenda.

Paul

LilBunnyRabbit

14-Aug-2004, 12:10 AM

The edit button allows you to edit previous posts, rather than making multiple short posts.

And by mentioning quantum physics along with chi, and telling us that it 'teaches us there are no objective measurements' (not exactly true) he's misusing science to try and give his argument validity. If he didn't want to suggest quantum physics had anything to do with chi, then why bring it into the post in the first place?

Smee

14-Aug-2004, 12:16 AM

no more from me....lil bunny wabbit.

Capt Ann

14-Aug-2004, 12:25 AM

Paul--

Knock it off. LBR's point is valid: the quickest way to alienate anyone with any scientific background is to misuse science or scientific theory to support a non-scientific proposition. Don't blame LBR for stating this obvious fact.

As to your post, I think the essence of it is that personal experience can give valid insight and provide useful information, just like science can. I agree with this statement.

Please exclude the derogatory comments and personal insults.

-Ann R.

Smee

14-Aug-2004, 12:34 AM

Excuse me......where exactly did I make any personal insult to LBR?

I felt she twisted the last post about Quantum Physics. How is that a personal insult?

However, quote one and I'll freely apologise.

I actually signed off this thread in my last post because I felt it was becoming about personalities rather than anything else.

I don't think there is anything to "knock off". As I said, quote me and I'll apologise.

Paul

Kinjiro Tsukasa

14-Aug-2004, 12:43 AM

It's chill-pill time, everybody...

Capt Ann: PaulS hasn't insulted LBR in this thread (well, OK, he did refer to LBR and Polar Bear as "nasty little mammals" in an earlier post; I assume that was meant as a joke -- should have used a smiley).

Paul: Please calm down; you'll feel better (by the way, LBR is a guy).

Capt Ann

14-Aug-2004, 12:47 AM

no more from me....lil bunny wabbit.
Here, for one.

As for the QM reference, yes, you just quoted someone else. But the point LBR was making is that the person you quoted did *not* understand QM theory, and their reference to it was incorrect. When people make claims that I *know* are wrong (like no such thing as objective observations), it makes it harder for me to accept claims that I don't know about (chi does/doesn't exist).

It is a sore spot for many scientific types. I have seen people try to use relativity to justify moral relativism, and QM to support everything from abortion to Zen. Grr!

-Ann

PS, please don't give up on posting. I'm hoping we can all make a conscious decision to put past thread transgressions aside, and be willing to assume the best about each others' motives in posting.

Smee

14-Aug-2004, 12:57 AM

Ok - this is my last post as it will go round in circles for evermore.

"no more for me" was intended to show that I wasn't going to post any more as it wasn't constructive. Maybe I should have expanded - but how can you say that this is a personal insult? What is personal or derogatory about that statement?

As I say - no malice intended - but don't flame me unnecessarily.

And thanks KT, I'm not stressed - just disappointed.

Paul

Gyaku

15-Aug-2004, 05:37 PM

Capt Ann:

First of all a well thought out post. I enjoyed reading it.

different paradigms
Depends on what you mean by paradigns. Do you mean this in a Khunian sense?

As an example, 'energy' in science refers to the ability to do work.
Good point. Although I think this is the problem when you use Newtonian physics to explain Taoist philosophy. Part of the 'apples and pears' problem I suppose.

However a similar point can be made about the research designs of some posters, rather flawed for exactly the same reason.

put together a list of the things you believe chi can 'do'

I think several of us have already done that.

In the scientific method, the goal is to build a model that describes reality well enough for you to predict what will happen next, and improve your results.
This true for certain strains of science and would be valid from say a realist scientific point of view (Vygosky et al).

However previous posters were attempting to use positivist experimental science to evaluate the existnce of chi. They were not refering to usefullness/predictive abillity etc. In fact if you have a look at my previous posts you will see that I argue for further study, precisely because certain (predictable) outcomes have been scientifically shown as being beneficial to MA performance. So we agree there!

I should perhaps reiterate that I don't actually believe or disbelieve in chi. I just don't believe it is possible to prove or disprove the existance of chi from a scientifically valid point of view.

