Defining Qi

[Wanderingdragon]

No time, but if you've read it you should have some what Of an idea what Qi is, definitely not a philosophy

[GaryR]

No time, but if you've read it you should have some what Of an idea what Qi is, definitely not a philosophy

The article is not that long, to give you a hint it starts with -- "Scientists have identified what makes sperm wriggle and swim."

Well Qi certainly isn't a science, so one could consider it a philosophy...

"The earliest description of "force" in the current sense of vital energy is found in the Vedas of ancient India (circa 1500-1000BC),[7] and from the writings of the Chinese philosopher Mencius (4th century BC)"

Im not personally bothered, but If you can't be troubled to click a link or provide something substantive to the discussion why don't you find something else to do?

[Wanderingdragon]

Ok

[DeusTrismegistus]

Not to spoil the Qi Fun, but Ron has great points.

I think it can be put more simply, as this - the chinese hypothesis of Qi as it relates to TCM was postulated thousands of years ago when the knowledge of the human body and its internal processes was infentesimally less. To this day none of their hypothesis relating to Qi flowing through the 12 main and 2 extra meridians have been proven to exist in any measurable form. Nor has there been any evidence that the Qi is somehow seperate than physical/mental conditioning, and that this Qi can be bolstered through training methods .

While the Qi hypothesis can be of some use by way of analogy/metaphor in the MA context of teaching, it is nontheless a false one. It provides no scientific or valid physiological basis from which to begin to properly describe the actual mechanics and physics involved in the movement.

Take an easy conceptual example--Our mind controls our body' as a demonstrable principal. vs. the "yi leads the qi". Perhaps many of you with some training in the old chinese model will understand this comparison, although many of us will disagree on what yi and qi mean, leading to more confusion due to a lack of specificity. This discconect and ambiguity of the terms, along with of course selective interpretations of such terms makes it impossible to communicate using those terms alone becuase they have no grounding in testable fact or percieved reality. (along with being so old and permutating in context and use over time and cultures).

Consequently, as much fun as the "What is Qi" threads always are, its really a bad question, which has no answer of objective utility. One would be better off adopting an evidence based training model that doesn't require the use of an antiquated and nebulous hypothesis/term.

Anyhow, carry on, fairytales and old myths are fun to discuss and twist into a context that we think we can use in some fashion. But to each his own.

G

The Dogon Tribe in Africa has said for thousands of years that the Star Sirius is actually a three star system. Scientists thought they were full of shit until a second star was discovered. More recently there has been evidence that there is likely a third star that is not visible to telescopes because it is so dim. The evidence comes from analyzing the orbits iirc.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. Just because something is new doesn't make it right either. The opposite also applies. Further the lack of scientific, measurable, quantifiable data does not mean that Qi doesn't exist. It just means that if it exists we haven't been able to measure it yet. Two hundred years ago we couldn't measure electricity, photon wavelength, the atom, molecular structures, etc. That had absolutely no bearing on their reality.

Further you bring up the subject of objective verifiable fact and subjective experience. Well I have to say that true objective reality is a myth. Everything is ultimately experienced in some way. Whether that is through feeling a phenomena or measuring a phenomena and analyzing data collected on it.

Also there is a crapload of stuff we still have no idea how it works. We can't even figure out what makes muscles get fatigued. The research on our physical bodies is still far from complete. That isn't even getting into issues of consciousness, which are still in the realm of metaphysics. When I am typing on my keyboard my muscles are receiving signals from my nerves. The nerves get the signal from the brain. The brain "fires" certain neurons to start the signal. What gives the neuron the command to fire causing a calcium ion to quantum tunnel from one neuron to another? We still can't answer that basic question which is just a simple modern version of the philosophical question of "what am I"?

It is entirely possible that our current avenue of investigation into fundamental questions of reality is so far off the ultimate mark that we are just barking up the wrong tree. There may be a more substantial theory that could explain the observable universe in more accurate terms and would also allow us to advance to a level that would allow the detection of what people have experienced and called qi, akasha, prana, ruach, etc.

[D_Glenn]

No, I have no clue what makes a sperm swim

Well then why don't you educate yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2760623.stm

"We call these proteins molecular motors, as they work very much like engines, using fuel which the body creates from the food we eat to power movement."

And that "fuel" comes from the Polyamines - spermine, spermidine, etc.

As Western science gets a better understanding of the role that Polyamines play in the human body, we can finally have a Western equivalent for what is called 精 Jīng (vital essence) in the Chinese paradigm.

http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/ ... 2.full.pdf


.

[Wanderingdragon]

No, I have no clue what makes a sperm swim

Well then why don't you educate yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2760623.stm

"We call these proteins molecular motors, as they work very much like engines, using fuel which the body creates from the food we eat to power movement."

And that "fuel" comes from the Polyamines - spermine, spermidine, etc.

