why is chi kung rubbish

If all the discussion of chi with pseudo-science, counter rational arguments, prove/disprove chi(eese); was shelved it might be possible to have a sensible exchange reg. CIMA.

A month or so back we were having some quiet good threads running that found fruitfull and I imagine a few others did as well.

All this Chi-is-a-cheeseburger type discussion is pretty tepid stuff though.

 

It reminds me of a question an old teacher (well Master & Spititual Guide actually) once asked -

A door always open one way - true or false?

The debate raged for ages until one female student raised her hand and asked "Is it locked?"

 

In the eyes of science the 40% that is not understood is veiwed as "not yet known". Nothing more, nothing less. Now when one starts making things up to "explain" the unknown 40% that's when we can call humbug. This is called the God of the gaps (not the proper Latin name of course) fallacy.

Just because something is unknown doesn't mean you can go making things up to explain them, saying "I don't know" is a much better and honest answer, then God-dunnit.

I think you're making an argument from ignorance.

We should ascirbe to gravity because it works and its testable and repeatable. The name is just semantics. What matters are the explanations for how gravity works. The claims should be testable, and when tested should hold true, or are otherwise discarded. For example if a person says gravity is caused by tiny strings tied to the bottom's of our feet which hold us to the ground, we can test this by looking at the bottom of our feet and seeing no strings conclude that this claim is humbug.

And no, we shouldn´t regard the unknown bits as worthless or statistically insignificant (I don't quite see where this will fit in with gravity :S), those parts are the reason why the sciences are still around. No unknowns, no science.



To think a 100 years ago humbug would be a violation of the ToS!!

 

Generally I would agree with you statement. Two things hold me back.

One is that discussion about some thing never allows for an examination of how different people on this forum perceive the World and its events. I think this is valuable as not all of us have come to view the world and its events in the same way.

The second issue----and this one is much more personal to me---- is what I view as the tyranny of Scientific Thought. IMHO I believe that cognitions, conclusions, experiences and events all "bend" just like light, gravity and time. Nobody rightly knows how or why this is so and probably never will, IDK. What I DO know is that there is a lot more to Existence than merely what we can measure or replicate. It certainly seems to create much consternation for some folks that Existence is not some tidy matrix.

Astro-biologists freely admit that the known Universe can hold Life that operates under completely different rules than Life that we know. I see no reason to believe that, likewise, our proud tower of Science is also subject to variance. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

The problem with all these "does chi exist/is it scientific" type threads is that they get stuck there - like a scratched vinyl record/DVD.

CIMA is best understood in its own context described in simple language - but this does not mean getting stuck in mystical sludge. With some effort it is possible to analyse CIMA from the perspective of Newtonian mechanics (the mechanics of our everyday world) and combine it with some simplistic physiological aspects of anatomy and biochemistry - but its not worth the effort - it wont help/aid/enhance one's CIMA.

As for discussing Chi with astrology and philosophy etc; this is just meaningless - Bunny Rabbit's bus-trip to Hogwarts.

 

I am truly sorry you hold as you do. I can tell you quite truthfully that thinking this way may not make you happy....but it certainly won't make you lonely. Fact is that a LOT of people think in the way you characterize. For these folks there are only two poles: the pole of knowledge and the pole of ignorance. There is, then, nothing more than this.

In foreign languages....Japanese for instance..... there are words that have no equivalent in English. Not knowing such a word does not make one ignorant. Knowing such a word does not make one informed. These are judgements made but an observer. The Japanese person may not know the word and think nothing of it. The English-speaker may not know the word and think nothing of it. The Eskimo who knows neither English nor Japanese will think nothing of it. These things are important only where thinking is important and that thinking only where judgements are important.

I am a Human Being so I do more than Think. I also behave, feel, dream and pray. I am not able to make the same dream happen twice. In fact, noone knows why people dream at all. We hazard guess based on change but that tells us little about the true nature of the Experience. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

However... you DO concede the possibility of something existing outside of, or beyond the reach of Science, yes? For instance, I am self-aware yet noone can measure that. How is that? That I can be aware of myself and yet that self-awareness cannot be measured.

