OK. Any sort of evidence that chi works. Or not or whatever.

[Touch Of Death]

What are you talking about?

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Akhenaten and the Amarna Period

I didn't see the lost tribe section.

 

[Tez3]

I didn't see the lost tribe section.

Perhaps because they aren't a lost tribe? they merely reverted back to their old religion, as archaeologists will tell you it says in the hieroglyphs they've found.
Ihere's no chi in any of this by the way, I can't believe I'm sat here at 2300h posting about the 'Lost tribes of Israel'. I think for everyone's sanity if you want to know anything about Judaism for goodness sake just message me and leave this thread to chi or no chi. I'm not an expert but fifty odd years of study in Judaism makes me the best one you'll have on the subject ( there was another much better than I but he got driven off here when we had the study)
anyway, some light reading for you, I'm off to bed.

Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes? - The saga of the ten lost tribes of Israel—Part 3


The Twelve Tribes of Israel | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Touch Of Death]

Perhaps because they aren't a lost tribe? they merely reverted back to their old religion, as archaeologists will tell you it says in the hieroglyphs they've found.
Ihere's no chi in any of this by the way, I can't believe I'm sat here at 2300h posting about the 'Lost tribes of Israel'. I think for everyone's sanity if you want to know anything about Judaism for goodness sake just message me and leave this thread to chi or no chi. I'm not an expert but fifty odd years of study in Judaism makes me the best one you'll have on the subject ( there was another much better than I but he got driven off here when we had the study)
anyway, some light reading for you, I'm off to bed.

Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes? - The saga of the ten lost tribes of Israel—Part 3


The Twelve Tribes of Israel | Jewish Virtual Library

I read that and I still think it is the Kurds.

 

[Koshiki]

Therefore, it best not to try. It really isn't important anyway, is it?

Generally, for you, for me, I would agree. Certainly, the existence of anything that cannot be shown to another is something which it is foolish to try to convince another of. Likewise, it's equally implausible to try to convince another of it's nonexistence.

And, as you say, in the sense that you and I are talking about Chi, I really don't think it's important. Although, if it does exist and people like myself repeatedly dissmiss it, there is the risk of gradually losing all knowledge and cultivation of a wondrous part of human existence. I would also say that if I'm right and Chi is nonexistent then the variety of people devoting large portions of their time to strengthening it, to shaping it, to controlling it, and to learning to defend themselves and heal with it are at best wasting their time, at worst spending their time on pursuits possibly detrimental in nature.

It's not a discussion I'm interested in winning, it's a discussion that, when conducted on a semi-permanent, public, and relatively prominent place, I'm interested in having well represented from all viewpoints, if only to instill proper skepticism when new prospective students are presented with the less genuine views of Chi. If Chi is something that they come to encounter, believe in and utilize later in their training, then good for them, but if the supposed use of Chi is proffered in place of legitimate training, I think we can all agree that the more raised eyebrows the better.

I will only say that I am not a believer in magic or the supernatural. Everything that happens, happens in accordance with physical laws that govern the universe. I note that we don't seem to know what all of those rules are yet.

I agree. I will say though, that physics is much more complete than most other sciences, and the scope of what "we" as humanity and specifically the scientific community as a whole don't know about science is exponentially smaller than what "we" as laymen don't know on the subject. I do know that the interaction of matter on a molecular and anatomic level is pretty solidly understood, especially given conditions on Earth.

If Chi is a physical property, energy, whatever, than it must observable, either directly or by its effects. If it has no effects on matter or conventionally understood energy, than it clearly is not doing things like assisting in the breaking of concrete blocks.

So I agree with you, I just don't think that the scope of our knowledge is particularly limited when it comes to the scope of what Chi is supposedly responsible for. Chi being a part of everything from water to air to light to rocks, and when concentrated, Life, it seems like if it were actually possible to affect matter with Chi, then this would be either represented in contemporary physics, which it is not, unless we want to decide that heat, or light, or vibration is actually what we mean by Chi. If on the other hand, Chi is something else, but yet capable of affecting the physical world, as is claimed, then its interactions should be wreaking havoc with contemporary, and indeed Newtonian physics. However, physics is doing an exceptional job explaining the physical laws of the universe, and as I mentioned, is among the most complete sciences out there, especially on the level of the interactions of chunks of matter, like hands and heads and concrete blocks.

It seems that this version of Chi is sort of a "Chi of the Gaps" version, except that the gaps are gaps in the practitioner's understanding of physics, rather than the physicist's.

