Er, it is relevant when folk start claiming the placebo effect they're feeling is actually the result of some mystical "life energy" which is yet to be proven to exist at all. The burden of proof lies with those who say Chi exists because they are the ones asserting the claim. Those of us asking for evidence will use the scientific method because it is logical, balanced, measurable and is the conventional measure used in most academic institutions. Otherwise we end up with deluded fools like George Dillman who claims he can knock people out using invisible Chi fireballs. And his retort, like so many others when asked to show proof, is: "Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Sorry, but there's a point where we need to draw a line at philosophical postulating to avoid stepping in the bull crap.
George Dilman might indeed be a delude fool as you say. I have only your word on it and am not interested in following up on this. When people insist that their paradigm be the yardstick by which all other paradigms be measured, we have an issue on how to resolve communication. Qigung, Taiji, Tenaga Dalam, Silat et al arise from a shared paradigm that is traditionally held in high esteem in Asia. Chi cannot be measured by modern science because it does not belong in the world view of modern science. It is comfortably accepted and understood within it's governing world view. The 5th, 6th, 7th dimensions etc. are also not measurable except through the paradigm of mathematical theory. However outside of its mathematical paradigm it also cannot be measured. Here on these MAP forums, it seems to me that the Western 'science only' mind is happy to take some parts of Asian culture but openly despises the paradigm from where those parts come. This appears to be inconsistent at best and is atrociously ill mannered and shows the calibre of the people making the posts. I do not despise science, nor do I despise traditional paradigms by which peoples all over the world live and by which my ancestors lived. Truth is indeed defined by our primary paradigm and sometimes it does require a modicum of faith, however being compelled to ridicule every attempt to broach subjects defined more fully in their original contexts is childish.
Something that cannot be measured by science and something that doesn't exist can often look VERY similar. And that's nonsense by the way. Modern science doesn't have a world view. It's a way of systematically understanding the whole universe. If chi exists, it exists in this universe and is therefore within the purview of science to study it.
It's a way, it's a system, a set of rules, theorems, truths etc ... in other words it a world view or a paradigm, just as accepting the Tao is a paradigm. We need paradigms in order to construct our reality, or our universe as you aptly put it. Chi therefore is definitely not in your universe, but that doesn't mean it is not existing in another.
As others have stated, the scientific method is preferred because it produces tangible results. It is also intended to be as objective as possible; advocates of Chi or alternative therapies tend to have a vested interest (usually financial) in the subject being investigated, such as Chi Gung teachers or acupuncturists. I've already said I don't have a problem with Chi Gung as a form of exercise. But I refuse to believe it cultivates some kind of mystical life energy when no evidence exists to support this hypothesis. If said evidence did present itself, I would change my opinion accordingly. This is no different to somebody saying to me, "A bullet fired from a gun will penetrate a water melon." The scientific method allows us to objectively investigate this claim and produce tangible results. LOL. Best not to get me started on Silat. I married an Indonesian woman (educated to master's level in the UK) who has an extensive number of Silat gurus in her family back in Java. We visited her relatives a couple years ago and I was able to train with several gurus during my stay (both family and non-family members). I couldn't believe the sheer bollocks they were trying to feed me: humans who could transform into animals, deflect bullets, heal broken bones with a single touch, and fly, all through practising Silat. I was naturally sceptical because such feats defied the universally accepted laws of science. I'm willing to keep an open mind in case someone proves otherwise. But when asked to present evidence to support their claims, I got the usual horse crap about their life force not being centred/unable to demonstrate to strangers/planets not being in alignment etc. What we must not forget about Asia is that in the areas where these traditions are held in the highest esteem there are disproportionately high numbers of people not getting a proper education compared to western countries. I mean, Christ, I went through three villages in Sumatra where nobody could do simple mathematical multiplication or division. It is a 'Western' board after all, so 'Western' beliefs will be most dominant here. I don't get the dig at the end of this paragraph though. I practice American-style point fighting using training methods based on the latest scientific principles developed at universities and sports science laboratories in the USA and Europe, so... I don't ridicule Chi itself, just the fools who make outlandish claims with nothing to back it up.
MAP is a board open to all and uses English as the language with which to communicate. It hosts discussion about a wide variety of mostly Asian martial arts. Silat comes from a region where the regional differences can be quite specific. Silat grows too over time and changes to fit it's milieu and circumstance. My ancestor Eyang Mita had a personal body guard who was supposed to be able to shape shift into a white leopard. When we listen to the stories (within the family) we do not ridicule it because it is our legends, out myths, the same as the St. George legends or the King Arthur legends of the Europeans. I think it is unfortunate for your Indonesian wife that you think so poorly of her family and her people, information for which I suspect she shared with you in good faith. Modern math is certainly not common in some areas. It is unfortunate for you that you use this example to elevate your sense of superiority. Finally the particular board we are discussing this is the "taiji" board, not anything to do with American style point-fighting ... which I'm sure is equally as fascinating, although not my cup of tea. One could equally argue about discussing silat on this board, although in my view some silat has much in common with the internal Chinese martial arts, but my bad on that one.