In fact I would love for anyone out there to reference an independantly verified piece of research that scientifically and validly proves or disproves the existance of chi!

To sweeten this up, I will give up alcohol for a month if anyone can do it! :)

Capt Ann, once again, a really good post! You tempted me back.

daftyman

15-Aug-2004, 09:24 PM

...In fact I would love for anyone out there to reference an independantly verified piece of research that scientifically and validly proves or disproves the existance of chi!
To sweeten this up, I will give up alcohol for a month if anyone can do it! :)

At the same time they could maybe prove the existence of God and the Easter Bunny (not Santa, 'cos he's real!)

To quote the famous poet Homer:

..MMMM...BEER!!
*burp*

Capt Ann

15-Aug-2004, 10:32 PM

I should perhaps reiterate that I don't actually believe or disbelieve in chi. I just don't believe it is possible to prove or disprove the existance of chi from a scientifically valid point of view.
Hi, Gyaku! Thanks for taking the time to respond, and for your kind words.

I agree it would be impossible to prove or disprove the existence of chi, but I think we can prove or disprove some of the individual claims regarding chi. For instance, if you told me that chi can be transmitted through the ether by concentrating, and can be used to accelerate or decelerate inanimate moving objects, we could design an experiment, to check out this specific claim. If the results of the experiment were negative, it would NOT disprove the existence of chi, but it would show that this particular claim about chi was incorrect.

I would think this type of experiment would be very interesting to chi-believers and non-believers alike. To the believers, it could show which specific claims about chi might be false, and thus give them a clearer picture of what ch is (by eliminating the things it is not). It would also give 'food for thought' to the non-believers, if any of the experiments give a positive result, indicating that either chi exists, or there is something else at work, that *could* benefit their MA practice.

So, again, you can see why I am extremely interested in what different individuals claim chi can do. I have put together a short list of things that I have read people on this forum claim chi can do. Individual MAP members may or may not agree with any/all of them, but as best as I have been able to tell from the posts here, others believe chi can do all the following: (I am re-posting this from an earlier thread, but it seems appropriate to bring it up here--I hope no one minds)

From reading MAP posts, some people believe chi can:

1. "Flow" from one part of your body to another in a natural circuit, just like your blood flow, from/to all parts of your body. In theory, if this flow is disrupted, it's like cutting off circulation of blood to a part of your body: part gets stagnant and may get sick or die.

2. "Root" you to the ground, to enhance the effects of gravity, provide more stability, increase power, and appear to increase your weight so an opponent cannot knock you over as easily.

3. "Channel" in a controlled fashion from one part of your body to another, so the power and effectiveness of a strike can be increased by incorporating the power/strength/muscles of other parts of your body. Also, you could make the chi move, by power of your will and your ability to control it, into all parts of your body, to improve and maintain your own health.

4. "Transmit" from a person with positive chi energy to another individual, so that their chi energy is helped or their chi flow is improved or balanced. Reiki practitioners believe chi can do this in a controlled way.

5. Be "harnessed", so you could use chi energy external to your own body (in the ether/air/ground/universe around you) so that your strikes/blocks/kicks (or even just your own physical/mental health) benefit from this external chi energy.

6. Be "thrown", as a weapon, at an adversary with or without any physical contact.

To all chi-believers and/or practitioners of chi-cultivation watching this thread:Your comments, please? I am honestly trying to understand what you do/don't believe about chi, and what it can do. I do not want to put words in someone else's mouth, or create a false view of someone else's belief. How does this list compare to your personal belief in chi? Are there other things you would add to this list, or things you would delete?

Thanks in advance, and I sincerely hope this thread can maintain this cordial tone.

rosietai

16-Aug-2004, 08:53 AM

HI,

I have read the entire post and come late to the discussion and I come from a different background - I'm not a martial artist - can't fight and I'm not a scientist - in the context of physics or maths.

On the east vs west debates in science and medecine I would suggest that both are based on observation.

