Hi Newbie question

There's a guy - Heidegger - a Nazi, that's true... but a very smart one - some were, which proves some other point as well, ha ha... who said, at the core of it all, you have to go back to "is-ness"- the nature of being.... not in any airy-fairy way, just in, understanding that "is" is artificial - a linguisitc tool that links together the whole artificial syntax of word use...

"Is" actually has no meaning - like everything else in the nexus, its meaning depends on context... meaning, try to say "What is..." about anything, and you've already trapped your attention in an entirley artificial picture.

 

Ok - I have it!!!!!!!! ENER-QI... it's ener-qi... ok? Happy? Define it how thou wilt!

 

I didn't define it, I widened it in a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

 

Point 1 is the result of point 2. I would also add that plenty of scientific research has disproved more clearly stated notions of Qi, it's the vaguer and less testable descriptions of qi that cannot be disproved. Making something incapable of being disproved by being increasingly vague and tieing it to existing proven concepts is not something I would consider worth celebrating though.

Well now this depends really on the likelihood and evidence that exists FOR somethings existence. If we were to accept your sentiment then we wouldn't really have the right to claim that goblins, unicorns and invisible monsters under the bed don't exist.

However Einstein's concept of God was not of the personal God variety but more of the 'wonder of the natural universe' variety.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."Einstein in a letter March 24, 1954

Einstein should not be used to support an argument that 'lack of evidence' is insignificant when his whole life was geared towards examining evidence and later in life he considered his greatest error to be when he introduced something with no real evidence (the cosmological constant) to lead to a stable static universe model.

JK this is the very problem typeon was pointing out. You consider something you read from a secondary source (I don't suppose you read German science magazines) as 'science' because it states that it was research conducted by a 'team of scientists' and the figure was arrived at 'scientifically'. 'Team of scientists' can mean ANYTHING it can mean economists, vetenarians or even creationists... having a science degree is usually (and in my view wrongly) considered grounds by most people to call themselves scientists. Point is you have to consider the source of any study especially in terms of its credibility- your post seems to suggest that it has been scientifically shown that the posibility of God is 62% when in reality it's probably a fringe group of Christian scientists whose research has been very likely completely dismissed by the scientific community. Also, the method is not 'scientific' unless scientific means 'involving numbers'... Just look at the method described for flip sake... seriously JK when you cite this kind of thing as serious evidence you simply betray how little you undertsand how science works.

Taoquan I sincerely contest the claims made in the quotes you provide... if the effects claimed were actually capable of being demonstrated then:

1. They could easily be tested, replicated and confirmed by reputable labs.
2. The individuals involved could claim millions in rewards from various skeptical organistaions including 1 million from the JREF (and to satisfy their conscious they could donate the money to setting up Qi research centers or charities or something).
3. The researchers involved could publish in a reputable journal and would receive worldwide recognition probably even winning some nobel prizes for rewriting the scientific understanding of the natural world.

What I suspect is that such amazing results are:

1. Published in non-scientific journals (if they are published at all).
2. Impossible to replicate with neutral observers.
3. Found through very questionably designed studies.

Every single time results like these are checked out they are unable to reproduce the claimed results and every single time a proper research team is involved the studies come back as entirely negative. Maybe these cases are the real deal but I remain highly skeptical- afterall we are talking here of transmitting cell healing/cell destruction without touch (the claim these studies are making then is that shooting qi across the room is possible).

...

And now I'm off to training- just been reading through the thread and those are the points I felt like responding to. Sorry if it's off topic (though I think that is par for the course on this thread).

 

sorry I can't be bothered.

 

Damn!

 

I think, JK was almost on to that lol - was it JK who said that Einstein was a Spinoza fan??

 

Oh they exist alright, that's why we have words for them. They just don't exist in the way you think. Same with Qi.

 

*bows to unfetteredmind* :love:

 

I don't think it has many meanings - the word energy. What it has is different descriptions, pictures if you will. Descriptions pointing to action, animation. those are a couple of a's.

"now if only I could meet someone who has forgotton all the words"

chuang tzu

what you want to do is smile dumbly like that fella and see the picture, no drawing. "ring ring"

Oh no I'm getting the firequanisms!

