What is 'Qi', to those who believe.

Question for you guys (Bunny, CKava).

What steps would you take in nurturing the minds of future or current scientists to instill morals that would prevent the misuse if science for harm or profit, and direct it wholly towards the benefit to mankind?

 

Thank you Zilla and sorry if some of it came across a bit harshly. I think Im still in a bit of a bad mood after the aiport losting some of my things from Japan. Anyway... carry on.

 

No worries CKava, that’s the stuff life throws at us. But that’s the people that really got to get their act together, 'the airline industry', recently booked a holiday, now they telling me the airport staff are going on strike. They all good for taking loads of dosh, but giving quality service in return is a bit much to ask.

 

Thats certainly a good question Zilla and to be honest I would have to say that to attempt to prevent the 'misuse' of science would be remarkably difficult verging on impossible and I really have little idea as to how you could prevent the entire population from following selfish urges. That aside, the only thing I would suggest is that by directing people from an early age towards being more aware of themselves and by extension their actions by say for example having introspective methods taught throughout education. Might, as a result, lead people to choose rather than be forced not to 'misuse' science.

Science is really a neutral force its just a method for increasing knowledge so at the end of the day its people who chose to use it for good or bad so the issue (as it always will be) is how do you stop people from behaving in selfish ways? The only way I know that tends to lead to such behaviour is introspection and unfortunately you cannot force anyone to do that, it has to be their own choice.

 

I agree, the wrong person got the warning. Some mods do more harm than good.

 

As CKava says, its mostly down to people. I very much doubt there's anything that could be done that would be viewed universally as 'good'. In fact some of the things that would actually improve most people's lives I fully expect to see classified as evil, repeatedly.

Selfishness and selflessness are equally damning if everyone has one or the other, and solely that. What you want to look at is actually game theory, you have to compromise between the two, if you act purely for the group and sacrifice yourself then no one wins, if you act purely for yourself and sacrifice the group then you get the same. If you compromise and act in the interests of both yourself *and* the group, you've got a decent chance.

 

Yeah mate, I guess its just a matter of perspective really, people will only be satisfied with whatever satisfies them. But, people the way they are have their own views on good and bad. So good and bad are only defied as where you’re looking from, so in essence they are the same. This brings to mind the complexity/simplicity of the 'Tai Chi' symbol. Let me elaborate. The Yin/Yang principle is also applied in such a way. As I'm sure you know Yang represents the positive and Yin the negative. However, Yang is only positive, if it is positive in the eyes of the observer. Thus, if 1 is a higher mark than 2, then 1 is Yang and 2 is Yin. But if 2 is considered higher the they 2 is Yang, and 1 is Yin. And actually there is a question I wanted to ask of someone who is well versed in physics, so to speak. The question is such. Is I true that when a 'Red Dwarf' (not the TV series) reaches a certain size it collapses in to itself and forms a black hole? If this is in fact true, then does the 'Red Dwarf', at its largest point (size wise) before collapse, represent the greatest amount of matter in one mass that can exist in time and space? Also what does a 'black hole' consist of, or is it the opposite of consisting of something, and if so why does the ‘opposite of consisting of something’ suck matter in to itself. Finally do 'Red Dwarfs' always collapse when they reach a specific mass or size?

 

Only some stars collapse to form black holes, most just don't have the mass. As for what a black hole consists of supposedly its neutronium, the matter that you get when all normal mass is compressed down, forcing protons and electrons to combine for the end result of neutrons (the heaviest of the three basic atomic particles). Because neutrons have no electric charge they can be squeezed into a much smaller area than charged particles, as there's no force pushing them apart.

The reason a black hole draws matter in is simply because it has an incredible amount of mass. If you took the mass of the entire solar system and crushed it down to about the size of an orange, you might be getting close (I can't be bothered doing the calculations now, my head's aching anyway, but I'll do them later if you'd like).

The oddities from black holes come from relativistic effects, but in essence they are simply huge amounts of mass compressed into a miniscule area. And no, red dwarves do not always collapse when they reach a specific size or mass, at least not as far as I know. There's more to it than that. The internal pressure of the star has to be weaker than the gravity it produces so that the star can shrink, occasionally this shrinkage can actually cause the star to reignite for a time (compression increases thermal energy) which can burn off enough mass to prevent a black hole from ever forming.

 

Cheers Bunny.