The chinese for thousands of years observed the effects of their actions and drew conclusions from them. Refinement of those beliefs are reflected in a set of common practices such as qigong and a more holostic approach to life and living.

Western science is also based on observation - a lot is based on reductionism - isolating components and seeing what they do. Within the western community many scientists view this as unworkable and view that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And there is the 'other' batch of scientists many in the social fields that believe you can only extract general principles by observing real life - without trying to control the variables.

Given these two different approaches I am not sure what benefit the thread gains from arguing about the merits of the differing scientific systems.

My understanding of what differentiates external from internal is that external is biomechanical:- it uses physical mucles and strength to achieve its aims. I assume that this includes advanced observational skills to detect intentional attack - speaking as a non-fighter it seems sensible.

My only caveat is that physical prowess is also dependent on what the mind believes is possible. Mostly our mind (consciousness) steps in to stop us doing things that we believe are not possible. Runners hit fatigue barriers when in fact their muscles still have all the chemical components that they need -( a recent thought is that interval training allows the mind to form a new set of beliefs about capabilities )

Internal training would suggest that there is more than just muscles.

Several people have asked what chi is. Traditionally the chinese characters for qi are made up from the symbols for steam and rice (the growing plant). The story is that when rice is placed is water and is heated - stream is created and qi is word used to describe the energy process involved. It is also said to be the analogy for how chi feels in the body and the story goes that by tracking these feelings in the body the chinese discovered the energy channel (meridians) in the body.

In modern terms you can use a hand held device to actually pinpoint the energy points on your body. Western doctors use these devices for pain relief - its called electro acupressure.

And other western devices have identified the location of most of the 600+ know acupressure points.

The problem for western scientists is that they energy channels do not have a physical presence within the body - they leave no trace - like viens and muscle clumps in dead bodies.!!

Rather than use the electricity analogy - because you need wires it might help to think about radio - no wires but things still happen.

More on the measurement front. The heart sends out a strom signal which can be measured up to 2 metres aweay - using the right equipment.

And lastly the brain - it uses a host of frequencies. Many mooons ago - about 50 years- scientists thought that the brain worked on one frequency at a time in the range al[pha to delta. If you look closely you can see that the frequencies do not look to be in sequence - until you realise that the first instruments could only find the first 2 frequencies. Nowadays we know that the brain uses all the frequencies at the same time - just broadcast more loudly on some!

And finally we have auras - no I am not getting spooky - you can actually photograph the bioelectrical field that surrouns the body - noticably absent in dead bodies!

So here we have 3 bio energetic fields that western scientists can now detect and measure - are these what eastern science describes as chi???

I don't know. What I suggesting is that western science is still making discoveries about the mind and the body (latest discovery neuropeptides in the gut and heart the implication yes you really can think with these organs!) and these discoveries are changing our practices - more doctors are using the holostic method of treating the body rather than the standard allopathic method of just treating the symptom.

And before we start which is better debate I would suggest that each has its place. Long term pain and fatigue might be better treated as a whole body thing since there are probably lots of different emotional and physical factors contributing to the pain. Instant trauma like car crashes does require instant treatment for the symptoms.

If you accept that these bio energitic fields exist it raises the potential for humans to influence them for ourselves - this leads on to the potential that if we become expert we can influence the fields of others.

This is perhaps the fighting application of chi - to anticipate and then to drain or deflect energy long enough to gain advantage.

Having said that - if this is indeed what chi is usiing it at this skill level would surely acquire much training and practice - perhaps the equivalent of an olympic gold athlete. Who knows?

So if it exists how do you cultivate it? And the answer to that is qigong exercises - not just the mechanical lift arms, breath in stuff but the intentional direction of internal energy flows.

Can it be done - who knows. I can sitting still and concentrating improve my circulation making my hands and feet warmer. Does this count - perhaps it is just the first step in a long journey. Perhaps it is a parlour trick - but my husband says that for the first time in 27 years I go to bed with warm feet!

For western minds it is possible to think of qigong as a visualisation and biofeedback technique for improving health and quality of life.