As I write this I am having a stream of thoughts across my brain at a variety of levels. What is the level of acuity for each mental image that I am having per construct that crosses my mind? Not one of these thoughts can be measured. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Science and rationality is the best that we have for explaining our universe and our miniscule existence within it - from an analytical perspective. Everything else is essentially hocus-pocus.

From your 'Spiritual Plain' some posts back, religions, traditions, superstitions etc; can form a context for a communal sense-of-joining-in-society or individual desire for how you wish to observe the world e.g. a sense of morality (communal) - or conversely a sense of hedonism (communal and indivualistic) - but they do not provide a coherent standpoint with which to dispute science.

Rene Descartes a long time ago came to more or less the same conclusion :-
"I think, therefore I am." Was it important to "measure" Descarte's "I am" factor? - or your "self-awareness"? - no unless more context is given e.g use of lie-detectors in courtcases - and even then, its more important that the lie-detectors are accurate than "measuring" some aspect of consciousness in dimensions unspecified.

Science and rationality form the evidence based philosophy beyond all reasonable doubt - which is why there is simply no point in using it as means to explore CIMA. CIMA is an art, not a philosophy or science.

When the Taoists existed there was no science, so they used the best they could within the cultural context and language of their situation - old Chinese language.

In the west we cannot understand the context of the Taoists - and I doubt whether many contemporary Chinese can either - but we should not replace that with mystical mumbo-jumbo - better is simple language e.g. bad guy attacks, get out of road (evade) and he punches/stabs/kicks thin air, you setup advantage for you and destroy his Chi (his ability to concentrate attacks on you) - nothing mystical.

 

Things are outside the grasp of science until they are not.

 

Just re-reading the begining of the thread, LWT did offer quite a bit of context to experiencing Qi-Gong (which is an aspect of CIMA that I am not very interested in); and this should not be diminished and rubbished off-hand.

This thread has simply just degenerated into largely useless and ill-informed rhetoric.

We should do better than this IMHO.

 

Just re-read the beginning, saw no evidence of worth.

I know, but I'm sure Bruce'll get fed up and leave eventually.

If you're referring to chi believers, then yes, they should.

If you're referring to sceptics, I've mentioned my personal philosophy on refusing to tolerate mysticism before. That's not going to change.

 

Too busy to go into any depth on this now.

However in summary. LWT in some of his other threads did indicate that he had quite bit of experience of QiGong - how many other posters in this thread have qigong experience?

A lot of folk are posting on the basis of ignorance i.e. zero experience.

I have some experience of QiGong - it doesn't interest me a whole load, but its got its place in the CIMA world, so I recognise that, kind of like recognising that Estonian is a European language - it aint exactly mainstream - but Im prepared to listen to what experienced folk have to say - it does not mean I will buy their sandwiches though.

This is what is so unfortunate about CIMA on this forum - volumes of drivel and counter-drivel get devoted to discussing minor irrelevances. Chi is not a big deal in CIMA. So why does it get so much attention here? The Estonian language doesn't get much attention in the EEC.

Just in case anybody has not noticed - I aint too big on mystical mumbo jumbo either.

'Chi' is just a name used by ancient Chinese, more or less to describe the fluidity of energy and/or oxyginated blood in very vague non-scientfiic terms appropriate to their context; nothing more nothing less.

In summary of summary(????) chi 'believers' and sceptics are pretty much arguing equally about tosh-all.

 

Given the plethora of Chi-ssey tripe threads in the past, a chi-bashing thread like this deserves its place.

Just wish there ws more practical discussion reg. CIMA minus Chi, elsewhere on the forum.

 

I understand what you are saying, Embra. May I make a case for something from a different POV.

If I practice CHI-KUNG or seek attention from an Acupunturist and "feel better", is this not germane? Maybe there is a scientific explanation and maybe there is not....lets put that to one side for a minute. What is the place for "feeling better" in the discussion? My point is not that "science" in this case is "wrong" or should be discounted. I'm asking if one can be allowed to subscribe to an alternate interpretation of their experience of if we must always fall under the judgements of those who explain everything with Science? Need everything "not-science" automatically fall in the category of "mumbo-jumbo". Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

In many ways I would feel more comfortable if your intolerance were not expressed with such arrogance and deprecation.