 

Clever words but are you saying you have full understanding of Qi from looking at the picture?

 

That can never be a bad thing! :Alien:

 

I think I understand what energy is and how to recognise it yes. And I think you do too.

do we know everything absolutely there is to know about it ? No. have we experienced every description there is to make of it, no.

But if we see, hear it, feel it.. we will recognise it, know it and understand it as "energy".

How's that working ?

 

Never?

 

Sigh... Well I wouldn't disagree with anyone who suggested that Qi existed in the same imaginary way that dragons, unicorns and goblins exist. The fact that the human imagination can dream up things that don't actually exist in the real world is not something I'm disputing. You should watch the most recent episodes of South Park you would probably enjoy them...

 

I don't think we disagree that Qi is about experiential knowledge but I still think the word Qi is vague largely for that reason. To define it is to limit it. But really, we are arguing about words here when we both know that our understandings of Qi are very close.

 

I don't think any statements could make our differences more apparent than these. By saying that you have no interest in truth and that you are only interested in what you call "active ideas" you make it clear that you have no interest in fixity or agreement - in conciliation. Rather, your aim is to keep debates raging ad infinitum for the sake of your own pleasure, until other people tire of the endless debate. This is how you get your kicks - in intellectual self-idulgence. You have no interest in arriving at conclusions, only in causing trouble and trying to destroy everyone else's ideas. Why? So you can impose your own. And you're the one who makes such a big deal about being free from ideas.

I personally like it when we find common ground on MAP. I argue for increasing the martial content of Taiji classes and for demystifying the art, but this is just a sincere and consistent statement of my beliefs.

So you are just like all the other sorcerers then.

FQ - I chose my words carefully because Sandus and Carys have asked the thread to steer clear of the God subject, being, as it is, on a Taiji forum. I wasn't sparing your feelings - it wasn't about you. Stop being so self-absorbed.

Well maybe you are something of a philosophical parasite.

Don't worry - people are far too flawed to achieve that. Really- they can't be trusted, they're always looking out for themselves, finding loopholes and twisting things. That much we can rely on.

I think people have enough power already. Too much actually - never satisfied and always greedy for more.

Read Thomas Merton - Seeds of Contemplation. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seeds-Conte...7865241?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194566339&sr=8-2 Don't argue, just do it. And while you're at it, read Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gifts-Jews-Changed-Everyone-History/dp/074595054X

You said you want your ideas to be challenged, so go for it.

You know, to say that there is such a thing as The Truth is no more radical than to say there isn't. Either way, lots of people will disagree. To the relativist, this might prove their point, paradoxically revealing that the absolutists are wrong. To the absolutist, the relativists are simply wrong, the difference being that this is not complicated by any kind of inherent paradox or contradiction. Therefore this latter view is the more consistent - it is innately more true. You might argue that this just reveals being philosophically enslaved by logic, but if you did, it would just show how devoid of usefulness abstract philosophy is. Oh, like pure maths, you can push ideas around like abstract figures. It might make you feel oh so clever. But there are far more useful things to be doing with your time.

There is a way in which the universe came into being - a way in which the universe works - these are the very things that define truth. Occasionally we may be offered glimpses of that truth in spite of our limited individual perspective. Religion and science alike seek this. If nothing is true, all your ideas are up the spout.

This is utter supposition (and a lot of wishful thinking) on your part. Did you read the original German article?

 

Depends if they are trying to get in to my bank account!

 

No model of reality is real. Do emotions exist in the "real world"? Are they imaginary?

 

Emotions exist in the real world in the sense of being mental states- do they exist outside of human brains- I doubt it. Do we really have to go down the road of discussing the reality of abstract terms or terms for mental states? When do we get round to discussing how love is unquantifiable?

It's not really necessary to get into such debates... is qi a mental state or in the same category as a unicorn? If your answer is yes you want to define qi as an intangible concept beyond the realm of testability then great. It's the same thing as defining God as the universe.

This however does not solve the issue of all the people out there making claims about qi which are testable (such as the healing Taoquan posted).