Wester cancer doctors now encourage patients to visualise their tumours and see them shrink - for many people it has positive effects.

As for dancing being qigong - it can be - if you dance with intent and awareness - otherwise it is just exercise.

As for tai chi - its just exercise - unless you use your mind to channel your energy.

In traditional qi theory we all have qi whether we acknowledge it or not. You might even experience something tingling hands or feet - whether you believe it or not. But I am not sure you can work with it if you don't believe - your conscious mind is unlikely to put much effort into it.

And yes it may be the classic chicken and egg.

Food for thought ?

daftyman

16-Aug-2004, 09:18 AM

Great post from rosietai.

I guess the problem is the fact that chi is a spiritual matter, and as such open to a lot of debate from the sublime to the rediculous.

If I do a round of form where I pay particular awareness to the energy, then there is a real difference in feeling. Even such a simple exercise as breathing imagining the energy entering with the in-breath and settling into the dan tien on the out-breath can give results. But a lot of this does require an amount of faith.

If you choose not to believe, then you may not feel anything at all. Maybe you will feel the tingling sensations here and there and if you do you may choose to view these sensations as being manifestations of chi.

If you close the 'door' to the existence of chi, then you could be missing out. I am not saying that you must believe, but instead allow for the possibility of its existence in your heart.

After all what harm can it do?

FATSAN

16-Aug-2004, 10:19 AM

I seem to remember some years ago that a study was done on some black belt martial artists with regards to the ability to affect the outcome of an event in the past.

I cant remember much about it but I believe a random event generator was used and the results over a period of time were recorded and but not revealed. The group of martial artists were then told to focus on the result in an attempt to affect it. When the results were shown there was a significant difference between the produced result and the result that should have been produced by the normal working of the event generator.

Has anyone else heard of, or can throw more light on this test and what has happened since? I will try and find some more info on it.

There is also the Bunjikan godan test - Not scientifict but uses the ability to sense the intent to kill through means other thant the 5 senses.

http://members.ams.chello.nl/ch.kamstra/godan.html

MartialArtsSnob

16-Aug-2004, 11:57 AM

Capt Ann,
I appreciate your efforts in this to keep things calm. I keep hearing the people that have education in science telling us to leave science out of it because we are apparently not qualified to speak of it. This is ridiculous, just because LBR seems to be ignorant of Chi is no reason for us to tell him to stifle himself. If our information concerning Quantum Physics is wrong (and he in fact does have some understanding in this) then by all means he should enlighten us. Telling us we don't understand and should remain silent about it then using science to defend his position is unbelievably insulting. There are a great many people here on the forum with the capacity to understand Chi as well as science. LBR’s dismissal of these peoples ideas smacks of so many scientists in the past who have kicked and screamed and cried all the way home from having the basket holding all of their intellectual eggs upturned.

FATSAN

16-Aug-2004, 03:26 PM

Not what I was looking for but covers a similar experiment - also prodeces references to other research.

http://www.fmbr.org/abstracts/absolute.htm

OBCT

27-Aug-2004, 06:44 PM

Science once said the world could not possibly be round. In the 60's they promised us we'd all be holidaying on the moon, last decade they pharmaceutical companies used a drug that caused phalidomide children...science pretty much sucks. Trying to rationalise and explain everything in solid terms, with evidence is great...in theory, in reality it just leads to the pigeon-holing of everything.

I believe in chi/ki, whether or not science believes it, and i also believe that everything is made of energy (positive and negative) and void (nothingness) even us humans, and that it can be used to our benifit.