And yet, I find myself in a place where I have no objective evidence for the existence of a force commonly known as 'chi', but I also trust myself as a rational and intelligent human being, not given to flights of fancy or beliefs in typically unscientific things. I know what I know, and although you may consider this analogous to religion, I do not. I accept my religious beliefs as that - irrational, unscientific, and utterly unprovable or demostrable. On the other hand, I am quite aware of people who can bring me to a higher understanding of pain, at will, without apparent effort, and without a requirement that anyone believe it is possible.

See, someone capable of doing something which cannot be explained by anything other than Chi would be objective evidence. If you tell me that you feel Chi, that's subjective, I just have to believe you, or not believe you. Likewise, my protestations that I have never experienced Chi are subjective; I could be lying for whatever reason.

However, someone bringing you great pain without effort with cannot be explained by exemplary technique, without requiring you to play along, is objective. The are demonstrating the thing. We can quibble about what the thing is, but the thing has been empirically demonstrated. I would argue that the same results can be achieved by nuanced, intuitive, precise execution of technique. A rare thing, but certainly not beyond the standard physiological.

Can't help you there; I'm actually quite tone-deaf. I am incapable of tuning a guitar. Which is funny considering I'm an audiophile as well. However, I take your meaning. Illusions are easily demonstrated, aural, visual, etc.

Huh. This is a bit off topic, but my understanding of tone-deafness is that it is specifically related to musical pitch, as are other forms of amusia. I mean, you can tell that, say the whistle of a tea-kettle is higher and shriller than a the rumble of a passing eighteen wheeler, or the low throb of a jet high overhead, right? You can tell the difference between a child's voice and a man's? Hypothetically, that's all that should be required to hear the change in pitch in the example provided. It doesn't utilize any musical notes, just sliding pitches. Just saying, it's a pretty cool effect, not to be missed, unless you truly can't tell an oboe from a baritone sax.

Fortunately, I feel no need to demonstrate or prove anything. You ask for proof. I offer none. Your logical and rational response should be to refuse to believe what you cannot see, touch, taste, feel, hear, and even more, to prove actually exists. I applaud you for using your intellect to reject outside attempts to create a 'believer' in chi or any other force or energy that you do not have experience of yourself.

No, actually, I don't ask for proof. I've seen countless examples, real and in video, of people demonstrating Chi, but never one that wasn't the same thing that practitioners not claiming to utilize Chi could do. I've also never had someone actually try to create a Chi believer of me. And actually, I'm quite willing to believe in things I haven't experienced myself, if they are plausible and explicable. I've just never see any of that when it comes to Chi. Quantum Fluctuations in empty space, supernova, Tagalog, Madagascar, Creme Brulee, and my appendix are all things I cannot prove, have limited understanding of, have never seen, smelt, felt, heard, tasted, or otherwise experienced, and yet in which I believe with relatively strong but varied degrees of firmness. (It's possible I may actually have heard Tagalog spoken at some point, in the interests of full disclosure.)

Technical proficiency is one thing. However, imagine while playing you hit a note a certain way and the audience begins to weep or laugh uncontrollably, or becomes angry or philosophical or filled with ennui. That's more what I'm talking about. You might play that note thousands of times, but there is a manner in which it can be played that transcends mere playing.

I actually almost brought this up, but opted not to. There is a long standing tradition of belief in the emotive power of notes. However, this power is entirely reliant on cultural indoctrination. There have been some attempts at, for example, drawing connections between certain musical intervals and natural human sounds, such as wailing laments and the descending fourth, but these are tenuous at best. And to say that is even stretching it, since the descending fourth is also the backbone of Country dance tunes, mariachi, John Phillip Sousa, and well, pretty much all music. It's based on natural resonances, not emotion.

There have been a number of experiments, to see if computers, disinterested performers, etc, can draw the same emotion as virtuoso, impassioned performers. My favorite being the claim of pianists the world round that they can draw a full emotional spectrum from a single note. A variety of renowned pianists were recorded playing single notes. These same notes were then played by dropping lead weights on the keyboard. The resultant tones were identical in every aspect of their waveform.

And yes, I can play the interval of a minor second and get cringing looks and comments of "scary" and "spooky" and "tense' and "ugly," from pretty much anyone in New England mainly versed in popular musics. Play those same tones for a Jazz guy, and he doesn't notice. They're in half his chords. Play them for some middle eastern music lovers, and they will find them to be, literally, the epitome of relaxation and beauty.

The augmented fourth or tritone was long held to be the "devil's interval" and it's use was actually forbidden at times. Legally. Today, and for a couple hundred years, it has been literally the driving backbone of all western music. Not exaggerating.