"Mysticism", for instance, IS an experience. Simply because it falls not under the complete control of Intellect and Physics does not necessarily mean it is somehow less. Transcendent experiences are still experiences and ought be given their due as a rightful portion of Existence. Not to do so, IMHO, is to suggest that one side of a coin is mort important than the other, or that the outside of a boats hull is sufficient and that we can dispense with the inside. FWIW.

As far as the matter of Science or Technology, it would serve to point-out that the fundamental nature of the Human Being has not shifted much---if any---with the advent of this approach. As I mentioned earlier....Science and Technology have arrayed us we a great choice of labels and theories and that is very entertaining to people who have such interests. I wonder what can be said for people who seek an evolution or growth in the fundamental nature of the Person. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Science does not explain everything - it is a systematic evolution of controlled experiment, evidence and objective interpretation.

A lot of Psychology cannot be rationalised by Science beyond statistics as of now e.g. human motivation is very difficult to quantify and explain - we simply don't have the background level understanding of Neurology to even attempt this - but it may come in time.

The problem with Qigong, Accupuncture etc and a lot of the artefacts of the Taoists' epoch, is that a) the evidence of these activities is at best anecdotal and b) their context gets bent around beyond recognition (the western world,hippieness etc is terrible for this) - where they start to appear like fairy stories, myths etc.

This is not to say that there is no benefit from Qigong, Accupuncture or similar; but the context including the boundaries/limits really needs to be established - so that wild claims don't suddenly appear - without an arm or leg to stand on in in rational analysis. Rather it is the danger of hyperbole and exaggeration that can easily slip out when discussing CMA. IMHO both Qigong and accupuncture are largely artefacts of traditional Chinese medicine and as such their effects can very easily fall prey to placebo experiences

 

Bruce, as I said before, all points of view in this are simply maps being used to describe reality.

Some maps are simply more useful than others. Some maps have been better tested and give repeatable accurate results that are useful for navigation.

I agree that there is more to the terrain than appears on the map. That doesn't diminish the usefulness of the science based map. In addition the science based map is constantly under review by people who are passionate about the accuracy and usefulness of the map. These are people who understand that the map is not complete and may never be complete.

There are no other maps, at this time, that are as useful or as accurate. Simple as that.

The zen based view of reality is simply a map as well. It may even go into more detail than the science based map for a small piece or reality. The funny part of that is that the zen based map is a map for how to use maps, not become attached to the map as the best or correct map and to recognize that the map can never match the terrain exactly and this certainly holds true for the zen map. The other thing the zen map says to do is to stop every now and then, put the map down and view the terrain for yourself. But don't forget even when you are looking at the terrain you are making a mental map of it.

So, the " tyranny of Scientific Thought" isn't a tyranny. It is simply the most useful and accurate map we have built to this time.

BTW, no cares which map(s) you or anyone uses until you claim that your map is superior or even as accurate as the scientific map. Then you will met with a chorus of prove its.

If someone said "I don't know what chi is but it is a useful term(map) for how I learn kung fu" I really doubt that there would a peep from outside the kung fu community.

 

And if folk yacked about Chi in a Kung Fu class, would anybody learn anything useful at all?

 

OK.....agreed......

.....then I am left to wonder if there is an "intersect", a nexus, to be found by examining the on-going research between Asian and Western Medicine. I'm sure we are all familiar with the event in which surgury was performed in the PRC using Acupuncture for an anesthetic. Certainly research must have continued since that event many years ago, yes? Perhaps future "Chi" discussions could start with THAT point and move forward from there. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Doesn't that really depend upon a given definition for "useful". A person motivated solely by utility may be indifferent or unwilling to take-on additional training responsibilities that might be required. A person motivated in other ways may be more interested.

Best Wishes,

Bruce