Science is just another language as is maths, used to explain an idea or a concept, and make it tangable...arts transcend linguistic barriers, and become a more direct form for communication, if a little more abstract/remote. And after all chi/ki is usually found in martail Arts. Not martial sciences.

kiaiki

27-Aug-2004, 07:03 PM

Haven't read all posts so please forgive me, but I must put in a 'plug' for the Indian subcontinent where this all began. Along with Buddhism, concepts of Chi and Ki spread from India to China and Japan, Korea etc. Yes, there were some glimmerings in Taoism, Shinto etc but most of the understanding of Chi came from Yoga and its 'life energy/breath power caled 'Prana'. I have read extensively around Chi and Ki as expressed in China and Japan and have found nothing that was not expressed many hundreds of years before in Indian texts from the Vedas onwards. Have a look at the martial arts schools in Kerala, e.g. Kalari, and you'll find they cover much of Aikido, pressure point fighting, striking and throwing techniques as well as extremely sophisticated weapons training. If you have a problem believing in Ki as an awareness of and harmony with life force, a recent TV prog would convince you - a Kalari grading involved a blindfolded girl (with sand in her eyes to add to the difficulty). She was spun around and then had to find several men, each holding a water melon, some standing, some lying down etc. with the melon clutched to the chest. She held a machette and had to find each man and split the melon without injuring the man. Inch perfect, blindfolded. Awesome to watch and, excluding cheating, showing something beyond all known science.

Th3_GOD

04-Oct-2004, 11:17 PM

Those who argue against Qi, have many conflictions. I also am noting as i write this that i have to back every stament since it will probably be analyzed to pieces. Those arguing against Qi are essentially saying, the human body is limited and Qi is just a way of improving its function and the same results can be obtainedby other activites. Well simple and short, no. Qi deals with many levels. You have failed to address the human mind in this argument. Scientifically the human body is limited. However their are many phenomonal capabilities it can do. The body cannot work at all without the mind however. This is a huge flaw in the logical veiw. The human mind is not much understood despite all the information on it. The mind is what controls the body. Almost all Qi exercises deal with the mind. When speaking this argument with the human brain involved alot of the Qi arguments become invalid. Western science although often has a definition for Qi. Its been called bio-energy and maybe thats enough for some, do some searches on google. Things get complex when looking from the scientific veiw dealing with a human as a whole. For example when subjects are under hypnosis the hypnotist can freeze the bones so none of their body will move unless incredible force to break the joint or bone is applied. This is often demonstrated with the two chairs and the person laying between them, and another person walking on their abs and legs. The whole time they remain straight as a board. Their are also methods of self hypnosis. Anyway i doubt you can force you body to do that through common exercise huh? Your heartbeat, circulation, blood cell counts, plasma levels, hemoglobin all of it relies on the brain for regulation. Muscle memory is an essential fighting tool, that helps you act almost automatically, yet to acheive its full effects mental conditioning is needed. The basic fact is how can you argue that your body is capable of only a certain limit, when you define that limit through physical exercise that does not deal with the mind, or how it deals with energy? Proof of Qi. Well thats a hard one. Depends on your understanding or definition of Qi. If youve ever experienced and trained real Qi gong, and meditation for 1 year, daily and realistically, many sensations will be felt, and much change can be reconized. Tai chi is all good and well, but alot of the time the internal side is not really explored. Go under a reconized sensei and train Chi kung, or Qi gong, for 6 months to a year, then come argue. Traditionally Qi is basically your life force its is the regulation and energy of your body. Trying to argue it in the way you have is like trying to argue the human thinking and thought process. Not everything can be defined as a constant in science. The brain is a good example, it has so many random factors that is making each of us is indepentent and think for "ourselves." You cannot scientifically define the exact atomical structure of the brain, every brain develops differently. Qi is like this. It is not a constant that can be defined as a set of chemical processes. It is the method of training your mind to truly learn your body and its resources, to their true value. No other widely known method can accomplish this. Qi has been widely overhyped and that has raised the skeptisims, because of all the scams and hyping. I dont know about empty force, but Qi is the method i use to learn myself, and my connection with the enviroment.