I can play in a minor key and nearly everyone around will tell me it's sad. Why? Because that's the culture. Go to Tuva and the reaction will be flipped.

Music and emotion are closely tied, but the concept of emotion being literally tied to notes is actually a relatively modern one, one which J.S. Bach wouldn't have found familiar, one which Mozart would have found a bit silly. Beethoven certainly wrote bombastic stuff, but he had no illusions that his passion was somehow tied to the notes, or innate in the music. When Stravinsky's Rite of Spring premiered, he thought it was a beautiful masterwork (as do I) but contemporary audiences thought it was ugly, frightening, and crude.

Segovia may have thought that, but personally I find his playing a bit stodgy, by modern standards. I do love his strings, however, they are all I will play with!

I myself can play and cause people to feel emotions without intending them, or without feeling them. Sometimes I'm striving for relaxing beauty, but based on the differences in musical background between myself and the listener, they find the result creepy.

Three or four years ago, I would have been agreeing with you. That is no longer my understanding of focused energy at this time. I have no doubt my understanding will change even more over time, but at the moment, I can't speak to your perception.

Of course. And I'm, after all, only 25, with fifteen years in the martial arts, the majority of those as a child or teen. I'm a kid. I don't doubt that my views on many things will change over the next (I hope) sixty or so years of Martial Arts practice. Who knows, fifteen years from now I might stumble across this conversation and laugh myself into a coma at the ignorance and foolishness of my writing. I don't find it likely, but I'm not ruling it out either.

The thing is, my disbelief in Chi is based less on my own experience or lack thereof, but on my respect for causality in physics. If Chi affects the physical world, than it is observable and should be evident in the relevant studies. If it doesn't affect the physical world, then it is clearly none of the things it is professed to be in the martial arts. That is what I'm trying to say, not that I don't believe in it simply because I haven't experienced it.

My point being that, if tomorrow I achieve some unanticipated level of proficiency with less effort then should be rightly required, I wouldn't attribute that to Chi, no matter how impressed I was. I would attribute that to standard, known physics. What would convince me is someone, somewhere, performing the actual work to demonstrate that there is something distinct from known physics which actually affects the physical world. If the scientific community starts sniffing around some new energy, life force, whatever, present in humans and responsible for effortless breaking of concrete, that is what would change my mind. Not personal experience. I'm far too suggestible and have convinced myself of falsehoods too often to trust my own judgement! (Hyperbole? Yes. But only slight.)

I just train. Chi is something that is. Although many strive to obtain it, I find myself going at it as I do most things - by not going after it at all. Chi will happen when it is chi time for me; or not. Either is fine. I do not try; I train.

Which, I would say, is the only way to go about it.

I do have one question that I often wonder, with regards to people's belief in Chi. If it is something which can be developed incidentally, without specifically cultivating it, is it then possible for someone to, hypothetically, be utilizing Chi in their own practice, but not know it and even disbelieve in Chi, or is it something which requires conscious awareness.

In other words, If I (general I) am a highly skilled practitioner who effortlessly trains and demonstrates my art, is it possible that that fluid grace and profound skill is in part a result of Chi, even if I don't believe it to be?

A very loving and amusing mental picture, she sounds wonderful.

But most importantly, yes, yes she is. Plus she makes excellent cheesecake.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Pardon my liberal use of snipping once more.

Although, if it does exist and people like myself repeatedly dissmiss it, there is the risk of gradually losing all knowledge and cultivation of a wondrous part of human existence. I would also say that if I'm right and Chi is nonexistent then the variety of people devoting large portions of their time to strengthening it, to shaping it, to controlling it, and to learning to defend themselves and heal with it are at best wasting their time, at worst spending their time on pursuits possibly detrimental in nature.

I do not disagree, although hearkening back to your comparison of chi to a form of religion, one might consider Pascal's Wager as being operative here. Assuming (as I do) that there is nothing detrimental about the pursuit of martial arts training of nearly any type.

It's not a discussion I'm interested in winning, it's a discussion that, when conducted on a semi-permanent, public, and relatively prominent place, I'm interested in having well represented from all viewpoints, if only to instill proper skepticism when new prospective students are presented with the less genuine views of Chi. If Chi is something that they come to encounter, believe in and utilize later in their training, then good for them, but if the supposed use of Chi is proffered in place of legitimate training, I think we can all agree that the more raised eyebrows the better.

I find myself in violent agreement with your statement.

I agree. I will say though, that physics is much more complete than most other sciences, and the scope of what "we" as humanity and specifically the scientific community as a whole don't know about science is exponentially smaller than what "we" as laymen don't know on the subject. I do know that the interaction of matter on a molecular and anatomic level is pretty solidly understood, especially given conditions on Earth.

