I'm not elaborating on anything. When I say people like you. I mean people that I have seen on this board for years and still don't get it. I mean why should I waste more of my time and energy when it's just a bad case of groundhog day with "people like you". There are a hundred threads with people making essentially the same arguments and points going back years. When I say people like you, I mean people I fear may never get it. It's nothing complicated. You either get it, or you don't. How long have you studied ICMA? At some point you just have to explore and find out about these things out for yourself through your practice. If you don't have one, or any teachers, then I and any thing I have learnt is of no use to you. Other than satisfying some idle curiosity or level of scepticism - no thanks.
In other words, people like you have no scientific evidence of it or have a desire to remain in the idea that its a archaic unique way of saying things that modern biology and modern medicine already has
Meaning that you don't seem to have taken in a single thing that he wrote. He made it perfectly clear that he regards Qi as an abstract concept, but you're still wittering on about it being a 'thing' for which there is no scientific proof. It's that sort of thing that makes threads about Qi so utterly pointless.
"Qi" as a conceptual metaphor for energetic process or change (transformation) does not need scientific evidence. All cultures and languages have such words (metaphors) in them past and present. Modern science included. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f4NopbTz0CwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...age&q=wave and particle are metaphors&f=false I have not used it or claimed it to be anything other than that. Maybe this will sink in one day, maybe it won't.
Although I do appreciate links, I cold not read those. The text was not clear enough for me to read given the current condition of my eyesight Please explain, in layman's terms, a conceptual metaphor
Not so much an idea in a technical scientific sense, but a linguistic construct. Among chinese (mandarin or otherwise) speakers there is hardly a need to deconstruct the concept of Qi as it is so intrinsically embedded in the language. For example, to get angry is to 'Sheng Qi' or literally to Increase/Give rise to 'Qi'; Air is 'Kong Qi', or the Void/Empty 'Qi'. Scientifically Speaking, there is no direct correlation between getting angry and the air around you, but linguistically they have the same root in Chinese, based on tacit body understanding. As my teacher would say, the fact of Qi is self evident as without Qi one would be dead. Of course that statement is hardly a scientific one, for it implies that Qi is but the quality of being alive; observing one's consciousness and constant breath. We are all empowered, but at the same time limited by our use of language and the world / culture around us is similarly evolved. I can immediately pick up the disconnect in any discussion about Qi as soon as I switch the language I use. Qi will forever be a quaint foreign word/concept in the context of an english discussion, but it is a given, integral descriptor in the Chinese language.
So after the bit of rambling, was I not simply saying that Qi is nothing more than an Idea, visualization tool? Well yes, and no.... This is from my own experience (albeit limited) in my practice of Taijiquan. Qi is the reality of Taijiquan, although when I issue force, technically I am conscious of linking the root from my feet to my dantien and up towards my palm/fist, it only works when i 'know' that my Qi is connecting within my body; when I think of 'visualizing' instead, the act is somewhat distanced from my intent and it just does not have the same quality of execution. When I am engaging in free step tuishou 'sparring', knowing my Qi body helps me to regulate my breathing and use of energy so that I am not fatigued too easily, and feeling my dantien centers my intent and the relationship to the incoming forces. If I think simply in the physical sense, I find that my intent becomes 'scattered' not focused to the same level, and as a result I tend to do worse. In that sense, Qi is very real to me, and I would wager that that is very much how Qi was always regarded in Taijiquan. The problem we have in modern times is that Qi is expected to be a singular, quantifiable phenomenon due to our scientifically orientated thinking. The proliferation of popular martial arts fantasies has also contributed to the widespread impression that we are dealing with a mysterious 'energy' to an extent that some think they can train to shoot Qi balls from their palms.....:bang:
Demystifying Qi - Andrew Nugent-Head This is a good watch - especially the bit where Andrew spends half an hour reading out the various meanings of Qi. If you make it to the end of this you will never need to get involved in another 'what is Qi' thread again! Time well spent I'm sure you'd agree [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YilBJY-rk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1YilBJY-rk[/ame] Cheers Rob
Therefore, could Qi be subjected to the ideomotor effect? Do you agree or disagree with authors such as Robert Todd Carroll, Sima Nan, Joanna Zorya, Rob Redmond, Ray Hyman, Steven Shafer, Peter Huston, to name a few As for rooting and dantien.....some will not consider this a Qi, but body mechanics http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/sima_nan_fighting_qigong_pseudoscience_in_china/
The new thread discussing schools adopting the shaolin moniker is here: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124891
I've come late to this (I don't get to MAP as often as I used to) ... I teach Tai Chi without any 'Qi' indeed I don't believe in 'Qi' - am I a bad ass fighter dude - NO - I teach Tai Chi for health and that includes but is not limited to self defence... Hope that the OP found what they were looking for...
Well of course brother "qi" is not really a faith based program anyway, it's something the Chinese made up to establish frames of reference. You don't have to use it, the terms, or ancient terminology at all, and all the basic outcomes should be the same regardless. Qi in it's original context is very much based on cause-effect and observable evidence (in a prescientific way). There are clearly consistent characteristics of "good" "bad" "strong" or "weak" qi to look for, and ways of comparing various causes (foods, environment, training methods) and effects (health, strength, longevity, virility, mental clarity). It just so happens that when you take it out of context (say, from the simple perspective of observable energetic qualities of life, to a New Age or cultish malapropism involving mind control, psychokinetics, or similar chicanery, that a clear abuse of the term becomes apparent. Just a simple example brothers: to say "my qi is strong" today is a 100% correct, accurate, and perfectly understandable statement to make if I feel healthy and vibrant and strong. There is not a person on Earth who could successfully claim "it isn't real". It's really just a simple matter of perspective, like saying "I'm on point" or "he's on fire!". No, he's not really on fire. It's an expression! On the other hand when a fraudster tries teach what they claim to be skills to manipulate, imbalance or otherwise attack someone's "qi", they are establishing a very different context for qi...an extrasensory energy that exists separate from a mere concept of mind-body that is quite frankly comfortably off the deep end of the realm of parapsychology.
Thank the heavens, somebody who knows what a jargon is and how it applies to fields of study! :happy: Sadly, many people (even those who doesn't subscribe to the mystical description of Qi) refers to Qi without understanding the POV and jargon of the three big fields which predominantly utilizes the concept of Qi: TCM, CMA and Feng Shui. Basically what happens is: "what is Qi to you is not Qi to me," eliminating a cultural POV necessary to understand the making and mechanics of the CMA style that references Qi.