As far as the little debate on the eastern knowledge vs western knowledge, so much more of western science is derived from eastern science. For example the use of electricity to accelrate healing was prompted from the concept of using the bioenrgy in Qi to accelerate healing. The circular motion and movement patterns in easern arts are also consistant with the human anatomy. The mercury thing is disputable, western sciences makes mistakes much greater than this every day. Look at the all the problems arising from what we supposedly knew, from our precious science, including atmospheric pollution, over extraction of minerals, depletion of oil supplies, etc. I don't know who started the mercury thing but remember that anyone can say anything and an entire riot will follow them to death. The eastern knowledges are very old and have had time to go through the test, and fail processes, while our sciences have not had the same treatements. I think if you actively tried Qi you could beneift alot from it. Asking someone to prove it is a analgous statement. Few know howto use it to the point to prove it physically to the senses of another person. Internal arts cannot be logically nailed down, you must go at it differently than the external arts, for a sensei can show and correct external artforms, however it is you who control your internal workings and only you can control what you choose to let your mind veiw. Im going to say now if you close the door on qi you probably wont be able to use it. Just another note, The core system of atoms and particals is being quesitoned alot in science by string theory which fills many holes in the atomic structure, but still needs a little more "filling out".

By arguing science against Qi you are arguing from the pov of science. Keep in mind all the math and science is just one way humans have created to label and describe the world around them. In a puzzle i may be able to put several pieces in the same spot but only a few and sometimes only one fits, keep in mind we are still tryiing to fit the pieces in the right places.

My main point is you cant argue only the body, you must argue the mind as well. Any of you who dont think Qi exists go upto one of those monks and hit em in the face, see what they do.

EDIT: just read the rest of the posts. The posts on this part of the thread [other than mine] are wise if anything listen to solely these.

LilBunnyRabbit

05-Oct-2004, 10:03 AM

This is often demonstrated with the two chairs and the person laying between them, and another person walking on their abs and legs. The whole time they remain straight as a board. Their are also methods of self hypnosis. Anyway i doubt you can force you body to do that through common exercise huh?And people can lift up cars in a panic, your brain imposes safeguards over the muscles of your body because otherwise the muscles are quite capable of tearing your own body to pieces. In certain states such as a deep panic, or deep hypnosis, these conscious safeguards no longer apply. Epileptic fits have a similar affect, as do some forms of insanity.

My main point is you cant argue only the body, you must argue the mind as well. Any of you who dont think Qi exists go upto one of those monks and hit em in the face, see what they do.If qi has a physical effect, then it can be tested and proven. If it doesn't, then it can't, but it becomes a philosophy rather than an actual system anyway.

ZillaBilla

05-Oct-2004, 10:47 AM

Hey Bunny,

Read some of this article, it gives a partial explanation of why 'Qi' works and how, etc.. I think you may find it interesting.. However though its only a partial explanation, I dont think one can fully describe 'Qi', only expirience it.

http://www.yiquan.org.uk/art-zz.html

LilBunnyRabbit

05-Oct-2004, 10:50 AM

ZillaBilla

05-Oct-2004, 11:03 AM

All that article describes is a rather overblown visualisation method which creates good biomechanics. If that's all chi is, then fine, but people have been saying its a lot more than just a way of simplifying good biomechanics.

Actually I was referring to the 'postural' muscles bit.. I don’t see how you could have read it though, I only posted it a few minutes ago.. The visualizations are just training methods of that specific teacher.

LilBunnyRabbit

05-Oct-2004, 11:11 AM

Firstly I read particularly fast, sorry about that. As to the postural muscles bit, I don't see what you're talking about. The writer said specifically that referring to both postural and phasic muscles was a simplification, they are in fact the same muscles, just applied in slightly different manners. Phasic describing when they are working pretty much just as muscular strength, while postural is reinforcing the natural structure of the human body.

ZillaBilla

05-Oct-2004, 12:38 PM

What I'm trying to get at, is that in the authors example 'Qi' is what allows coordinated control of both muscle groups , which in turn generates more power.

I just wanted to give you an exmple of working 'Qi', as per my post before last.

LilBunnyRabbit

05-Oct-2004, 12:55 PM

What I'm trying to get at, is that in the authors example 'Qi' is what allows coordinated control of both muscle groups , which in turn generates more power.
Ahh, okay, of course. I call that a central nervous system.