Well...perhaps. I will reserve my objections to that statement as not being germane to the topic. You follow my meaning, so I think we can leave it at that.

If Chi is a physical property, energy, whatever, than it must observable, either directly or by its effects. If it has no effects on matter or conventionally understood energy, than it clearly is not doing things like assisting in the breaking of concrete blocks.

My own suspicion is that is more than one thing, but rather a collection of things that operate under similar principles and which have been given a collective name by some.

So I agree with you, I just don't think that the scope of our knowledge is particularly limited when it comes to the scope of what Chi is supposedly responsible for. Chi being a part of everything from water to air to light to rocks, and when concentrated, Life, it seems like if it were actually possible to affect matter with Chi, then this would be either represented in contemporary physics, which it is not, unless we want to decide that heat, or light, or vibration is actually what we mean by Chi. If on the other hand, Chi is something else, but yet capable of affecting the physical world, as is claimed, then its interactions should be wreaking havoc with contemporary, and indeed Newtonian physics. However, physics is doing an exceptional job explaining the physical laws of the universe, and as I mentioned, is among the most complete sciences out there, especially on the level of the interactions of chunks of matter, like hands and heads and concrete blocks.

I hope that I have not been giving the impression that I believe chi to be a type of 'Force' as described in "Star Wars." I have no idea what it is or where it resides, but I don't have much feeling for the notion that it is inherent in all things, etc.

It seems that this version of Chi is sort of a "Chi of the Gaps" version, except that the gaps are gaps in the practitioner's understanding of physics, rather than the physicist's.

Could well be. I know very little of physics or martial arts.

See, someone capable of doing something which cannot be explained by anything other than Chi would be objective evidence. If you tell me that you feel Chi, that's subjective, I just have to believe you, or not believe you. Likewise, my protestations that I have never experienced Chi are subjective; I could be lying for whatever reason.

I do not actually think many have experienced actual chi or witnessed it first-hand. It's not that common, in my admittedly limited experience. That would tend to support the notion that many who claim to have done so are either mistaken or being misleading. However, that is supposition on my part.

However, someone bringing you great pain without effort with cannot be explained by exemplary technique, without requiring you to play along, is objective. The are demonstrating the thing. We can quibble about what the thing is, but the thing has been empirically demonstrated. I would argue that the same results can be achieved by nuanced, intuitive, precise execution of technique. A rare thing, but certainly not beyond the standard physiological.

The problem is that as one attempts to provide specifics, one gets off in the weeds very quickly, and the conversation is dragged down by "well, buts" and "perhaps this instead" type arguments. I have seen, I have experienced, and in a very limited way, based on my very limited experience, I have applied, chi energy or force or whatever one wishes to call it. I can only say that it is an astounding thing. An amazing thing. It's the kind of thing that makes you stare at your own hand in horror and surprise as your uke writhes on the floor and you not only did not mean to hurt him, but truly believe you didn't land the blow with enough force to swat a fly. And I'm talking about an uke who was raised and fought in the streets of Detroit, has scars from knife fights, can pretty much wipe the dojo floor with me at will, and takes direct kicks to the groin without apparent effect. And uke who truly understands that faking or exaggerating a result is injurious to both the uke and the person trying to apply the technique. It boggles the mind and makes one actually wary of applying certain techniques, as cliche as that must sound.

Huh. This is a bit off topic, but my understanding of tone-deafness is that it is specifically related to musical pitch, as are other forms of amusia. I mean, you can tell that, say the whistle of a tea-kettle is higher and shriller than a the rumble of a passing eighteen wheeler, or the low throb of a jet high overhead, right? You can tell the difference between a child's voice and a man's? Hypothetically, that's all that should be required to hear the change in pitch in the example provided. It doesn't utilize any musical notes, just sliding pitches. Just saying, it's a pretty cool effect, not to be missed, unless you truly can't tell an oboe from a baritone sax.

It's not a gross distortion that I afflicts me. It is more akin to color vision defect, which I also suffer from. I can see colors, I can hear notes. However, any two notes played that are not octaves apart might be too close for me to tell which is the higher and which is the lower. As with color vision, a given shade of blue and purple may be indistinguishable to me.

However, thinking about this brought me to another point. As most people have normal color vision, one generally only thinks of color vision defect as a liability. In fact, it grants several advantages to some color-blind people, myself among them. Because colors lie to me and cannot be trusted, I tend to pay more attention to light and shadow, texture and movement. This ability has served me well. I do not have senses others do not, in fact one might argue I have fewer (working) senses than others. But paying attention to the senses I do have has worked to my advantage, particularly during my time in the military.

