here is some nice experimentation

Discussion in 'Tai chi' started by tpyeon, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Apologies all my grammar and spelling are getting worse as the day progresses. Hopefully you get the jist of what I am saying.

    The Bear.
  2. unfetteredmind

    unfetteredmind Valued Member

    If this is aimed at me there must be some confusion. When you said "get back to the original discussion" I thought you meant the original (i.e. first) discussion. And just be careful about accusing people of trolling. Not very cool.
  3. tpyeon

    tpyeon Valued Member

  4. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

  5. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Well, as it's martial arts, you know, i tire of the BS, personally. If someone can floor me with their qi, then let's see it. In fact, if someone can floor me with their taiji, then let's see it.

    If we should do anythign out of this thread, at least as far as its martial arts application, then let's set up a clinical trial, as in, a martial arts meet up, to see who can do what with whatever method. We don't have to have a death match - anything - whatever, I'll do whatever... push hands, gloves on, I don't mind.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2007
  6. tpyeon

    tpyeon Valued Member

    fire quan,

    the aim of this thread is not to dispute ones martial prowess.

    it was to talk about qi/qigong as they are often key components of tjq practice. and. instead of just shouting at each other, to talk about what both sides would like to see happen.

    which pretty much successfully happened. with people trying to avoid nonsense as much as possible!

    and is a huge step in the right direction for an online community filled with people of complete opposite views.

    of course, doing the trial would be even better.

    but most of your posts haven't seemed as relevent, or as purposefully engaging as polar bears, taoquans etc. they have seemed to want to pull off in a completely different direction.

    and now it comes to violence? a clinical show down?

    we're all here to discuss and learn.
  7. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Oh, give over.
  8. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Here's the long and short of it - not that we all didn't know - if "qi" actually had any measurable scientific effect measurable by current scientific instrument or method, we'd all know, because it's effects would have been recoreded and experiments to show it reproduced long ago. Shady experiements from China with no comparitive study are a sure sign that somethign iffy is going on.

    However, the answer to the conundrum is anthropological, even by scientific evaluation - if qi was real it would be known pan human that it was real. Across the globe, the same phenomena would have been noticed - just as, across the globe, all humans developed language. But it isnt, itls a highly geographically limited belief.

    On the other side of the coin, existing as a belief means that it can still have effects, even without being true. Understand? OK.

    It;s really that simple, and the onlyt thing to consider after that is why and how people cling to conceptual structures. Do we believe in qi because we know it's real, or because it has become part ofour self identiy, belief system.... why are we arguing for it, or against it... well, for our identity.

    In terms of martial art, the real question is if anyone can actually use taiji, qi, or any kind of Chinese martial art to actually be a martial artist.

    So, if anyone really is interested, while I'm interested in organising a big meet up for everyone - ok, show us that that your taiji, your Yiquan, your qi, your qi free, is real... whether you call it qi or not qi.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2007
  9. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    I just checked.

    To which Julie responded that your comment (that ideologies are capable of learning) made them sound sentient. She then stated (correctly) that they are not. To this you replied:

    So you are just telling fibs now really. You made the original claim and verified it when Julie challenged it, so the idea was yours - Julie just challenged it.

    Anyway, all that aside, if you manage to arrange a meet up to see what arts / practices work in combat, I'm game if it doesn't clash with anything. And I agree with most of your last post on qi but I'm all for scientific studies being carried out.
  10. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Ah, another attempt at derailment.
    Training methods do not always have immediate martial benefits, so no I don't agree. Also since no proper study has been undertaken I cannot be 100% sure qigoing doesn't work since that would be an irrational stance. I think it is highly improbable that qi exists but a little study like I have proposed will be a good step in resolving this.

    While I enjoy your meanderings and desire to spout everything you have read on the forum and then veiled threats when that fails. Do actually have anything to add to the study I proposed?

    The Bear.
  11. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Hey Bear, can you give me an example of something that we (humans) know exists, that we have not experienced.
  12. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    A Blackhole.