Cool. So chi isn't in my universe. At least we agree on that. That also means anyone else in my universe (ie you and everyone in China) also don't have chi in their universe as we are (by virtue of being able to see each other and communicate over the internet) in the same universe. Your reality and the universe are not the same thing. The universe will continue to exist long after "your reality" has ceased to be. Now to be honest...I don't give a monkeys about what you consider to be in "your reality" (whatever that even means), just what's in the universe will do for me.
Still waiting for those examples So a methodology - like science - that requires evidence to support assertions is problematic, yet a methodology like the one you are esposuing that requires blind faith or at best no analysis is all good. marvellous thinking Still waiting for those examples
Listen to the story all you want - it isn't true...period. Now if you are saying the megend or myth holds validity in the message or moral that is different, but if it is presented as fact then it is a lie
Here's an essay about modern war http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worden.php?articleid=10427 and there's this site http://necrometrics.com/ and this site http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml and I'm sure there's a bunch more. From here on in please go and search for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I'm not 'espousing' the view point one over the other. I admit that other paradigms are valid for constructing other ways of looking at the world! We may still exist within our 'primary' paradigms however. It is ok to think that one paradigm fits for us. It is immature to ridicule some other paradigm because it constructs reality according to its rules and not to the rules you're happy to accept. To PASmith, in fact you know nothing of my reality nor the universe that forms it (the reverse is also true; nor can I truly 'know' yours). Through direct experience, you can only know that in your universe these words are appearing on your screen. Whichever way you postulate and extrapolate (fundamentally not reality in the final analysis), it is still a construct based on accepting data you choose to believe to be true or that someone else has told you is true.
If one examines the presemioticist paradigm of reality, one is faced with a choice: either reject Batailleist `powerful communication' or conclude that concensus must come from the masses. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term 'the presemioticist paradigm of reality' to denote the difference between class and society. The subject is interpolated into a subtextual capitalist theory that includes consciousness as a whole. The capitalist paradigm of narrative implies that discourse is created by the masses, given that the premise of expressionism is invalid. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a capitalist paradigm of narrative that includes narrativity as a whole.
Those sites are only peripherally related to what you are claiming - they say that we have better weapons through advancement so more people get killed - to say that this is the fault of science is a deductive fallacy It is the fault of man - and as often as not stems from the belief system that they hold This concept of "my reality" and "your reality" is one of those weak arguments put out to try and explain away why certain things - in this case chi -cannot be proven. Whilst i cannot tell you what you are feeling, your universe and mine share a lot of common ground. It is nothing to do with West vs East and everything to do with extraordinary claims. If in your reality you believe your chi can stop bullets my reality disagrees...and in fact completely overrules your reality. Ergo your reality is false. Regardless of what you believe, there are universla truths that cannot be ignored because you choose to or would like to.
Hannibal, I said nothing of Chi stopping bullets. You are saying that. I only speak from my own experience and don't make claims about my own energies and skills that I don't directly experience. I allow my ancestors the same courtesy i.e. that they also speak from their own experience as defined by their paradigm. In other words, whether I 'believe' or not is largely immaterial. I respect that it makes sense to them. Can you also see that you have extrapolated and built a fantasy about what you think I believe? PASmith, I know nothing of this presemioticist paradigm of reality. You speak of things that I have no experience. Therefore I don't know of the dilemma I should face under those circumstances. One thing I can see makes sense; consensus by definition requires that more than one agrees i.e. 'the masses'. As 'I' am only one, I cannot reasonably be expected to reach a consensus with myself.
Hannibal, I fail to see how you can infer that I said that science is the cause. Spot on! It is people who have 'belief systems' (paradigms) who are motivated to use science as a tool, a means to an end (to inflict casualties). They are the ones who cause extreme misery. We have reached 'consensus' regarding this.
I cut and pasted some random nonsense from a made up post-modern thesis. I thought that's what you were doing too? I was just joining in the trend.
Ah I see. It made 'no sense' to me. But I was prepared to allow that it made perfect sense to you! Apparently not, so as I have reached a consensus with two of my fellow debaters, I will now get some shut-eye! Good night all! :zzz:
No, I never said that you believed it - Please re-read what I wrote said; I was merely using it as an illustrative point with regards to where truth operates independently of perception A drug user perceives a reality that does not exist - do you respect the fact that what they see is real even though it is induced? (I had a schoolfriend who dropped LSD and was convinced he was an orange and spent 3 hrs in a corner begging people not to peel him) No, I base it in what you have written - you maintain that perception is reality and is truth. There is the kernel of fact to that, but when there is crossover into what you would term other realities than universal truths apply - hence the bullet and chi example Oh I don't know....ambivalence about something can require a protracted internal dialogue until you reach a decision. I suppose that could count as consensus with the self