Imagine chi if it were like that. Something that some can see, some cannot, but the fact that I can see the person crouching in the shadows and you cannot see that person does not mean he is not there, as you have astutely pointed out to the obverse.

No, actually, I don't ask for proof. I've seen countless examples, real and in video, of people demonstrating Chi, but never one that wasn't the same thing that practitioners not claiming to utilize Chi could do. I've also never had someone actually try to create a Chi believer of me.

I hope that you have that experience at some point, in a positive way, of course. I have no doubt that there are many who claim to be able to manipulate or otherwise use chi who will probably be quite disappointing.

If you showed up at my dojo and asked for a demonstration, I would no doubt disappoint you as well (unless you perhaps tried to kick me like my partner did on several occasions, and I punched your rising kick on your shin and you fell over and cried for awhile while I stared at my fist again).

And actually, I'm quite willing to believe in things I haven't experienced myself, if they are plausible and explicable. I've just never see any of that when it comes to Chi. Quantum Fluctuations in empty space, supernova, Tagalog, Madagascar, Creme Brulee, and my appendix are all things I cannot prove, have limited understanding of, have never seen, smelt, felt, heard, tasted, or otherwise experienced, and yet in which I believe with relatively strong but varied degrees of firmness. (It's possible I may actually have heard Tagalog spoken at some point, in the interests of full disclosure.)

I spent some time in the PI, but since I was in the military, all the Tagalog I know involves ordering beer or saying the rudest possible obscenities.

I actually almost brought this up, but opted not to. There is a long standing tradition of belief in the emotive power of notes. However, this power is entirely reliant on cultural indoctrination....

I will withdraw my analogy. Clearly I am outclassed here.

Of course. And I'm, after all, only 25, with fifteen years in the martial arts, the majority of those as a child or teen. I'm a kid. I don't doubt that my views on many things will change over the next (I hope) sixty or so years of Martial Arts practice. Who knows, fifteen years from now I might stumble across this conversation and laugh myself into a coma at the ignorance and foolishness of my writing. I don't find it likely, but I'm not ruling it out either.

You have more time in the martial arts than I do. But I am nearly 55 years old. From my end of that yardstick, the gulf between me now and me at 25 is so immense as to basically constitute another person.

I can't say how you'll regard this conversation when you are my age - or how I will a year from now - but I suspect you think aright. No offense.

The thing is, my disbelief in Chi is based less on my own experience or lack thereof, but on my respect for causality in physics. If Chi affects the physical world, than it is observable and should be evident in the relevant studies. If it doesn't affect the physical world, then it is clearly none of the things it is professed to be in the martial arts. That is what I'm trying to say, not that I don't believe in it simply because I haven't experienced it.

Shall I quote the Bard? "There are more things in heaven and earth...etc."

My point being that, if tomorrow I achieve some unanticipated level of proficiency with less effort then should be rightly required, I wouldn't attribute that to Chi, no matter how impressed I was. I would attribute that to standard, known physics. What would convince me is someone, somewhere, performing the actual work to demonstrate that there is something distinct from known physics which actually affects the physical world. If the scientific community starts sniffing around some new energy, life force, whatever, present in humans and responsible for effortless breaking of concrete, that is what would change my mind. Not personal experience. I'm far too suggestible and have convinced myself of falsehoods too often to trust my own judgement! (Hyperbole? Yes. But only slight.)

That is not significantly different from my belief that what we call chi is not supernatural or magic, but rather follows the same laws of the universe as everything else does.

The main difference appears to be that I am willing to use a term you are not. This gets down to personal preference. Is it chi? Is it not chi? Whether it is or it is not, it exists or it does not. If it does exist (the effect you describe) then what you call it is a distinction without a difference.

I do have one question that I often wonder, with regards to people's belief in Chi. If it is something which can be developed incidentally, without specifically cultivating it, is it then possible for someone to, hypothetically, be utilizing Chi in their own practice, but not know it and even disbelieve in Chi, or is it something which requires conscious awareness.

Excellent question. It calls to mind the reference I have heard to the strength of babies, especially those who do not yet walk and talk. The observation made was that babies, not having yet learned what they can NOT do, often do things one might think otherwise impossible. For example, as one carried an infant down a row at the grocery store, when they reach their pudgy little fist out, grab a stanchion, and nearly pull you over onto your back by simply not letting go as you pass.

Some refer to that as chi as well. And I think it might well be a good example of precisely that.