    The Bear.
  13. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Well, take sentience and replace it with self aware, which was my interpretation of Julie's meaning, then take ten argument points of me, award them to you, then get on with whatever you were doing before.

    As for a meet up, do you have any senior male students?
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
  14. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    it's not a veiled threat - it's something I've been thinking about for a long time. I should have just made it a new thread is all... Let's get together, let's see it - let's see which method and which claim really has some merit.

    If anyone can demonstrate anythign to do with qi, well let's see it. Which comes back to what I've said about qi ten times now - believers WANT you to remain inthe realm of belief, where nothing can be dis proved - that's a TACTIC to manipulate awareness of what is what. The only way to tackle suchthings is in their effects... whether that be that someone saw a vision, or someone says they can fa li you. Effects, effects, effects....
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
  15. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    While you were researching ontology, did it never come up in google that extrapolating the existence of something might be a rational assumption, but not direct knowledge?
  16. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Yep, it's boring.
  17. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    I see. But I would not say this is something that has not been experienced by humans, don't know how true what I'm saying is and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing some action of a blackhole may be observed, hence we know of it or we propose its existence, thus IMO it is some sort of experience of this phenomena. I'm wondering if there is anything that you believe that has absolutely not been experienced by anyone.

    Anyway, I'm gonna try the following argument, please let me know what you think.

    Regarding the blackhole, if in fact there is nothing to experience in connection with it, and it is wholly based on theory. I think the only reason you do believe in blackholes is because it is in the framework to which you subscribe to and judge your reality with. But what makes this framework any more relevant than any other framework? If you can believe something that cannot be experienced, and as such you cannot prove the existence of a blackhole to someone who does not subscribe to your framework. I.e. to someone from a different framework, your basically believing in something that is not real, as the explanation for its existence lies wholly within your framework. Likewise, how is it that you can disbelieve something which is almost identical in its modality within another framework and supported by the theory of this other framework. Is it not irrational? And is it not even more irrational to bring a concept from one framework, lets say (framework A), in to another framework (framework B) and expect subscribers to framework A to prove the existence of something that exists within framework A in the modality of framework B, without having subscribers to framework B subscribe to framework A.

    Now, do you think you could get a believer of a framework radically different to your own, to subscribe to the idea of a blackhole using only theoretical evidence for it. Without having them take your word for it?

    However, with "Qi" this is different, as you can actually verify its existence for yourself in the physical world (as opposed to pure theory) without having to subscribe to the Taoist framework, by undertaking a physical practice. This is all regardless of whether "Qi" is a feeling or energy or whatever, i.e. it is purely the feeling of it. But, to expect someone to explain an idea from their framework in your framework seems a bit silly.

    But hey, maybe the concept of "qi" can cross from one framework in to another, and without the experiments proposes in this thread it probably wont be possible.

    Is it rational to believe that one framework is more relevant than another, as either one is just as real to its subscriber?
  18. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Hi inthespirit,
    I chose blackhole for a very specific reason.
    Yes only recently have we actually seen the effects of a black hole since there ain't much to see in itself. However they have been a theoretical entity for some time. Therefore we had a theoretical entity called a black hole which recently we have confirmed with an experience. The black hole did exist even though we had not experienced it. Would you not agree?

    The Bear.
  19. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Yeah, I agree, thought this may have been the case.
  20. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    The real reason I am against the idea of qi, is that is doesn't appear in any of the mathematics for matter/energy that we know. Now there were plenty of things that appeared in the maths that we hadn't encountered, still are incidentally, however eventually we tend to find them through designing experiments that tie up with the maths. The stuff we can't find tend to be very small or only happen under very unusual circumstance or like gravity our own massive gravity field overwhelms the experiment.
    This wouldn't be the case for Qi since it is supposed to affect the natural world with a detectable effect. Therefore anthing that large would appear in the mathmatics. I have no problem having the concept of qi as a metaphor for a collection of bio-mechanical processes.

    The Bear.

Share This Page