ZillaBilla

05-Oct-2004, 01:58 PM

True. Working with your Qi and Intent (Yi), trains the nervous system, resulting in greater control, which offers IMA practitioners the ability to coordinate small/subtle movements of legs, spine and arms, resulting in what is called 'Fa Jing', or different ways of emitting/transferring energy. Training the nervous system also allows greater control of mental states that would otherwise interfere with focus and intention, as well as increasing reaction, speed, balance, perception, and anything else connected to the nervous system, which is everything that we know of.

Personally I do not know any other way to consciously and specifically target the nervous system for training other than using the Qi/Yi connection. All sports and physical activity train the nervous system to some extent, but Qi/Yi methods isolate and work this very specifically and very deeply.

I know you did not ask about this stuff, but I figured I would throw it in anyway. Keep in mind though that this is a very brief explanation and the subject is much broader and more complex than this.

LilBunnyRabbit

05-Oct-2004, 02:29 PM

Personally I do not know any other way to consciously and specifically target the nervous system for training other than using the Qi/Yi connection. All sports and physical activity train the nervous system to some extent, but Qi/Yi methods isolate and work this very specifically and very deeply.Professional coaches in just about any sport will contentrate on single muscle groups, or occasionally even single muscles at a time. They will work through every single aspect of a movement, breaking it down as completely as any internal martial artist, and improving every aspect, from the angle of the knee, to when you push with the calf. Of course, these are the truly high-level coaches, but the point still stands. This is pretty much what I've been saying I believe chi/qi/ki to be all along.

ZillaBilla

05-Oct-2004, 03:13 PM

I see how that could be very useful for improving performance in most sports. However, IMA’s don’t only work with muscles but with all tissues within the body, glands, viscera, fascia, etc. Furthermore, I don’t think that the methods employed by even the highest skilled coaches would come close to being as effective as methods developed by Taoists, mainly because of over 3,000 years more research, also I have never seen any professional athlete generate as much power or speed as high level IMA’ists. I think the reason for this could be that these Pro Sport people only concentrate on very specific muscle groups etc. Whereas IMA concentrate on all the body’s systems. I also don’t think that the Pro Sports people would have the correct mindset or perseverance to come across such subtle techniques that IMA’s use, but that’s just my opinion.

In any case, I understand that you agree that from what you have mentioned –

Professional coaches in just about any sport will contentrate on single muscle groups, or occasionally even single muscles at a time. They will work through every single aspect of a movement, breaking it down as completely as any internal martial artist, and improving every aspect, from the angle of the knee, to when you push with the calf. Of course, these are the truly high-level coaches, but the point still stands. This is pretty much what I've been saying I believe chi/qi/ki to be all along.

- that performance can be increased by training the nervous systems connection with the muscles. But I don’t see why you find it so absurd, when you hear that people cannot put in to words the things they have experienced and that they know there is something more, so to speak. IMA train the connection of the nervous system to all the body’s tissues and beyond. The central nervous system is the link that connects our consciousness to our external and internal environment. Is it so strange that if you improve these connections you start coming across things that Science has no concept about. Specifically when you consider that Taoist Internal Arts are extremely more advanced in this are than Science.

serious harm

05-Oct-2004, 08:28 PM

And the internal can still be there when someone is older or if they're small

LilBunnyRabbit

06-Oct-2004, 08:57 AM

Is it so strange that if you improve these connections you start coming across things that Science has no concept about. Specifically when you consider that Taoist Internal Arts are extremely more advanced in this are than Science.When someone can conclusively demonstrate to me that internal arts give advantages that hard, expert training doesn't, then I'll believe there's something more to it. So far no one has.

ZillaBilla

06-Oct-2004, 09:36 AM

When someone can conclusively demonstrate to me that internal arts give advantages that hard, expert training doesn't, then I'll believe there's something more to it. So far no one has.

What sort of demo do you want?

LilBunnyRabbit

06-Oct-2004, 09:45 AM

What sort of demo do you want?Anything that proves conclusively that use of qi has effects beyond those of careful scientific conditioning. It would have to involve either me personally as a subject/victim, or someone I intrinsically trust, or be some sort of footage which can be proven to be genuine (a very difficult task). It would also have to have some form of effect that science cannot account for or explain.

nzric

06-Oct-2004, 09:51 AM

daftyman

06-Oct-2004, 10:01 AM

Have a test to see who has the least lower back pain, arthritis, digestive problems, scar tissue, weak wrists/ankles, weight gain and concussion problems when they're 70.