In reference to my own description of my rather pedestrian and silly application of what I felt was some form of chi energy, punching my uke's kick and forthwith incapacitating him spectacular manner, I do not believe it was due to my own talent, expertise, or anything of that nature. In fact, in neither case had I intended that result. It was definitely a case of 'mushin' both times. He moved, I reacted. I've done the same thing countless times before and simply hurt my fist (in general, I am not confident about the notion of punching another person's rising kick, it seems like a conceptually bad idea to me). However, when it 'worked' it worked without effort, without thinking, and with the net result that I wasn't even sure I had hit him at all.

In other words, If I (general I) am a highly skilled practitioner who effortlessly trains and demonstrates my art, is it possible that that fluid grace and profound skill is in part a result of Chi, even if I don't believe it to be?

I do not know, but I would hope so, since I've been dusted by the karate fairy a couple times despite my nearly-complete lack of competence.

I was the last kid on my block to learn how to ride a bicycle. Quite the embarrassment. My parents tried and tried to get me to learn. Endless hours after dinner, me crying, them pushing, me falling over. Then one day I didn't fall over. I half-heartedly punched rising snap kicks and got a hurt hand for my efforts, until one day I didn't. The main difference is, I never forgot how to ride a bicycle. The devastating punch, seems it's not mine to command so far.

But most importantly, yes, yes she is. Plus she makes excellent cheesecake.

There is not much better than good cheesecake.

 

[KenpoDave]

Strong Qi = Healthy
Weak Qi = Sick
No Qi = Dead

Nothing magical about it, other than a western misunderstanding and fantasy as to what it actually is

I think that pretty well sums it up. I may have missed when I skipped all the bickering, but, I guess it would be helpful to know what the OP means by "chi works."

I think that chi is often how people describe what is beyond their ability to understand or explain.

I have had the honor of seeing some amazing things. Some could explain, some could not. Some I understood/stand, some I do not.

Is it "chi?" I don't know. But it's something.

 

[drop bear]

I think you are mixing up your religions there.

Not really all old testement. But the concept of sin is in more than one religion.

 

[Koshiki]

Well, much as I'm tempted to go through and ruthlessly snip bits of your last post to continue this conversation, I honestly have very little to add.

Honestly, I'm not sure we actually disagree on anything, functionally, except perhaps for the extent to which modern physics is a cohesive explanation of phenomena and how relevant such cohesiveness is to Chi.

I agree that the sort of thing you are attributing to Chi is not supernatural, dependable, or generally even intentional. (When that sort of thing happens in my training, I either consider myself lucky, or consider it an unfortunate accident.) I agree that it's a combination of so many minute eventualities as to make analysis impractical.

If what you mean by Chi is exactly that, the perfect culmination of all the tiny, nearly undefinable aspects of physical movement and structure that produces astonishingly optimal results, then I would have to admit that I too, believe in Chi by that definition.

I will say that that's a far cry from my admittedly sickly understanding of the traditional concept of chi as a universal energy, which I believe was held to be present in all things, not just humans and animals and plants, but rocks and rivers and wind as well, as in Shinto, for example. The sort of Chi that leads to Reiki, the more surreal forms of acupuncture, to energy disruption through pressure applications, to Qigong, to Taoism, to Feng Shue.

At least in my experience, that is some of what Chi is purported to entail. Some people like to say Chi is nothing but a term used to describe your overall health. Sure, I can get behind that, but I call that "health." Or in this case, if Chi is a seemingly inexplicable conjunction of every subtlety of technique, I could get behind that too, but I'd just call it "exceptional technique."

It's a messy term, with a long history entangled in myriad religions and spiritual beliefs. Which, I think, is where most of the disagreement comes from. You say Chi is, if I may brutally oversimplify, "such a perfect confluence of minutia that it is nearly transcendent, without violating anything in standard physics." I think, based on my own experiences and (very) limited reading, most believers in Chi would argue that it is much more than that, and even that that is not Chi at all. Which of course, you could say about their understanding of whatever it is we are applying the term to.

As you say, Jelly Donuts.

And as you say, the question is largely academic, if Chi need not be sought, and can only be found through training as one would anyway.

I do not disagree, although hearkening back to your comparison of chi to a form of religion, one might consider Pascal's Wager as being operative here. Assuming (as I do) that there is nothing detrimental about the pursuit of martial arts training of nearly any type.

I almost brought up Pascal's Wager for that reason. While the original wager is obviously flawed in many ways, similar concept actually bears more relevance here than in the false dichotomy of Christian Vs. Atheist. Since here, there is only one option, and the results are either good or good.

At any rate, I have really very little to say about Chi, except to attempt to explain my disbelief, as well as a few descriptions of what I don't hold to be Chi at all. Anything more I say, will just be repetition of my one note song.