 

I'm not sure that anyone here is deliberately trying to misuse science. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that most posters in this thread are trying to use science at all. It just seems to be constantly demanded of them by the more science-minded crowd. Once again, IMA practitioners have to try to stuff a square peg into a round hole. I have nothing at all against science; I think a lot of good has come from scientific research. But can't we please have one, single thread on chi that doesn't get hijacked?

 

Hear! Hear!

If you don't like a post, don't react to it and it will go away (kinda). If you put force against force then you end up with a slug fest. Most of this thread seems to be going in circles.

"I'm right!"
"No, I'm right!"
"No, I'm right! and so's my wife!"

 

I dunno I thought in the last few exchanges above your post were actually encouraging...

I can sympathise with the desire to have a discussion with like minded people but in reality what is stopping any 'chi believers' here from having a discussion here about chi?

Personally, I think its always more productive to try and challenge your own beliefs than just try and re-enforce them but c'est la vie...

 

"I dunno I thought in the last few exchanges above your post were actually encouraging..."
yes, totally agree, just the tone of other areas of the thread.

"...what is stopping any 'chi believers' here from having a discussion here about chi?"
Now, THERE's a question I would like to hear the answer to!

"Personally, I think its always more productive to try and challenge your own beliefs than just try and re-enforce them but c'est la vie..."
Never a truer word said. Let us remove our own blinkers before attacking those of other people.

 

Perhaps there is no meaning to life except what you give it. You give meaning through your exploration of 'qi' but do not mistake that your way is any more valid than anyone elses. Some of us like the fact that there is no meaning, no god, no 'qi'.

Zilla, I read your response to my request for an example. Erm Sorry but I could quite follow the points. It didn't really seem like a comparison of one apsect of the two systems. Could you clarify for me please?

The Bear.

The Bear.

 

Well then whats the problem.. na, just kidding..

I could, or at least I think I could, but it would really take too long for any meaningfull explanation. I recommend to just have a read yourself, I don’t think you'll be disappointed, its quite interesting.

 

True, though it would be logical to increase the brains energy and nourishment supply in order to get better performance, or so called 'higher states of consciousness'. But, like you say, it only matters to the individual, like that tree falling in a forest paradigm.

 

Hi Zilla,
Dangerous Ground there Zilla. I know plenty of people who tried the same using narcotics to obtain a "higher state". The danger is, that the search easily leads into self delusion, how do you know it's a higher state? What does it even mean? The faith systems throw too many easy phases out that no-one can define.

You have quoted from many esteemed authors and philosophers to backup your points but want I really want to know is what you think? What is 'qi'? and why is it central to your martial ability? Please no quotes or jargon, just nice plain english.

 

Hey Bear,

Indeed they are dangerous grounds, though thankfully, the wise ones from ages gone by have left very specific guidelines on what to do and what not to. In fact I hear that mental hospitals in the far east are full of 'Qi Gong' practitioners. Personally I have seen a few of my mates who started such practices go a bit delusional, though this is because they thought they knew better and did not follow instructions. When you start messing about with the brains energy supply, well lets just say it can be a bit bizarre to say the least. I can quite easily see how one could loose hi/her marbles. Though, as mentioned if one follows the guidelines of those who have treaded the same path, then one should be able to maintain the right balances, and an experienced teacher is quite imperative. Also with experience, one can tell whether what goes on in the mind is a thought, feeling, instinct, emotion, etc, not to say that people who don’t practice cant, but its a deeper perception brought about by practice, so one can nip delusion in the bud. But unfortunately, this is not the case with beginners, and often they take the false for the real, and play a dangerous game. Furthermore the lower 'Tan Tien' point, which should be the first priority for development in 'Qi Gong', has the characteristic of centering. Thus one may and should always return to it, as it can absorb and center aberrant experiences or ‘Qi’. Conclusively, as with most things ‘Qi Gong’ especially the higher level practices, can be dangerous, but the danger arises from not following the correct instruction. I can see how this could be a growing problem, due to more information available on the subject and people believing they know what to do without guidance.

As with regards to what I think ‘Qi’ is, well the post in the beginning of this thread sort of explains it from one point of view. But generally, if I had to say what ‘Qi’ is in one sentence, I would say: ‘Qi’ is a general term for all manifestations of energy, internal, external, physical, meta-physical, and pretty much any way one can think of. Though, don’t quote me, as its essence is impossible to grasp, and I may come up with a personally more meaningful explanation at any moment, then again maybe not. Plus, due to the essence of the subject, one explanation may be more appropriate for a certain situation than other.

 

Brick Break......Chi?

 

Or alternatively a fairly thin brick, carefully dried in a pottery oven before hand.