Hi Newbie question

Discussion in 'Tai chi' started by SB1970, Oct 28, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    You can - but I'll be in a bunker aiming a cruise misile.
  2. whoflungdat

    whoflungdat Valued Member

    Can I bring my car ???:D
  3. whoflungdat

    whoflungdat Valued Member

    In that case I'm bringing my mum :D
  4. unfetteredmind

    unfetteredmind Valued Member

    Well it's nice to be considered a sceptic. Most people seem to think that because I practice Taiji and acupuncture that I am a gullible fool :)
    Oh, okay then, let's keep going. I propose that Qi and energy are the same, both models of reality, not real in of themselves. Whereas what you are saying is that Qi and energy are the same and that both "exist" in the real world. Have I understood you correctly?

    Now I know I haven't understood this.

    So this bio energy, does it flow through us like electricity in a circuit?
  5. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    Lol. Do you mean, sending your Mum??

    Either way - you win. I'm not fighting her!
  6. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Well we use models and frameworks to understand things. It doesn't make thinks like energy unreal - if that it what you mean by not real.

    But i thought that is what you where proposing - see first quote above.

    If I told you to think of the eiffel tower in your mind and you did that i would not appoint it the same status as the eiffel tower in Paris.

    I can't explain myself in any depth right now but i'll give it a pop over the weekend if that's cool with you ..

    No we are not that circuit so bio hardly applies, i certainly wouldn't discount parallels that could be made. But that would be bio-electricity that is detectable and not only existing in the mind like the eiffel tower i asked you to picture .

    I don't know enough about it to say how it flows in us. It isn't vague to me (meaning of energy) that bio electricity is a form of energy, just how comparable it is to a man made circuit i don't know. meaning i lack that knowledge.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  7. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Now that's unfair.
    You have to remember lots of the people here have access to mystical qi force. I think a sword is a suitable leveller for those with out qi. Do you not?

    The Bear.
  8. whoflungdat

    whoflungdat Valued Member

    Ok I'm asking this in a nice way, having received acupuncture and it fixing the problem.
    How does it work?
  9. cheesypeas

    cheesypeas Moved on

    I've got a prog on video that investigated this (its out on loan so this is from memory!)

    A patient was put in a scanner and was scanned prior to and during accupuncture. The investigator was a Doctor seeking medical info. During accupuncture, areas of the brain became activated.

    Anyone else?
  10. Taoquan

    Taoquan Valued Member

    Greetings CK,

    Sorry it has taken some time to respond my internet is on the fritz. I just wanted to say I am just done with these debates. Kind of "throwing in the towel," it matters not to me whom believes or does not. I have exp. these first hand and continue to exp. positive exp. as I have mentioned some of these exp. are well within the framework of the logical mind.

    However, others are not, I am just grateful that placebo effect or whatever else is going on, that I have something that truly does help people where other modalities have failed. The thing with most of this is we are often people's last hope, this may result in a greater placebo effect, however, it also means that regardless the other modalities they have tried have failed them. So it does not matter to me who/what/how/why it works, all that matters now is helping the patient.

    I will NEVER recommend any of these modalities OVER western medicine, but rather combining them. I have always appreciated what you bring to these threads and how you make me work :) But I am at a point where if people ask I will give the best info I can and let them decide for themselves. I never wanted to "convert" people, but that might have been that way when I first got here. More for a need to validate my own life than to get other's to believe, now that I am in clinic I have gotten that validation and continue to each day. So for this time being I am done with most of these types of discussions, other than to simply give the best information I can.

    Thank you for your time, I now return you to your previous discussion :D
  11. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    What difference does it make? I am here to challenge the views you express here. It isn't my fault if you are not presenting your ideas truthfully.

    Firstly - I am certainly trying not to look after number one. Secondly, I would prefer it if your ideas simply ceased to exist.

    I don't. Yes, that's funny.

    So you are just another trouble maker with delusions of grandeur. Have you met jnanasakti?

    The funny thing is that you have got me so very wrong. Of course you'll say that you haven't... I am not setting out to be anyone's victim - not yours, not unfetteredmind's. That isn't what I'm saying. CKava picked up on the issue correctly I think in reference to jnanasakti:
    So you see the truth is that I think you are obnoxious and unpleasant. I say whatever comes to mind - I'm not tactical or selective - I don't care if I shoot myself in the foot from time to time. I'm not playing games here.