I suppose I'll let the thread get back to its main point of Abrahamic faiths. Or was it Cheesecake?

My favorite is the white-chocolate and fresh cranberry cheesecake that she nearly always makes for Thanksgiving. Which is coming soon!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If what you mean by Chi is exactly that, the perfect culmination of all the tiny, nearly undefinable aspects of physical movement and structure that produces astonishingly optimal results, then I would have to admit that I too, believe in Chi by that definition.

That is how I think of it, more or less. I know that my own sensei and some very few others I know can produce these sorts of effects as they desire, while my own efforts are limited and haphazard to say the very least. I certainly would not whip out my astonishing chi powers in a fight, for example.

I will say that that's a far cry from my admittedly sickly understanding of the traditional concept of chi as a universal energy, which I believe was held to be present in all things, not just humans and animals and plants, but rocks and rivers and wind as well, as in Shinto, for example. The sort of Chi that leads to Reiki, the more surreal forms of acupuncture, to energy disruption through pressure applications, to Qigong, to Taoism, to Feng Shue.

At least in my experience, that is some of what Chi is purported to entail. Some people like to say Chi is nothing but a term used to describe your overall health. Sure, I can get behind that, but I call that "health." Or in this case, if Chi is a seemingly inexplicable conjunction of every subtlety of technique, I could get behind that too, but I'd just call it "exceptional technique."

I know that many people see chi or qi or ki or whatever in all things. Perhaps it is, I have no idea. Perhaps it is health as well; again, no idea. I am referring only to that type of energy or 'flow' as it is sometimes called that is apparent in certain aspects of martial arts. And of course, I am not referring to 'no touch knockouts' or that sort of thing.

It's a messy term, with a long history entangled in myriad religions and spiritual beliefs. Which, I think, is where most of the disagreement comes from. You say Chi is, if I may brutally oversimplify, "such a perfect confluence of minutia that it is nearly transcendent, without violating anything in standard physics." I think, based on my own experiences and (very) limited reading, most believers in Chi would argue that it is much more than that, and even that that is not Chi at all. Which of course, you could say about their understanding of whatever it is we are applying the term to.

As you say, Jelly Donuts.

It is a messy term. I appreciate your simplification of my various disjointed statements. I like it. I absolutely understand why others understand it differently; it certainly has the whiff of magic on it.

And as you say, the question is largely academic, if Chi need not be sought, and can only be found through training as one would anyway.

Well, that's my opinion about my own abilities in that area, yes.

I believe that one can seek and perhaps find. One can seek and not find. One can not seek and find, and one can not seek and not find. Whether due to luck, temperament, timing, or the weather, I cannot say.

I almost brought up Pascal's Wager for that reason. While the original wager is obviously flawed in many ways, similar concept actually bears more relevance here than in the false dichotomy of Christian Vs. Atheist. Since here, there is only one option, and the results are either good or good.

At any rate, I have really very little to say about Chi, except to attempt to explain my disbelief, as well as a few descriptions of what I don't hold to be Chi at all. Anything more I say, will just be repetition of my one note song.

And my disbelief, nearly identical to yours in many ways, I label belief. Isn't that odd?

I suppose I'll let the thread get back to its main point of Abrahamic faiths. Or was it Cheesecake?

My favorite is the white-chocolate and fresh cranberry cheesecake that she nearly always makes for Thanksgiving. Which is coming soon!

I am not a fan of cranberries. But you seem a nice fellow, it would be a shame to kill you just for that.

 

[Koshiki]

Usually, when people claim to be arguing semantics, they are actually arguing about a great deal more. In this case, I am with each of your posts convinced that we are actually discussing the term rather than the thing. I think we're more or less in agreement on the thing. The term, well, words are tricky, especially loan words.

Because the term "Chi" is so often linked to the spiritual, the supernatural, the downright magical, the inexplicable rather than the unexplained, and because it is, at root, a religious term in many ways I assumed at least a touch of that flavour was added to your own definition of the word, even though you claimed it wasn't.

More and more though, I think we're on the same page in every sense except for the translation.

With the exception of Cranberries. Don't worry though, I'm more likely to hunt down someone for eating too many cranberries and depriving the rest of us. rather than someone likely to leave more for me. When I was a kid I'd sneak the frozen ones from the icebox like candy. Cranberry sauce, cranberry preserves, dried cranberries, oh dear lord DRIED CRANBERRIES.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Usually, when people claim to be arguing semantics, they are actually arguing about a great deal more.