As for chi, I completely agree with LilBunnyRabbit - use of 'chi' is simply having an excellent command of your own body mechanics (so much so that you appear much stronger/faster than "normal"). I think that anyone who believes it can make you fly/throw people around without touching them/make yourself a cup of coffee without leaving your chair should be shot (metaphorically speaking of course), but I swore I'd keep out of the pointless "mystic chi power" discussions.
I'm with you there. When I'm old enough to know what life is all about, I want to make sure I have the health to enjoy it!

My fiancée can make a cup of tea without leaving the sofa. She just bats her eyelids at me and I feel 'compelled' to make one! :D

I use the term 'qi' to explain certain sensations or to explain things, but I am unwilling to try to make someone believe in it. It is just a useful term. If people prefer to use 'nervous system', or other 'western' terms then fine. If they feel something, they might call is increased blood flow. They might call it qi. It doesn't matter.

serious harm

06-Oct-2004, 03:38 PM

Find a good IMA teacher. Real good ones with the real skill are rare, and they're not about proving or showing off to doubters. Qi is the foundation of IMA.

serious harm

06-Oct-2004, 11:17 PM

Here is some competitive push hands clips. Not too bad at all IMO. Although people on the forum I found it on, thought it wasn't too good. I think at least shows some fundament techniques of Taiji. I wonder if internet people could beat this guy in push hands.

http://www.taiji.org.hk/_video/whgpushand.wmv

kmclye

07-Oct-2004, 02:05 AM

I'll jump in here with crossed fingers! Here are a couple of points - make of them what you will.

In SE Asia, English speakers use the words "heaty" and "cooling" to describe the believed effects of different foods and drink. For example, durians and mangoes are "heaty" but mangosteens are "cooling". These words are represent but are not truly translations of the Chinese concepts. I can't given you a translation because I don't know one. I grew up in Singapore: English is my first language and Chinese my second - English is also the first language of nearly every Chinese person I know there and none of them has a translation they feel is adequate. So if "qi" is hard/impossible to translate, it isn't alone in that.

Second point. A few years ago, I spent several months learning Thai massage in Chiangmai. The Thais have a concept called Sen lines. These are drawn on diagrams of body outlines which are given to students. For the first few days, we worked on legs and I couldn't feel any lines at all. As predominantly left-brained operator, I was predisposed to scepticism and this failure to feel any lines fuelled that scepticism. (In fact the whole reason for doing Thai massage was to try and get out of my left-brain comfort zone. Well, it succeeded.) Around the fifth day, we started on the arms. As these are smaller limbs than the legs, everything is closer to the surface and that day, I finally felt the "Sen lines" and truly understood that there were more things on heaven on earth than were dreamt of in my philosophy! Now it could well be that someone who knows anatomy will tell me that the Sen lines are the same as such-and-such a western concept, like nerve threads or parts of the lymphatic system, and they may well be right. In any event the Sen lines have Ayurvedic origins, not Chinese, although they are conceptually analogised with lines of qi. The point is that my mind became open.

I don't do IMA, but my instructor teaches Tai chi and Kalis Ilustrisimo. You would have thought them the opposites of soft internal and hard external. In fact, he unites them and watching him and learning from him leads me to think in part that those who have "powerful qi" also have excellent biomechanics. I can't say whether they are the same thing or have a cause-effect relationship.

However biomechanics does not explain the heat of a practitioner's hands or the feeling of there being something tangible and malleable but not visible between them. And no, I have not felt this because I don't do FMA and apparently you can't feel someone else's so it is anecdotal. But if I accept the word of practitioners whose integrity I feel certain of, then I am willing to believe that, like the Sen lines, that heat and that feeling are there for them.

Now does that add nicely to any confusion that existed before? :D