    I knew you'd make that point, but again it is projection on your part based on the kind of person you are. I am frequently annoyed by the ways other people behave, entirely on matters of principle. I don't have to be involved. Your actions would annoy me in relation to anyone and they would annoy me if being exhibited by someone else. You annoy me in abstract - in principle. I'm annoyed by the kind of person you are - a completely unrepentant and obnoxious egomaniac. I think you, like others here, have proved that there is something about the whole so-called "internal" / introspective process that creates monsters. They don't have to believe in qi.

    You have a whole circular logic thing going on - you've created an internally consistent world where you can judge others by your own standards. But if you were to read different books - books by Thomas Merton, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton etc. you would see that you can be judged too by the values of another internally consistent world view. It would all fit, if you were prepared to genuinely ask yourself whether or not their words applied to you. I can guarantee you would not like the result. Not everyone is ready to take that big an ego blow - I'm not sure if any belief system is as robust in rooting out evil as Christianity.

    What people never pick up on (especially the ones who claim to be pretty sharp) is how broad my perspective is. I get pigeonholed into the box of "Christian" (no one knows or cares whether I'm Unitarian, Trinitarian, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Seventh Day Adventist, Quaker, Liberation Theologian, Evangelical, Universalist, Jehovah's Witness, Messianic Jew...) but that is not all I am. I do not say there is one true religion. I find effective truths in Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Visnaisim, Daoism, Confucianism... even Atheism sometimes - I was largely behind Richard Dawkins in his recent programme on alternative health cures - I agreed with 95% of what he said (I think he was incorrect in lumping priests, Rabbis and Imams in with the alternative health brigade) and 100% of why he was saying it - out of a sincere desire to liberate people from superstition. I think atheism could only have emerged from monotheism. It is a natural step (I hesitate to say progression). I do believe in eradicating ritual and superstition. I do believe that science can be a candle in the dark to a demon haunted world. But I would place science hand in hand with religion so there can be development not only in what we are able to do, but also a moral development that will assist us in using our advancements benevolently. Yes - I did use the b word again. I think the divorce between science and religion is a bad step. If quantum theory is going to have metaphysical connotations, that is the time to be all the more vigilant in rooting out magic, charlatanism and other immoral avenues.

    I do not say there is one true path. But I do think people should strive for goodness and justice rather than amorality and selfishness. That's it. You can philosophise and be clever all you want, but it is better to strive to be a better person and to try to become more useful. Some people here do a poor job of selling me their ideas.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  12. Julie (MTA)

    Julie (MTA) Banned Banned

    If I were come on this thread and and say, "OK Fire-quan, you've won me round. I believe human beings are perfect, we hold all the goodness and power and answers in ourselves."

    Would you say, "Well actually, human beings are flawed, we should look outside ourselves for the source of goodness, power and answers..."?

    I doubt it.
  13. whoflungdat

    whoflungdat Valued Member

    Cool :)
  14. whoflungdat

    whoflungdat Valued Member

    Hey have you guys heard of R.S.I ??? :D
  15. jnanasakti

    jnanasakti Valued Member

    HEY!! I feel left out! Aren't you going to respond to my posts jkzorya? :confused:
  16. tpyeon

    tpyeon Valued Member

  17. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Well sign me up for the campaign against the Catholic Church won't you.

    Wait .. Just kidding, i think they're fantastic. Wait ..
  18. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Bwahahahahaha! :D
  19. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Carys, I could do things to you that your brain would light up like a frickin' christmas tree. Doesn't prove I'm a miracle healer though been told I'm good for stress relief. :D

    The Bear.
  20. Fire-quan

    Fire-quan Banned Banned

    That's a very good question, from a very smart thinker. The answer is no. And the reason is that for the most part, I'm working with pre-existing social programeing, which is virtually exclusivlely based on thinking, asserting, or implying that "human is bad."

    What I'm doing, when I propose oppositions, is challenging judgment - the core psychology of judgment; which is a tool by which ideology opresses our spirit. If you're at the point of understanding "we are all perfect, just as we are" then you've already grasped that it was only ever an artificial construction, that belief we had, that being a human is in and of itself a "sin".

    Then, as our debate contiuned, I'd get out of that level and move to a wider discussion opening up wider implications of the suspension of judgment.

    Julie - you know what the original sin was? Not disobeying God - eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The true original sin which really is original - right at the core inception of our ego, is "judgment" - the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    But good question. If you were a Marxist, say, I'd argue that the world is already perfect, just as it is, and that it doesn't need changing.... But almost every ideology is geared to judgment, and spun around self pity and self importance - the method I use isn't "for" opposing you, it's "for" understanding that self importance and self pity are key barriers on our awareness.

    Bravo for asking the most relevant question.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page