I am, to a large extent, an autodidact. While attempting to educate myself on semantics, I discovered the larger umbrella field of study, semiotics. I fell in love with it. From my photography to my martial arts to my work in general, I am interested in signs and symbols and what we mean when we say things, not necessarily the words we use to say them.

 

[Koshiki]

I am, to a large extent, an autodidact. While attempting to educate myself on semantics, I discovered the larger umbrella field of study, semiotics. I fell in love with it. From my photography to my martial arts to my work in general, I am interested in signs and symbols and what we mean when we say things, not necessarily the words we use to say them.

Whereas I'm just a plain old pedant. At least, so I've heard often enough that I've started to believe it. Badge of honor, I say!

In all seriousness though, language is fascinating.

 

[hoshin1600]

I must applaud Bill and zack. This was the best conversation I have read on this Web sight to date. So many things were stated so well that I am envious of the two of you for the ability to put thoughts into words so eloquently and precise.
Thank you

 

[Tez3]

I read that and I still think it is the Kurds.

They don't think so, they claim descent from the Medes and the Hurrians.

 

[Tez3]

Not really all old testement. But the concept of sin is in more than one religion.

My comment about mixing religions was directed at the post below. Christians hold Sunday as the Sabbath, Judaism holds the Sabbath as sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, hence you are mixing up religions. The concept of sin maybe universal even but the ideas of what constitutes sin are widely varying!

Chi is the same as religion? No idea, as I know nothing about chi and am not prepared to comment on something I know little to nothing about. I can't believe though that one is infested with demons etc if one 'has' chi. I'm also noting that the poster for whom this thread was made has made no comments yet.

Like working on a sunday. Wearing mixed fibres or eating pork?

I like the chi/religion comparison. I dont believe god exists. But it helps some people who do.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Zack has said almost everything I would want to say on the matter, in more depth than I probably would have.

I'll just add one more thing - the idea that "Chi" can be a potentially useful way of describing the subjective experience of applying a high degree of refined physical skill.

In other words, perhaps when a kung fu master demonstrates a seemingly miraculous "chi-powered" punch that effortlessly drops a much larger opponent the actual physics involved is something like "muscle A tightens up by 10% for .5 seconds while muscle B relaxes fully while the weight shifts to the left by 5% then muscle C contacts at 90% maximum force for .25 seconds while ... etc ... etc" - a huge chain of pricise subtle adjustments that no one can be fully aware or analytically break down while they are performing it. Meanwhile the subjective feeling that the master experiences while throwing the punch is "the chi started from my tan tien, spiraled up my spine and out through my arm." In some case the practitioner might be able to replicate the punch more easily by recreating that feeling than they could by trying to analytically understand the exact kinesiology and physics of the punch.

For a simple example, look at the classic "unbendable arm" trick commonly used in Aikido demos. (At least it used to be a standard sort of demo. Do Aikido folks still use that one? I haven't seen it referenced in a while.) You can teach just about anyone to do the trick in just a few minutes by giving them a "ki" visualization to use. The way it actually works is through simple basic kinesiology, but it's almost easier to get through the visualization.

 

[Touch Of Death]

They don't think so, they claim descent from the Medes and the Hurrians.

You have to put what they think aside. You have to put what everybody thinks aside. LOL

 

[oftheherd1]

Thanks for the advice but I back my claims.

My opinion is mine and only I am accountable for it. But I can't see where you have backed up most of your claims with anything but your own words, or misdirection. I am not sure what you are doing In this thread, and hope you will enlighten me. I really have always thought better of you than to pick things out of context, which is what it seems to me you are doing, or avoid reasons for your statements, and simply try to redirect. It seems to me you have been mostly confrontational, or contentious, especially to Tez3, who seems to mostly have tried to explain her beliefs with links to explanations of her beliefs. Granted, she seems to have become a little testy a couple of times, but at least imho, mostly not.

Whether you believe as she does, or I, or anyone else, what good does it serve to try and put her beliefs down, or bait her? If you disagree, as I sometimes do, why not keep the discussion civil.

If I am not understanding you motives, my apologies, and please enlighten me with something other than one liners. I am probably too slow for that.

 

[oftheherd1]

As to chi or gi or ki; I believe it exists. I have seen it, and I have experienced it in minor ways. Don't ask me to explain it because I cannot.

 

[Tez3]

Granted, she seems to have become a little testy a couple of times, but at least imho, mostly not.

It's because whenever a thread gets argumentative or goes off on a tangent I get walloped by the admins, they don't always say it's my fault just that they blame me! I get very tired of having to pussy foot around people these days as they are very quick to report when they feel they've been outraged.