As Western science gets a better understanding of the role that Polyamines play in the human body, we can finally have a Western equivalent for what is called 精 Jīng (vital essence) in the Chinese paradigm.
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/ ... 2.full.pdf


.

Just got off of work and just wanted to say, it sure sounds an awful lot like science to me. Mans mind is knowledge, and the greater the technology the further he can go incorroborating his theory, I say never ignore the knowledge of the ancients, it is for us to explore and develop to the point beyond understanding, but to the reality of knowing. Now ... I see Mr. Glen has quite a bit of reading for me do

[GaryR]

The Dogon Tribe in Africa has said for thousands of years that the Star Sirius is actually a three star system. Scientists thought they were full of shit until a second star was discovered. More recently there has been evidence that there is likely a third star that is not visible to telescopes because it is so dim. The evidence comes from analyzing the orbits iirc.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. Just because something is new doesn't make it right either. The opposite also applies. Further the lack of scientific, measurable, quantifiable data does not mean that Qi doesn't exist. It just means that if it exists we haven't been able to measure it yet. Two hundred years ago we couldn't measure electricity, photon wavelength, the atom, molecular structures, etc. That had absolutely no bearing on their reality.

I agree, just because we have no evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That applies to everything, including any paradigm of "God".

But now that we can measure matter at such a small level, we know there are:

up quark
down quark
charm quark
strange quark
top quark
down quark
electron
muon
tau
electron neutrino
muon neutrino
tau neutrino
photon
gluon
W+ boson
W- boson
Z boson.

One would have thought that a meridian system that should theoretically make such an impact on systems we know so much about would be detectible already? Perhaps not, but possibility does not equal probability.

Further you bring up the subject of objective verifiable fact and subjective experience. Well I have to say that true objective reality is a myth. Everything is ultimately experienced in some way. Whether that is through feeling a phenomena or measuring a phenomena and analyzing data collected on it.

"There is a fashion nowadays for a school of thought variously called “post-modernism” or “cultural relativism”, which claims that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that theories of objective reality (i.e. science) are nothing more than “cultural constructs”. This Essay will attempt to prove that such claims are logically inconsistent, and hence they cannot be true.
What Is Objective Reality?

Let me propose my definition of objective reality:

Definition 1: Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not.

Many people may claim that the above definition is insufficiently precise, or perhaps even circular: for instance, what do you mean by “true”? And what do you mean by “believe”? For that matter, what do you mean by “mean”?

For the purposes of my argument, ultimate precision in the meanings of the terms is not important—their common, everyday meanings, with their common, everyday precisions, are good enough. In mathematics (and engineering), there is the concept of sensitivity analysis: a result is often more crucially dependent on certain input parameters than on others, so more imprecision can be tolerated in the less crucial parameters. Later on, I will give a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate that the truth of my argument is not crucially dependent on the precise meanings of any of the above terms.

Another point is that I will be using the terms “objective truth” and “objective reality” completely interchangeably: as far as I’m concerned, what’s true is real, and what’s real is true.
Proof of Objective Reality

This proof is about giving a definite answer to the following question Q:

Q: Is there such a thing as objective reality?

Objective realists would say that the answer A to question Q is:

A1: Yes.

while the cultural relativists would say that the answer is:

A2: No.

So let us ask the meta-question Q':

Q': Is there an answer to question Q?

To which both objective realists and cultural relativists would agree that the answer A' is definitely:

A': Yes.

All parties must be united in accepting that this answer is objectively true, not a matter of someone's individual or cultural belief, for if they did not, then there would be no basis for their dispute. Therefore answer A' is itself an example of objective reality—something that remains true whether anybody believes in it or not. Therefore the answer to question Q is A1 (yes)—there is such a thing as objective reality.

That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the proof of objective reality. But some may argue that the above conclusion is too pat. What if there isn’t a definite answer to meta-question Q'? So now we have a dispute over the answer to meta-meta-question Q'':

Q'': Is there an answer to question Q'?

to which the objective realists say the answer is “yes”, while the meta-cultural-relativists say the answer is “no”. However, all have to be in agreement that the answer to meta-meta-meta-question Q''':

Q''': Is there an answer to question Q''?

is

A''': Yes.

which itself becomes an example of something objectively true, from which the answer to the original question Q is again A1 (yes).

It is clear that the above sequence can be extended ad infinitum: the objective realists always answer “yes” to every question, while the metan-cultural relativists (n = 0, 1, 2 ...) answer “no” to the first 2n+1 questions, and agree with the objective realists thereafter.

... (http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/o ... ality.html) ...

Conclusions

To sum up:

There is such a thing as objective reality.

There is only one reality: a statement cannot be true in one reality and false in another.

The proof I have given of the above is not merely an existence proof: it is a constructive proof, giving one or more examples of statements that are objectively true.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I will be the first to concede that not all of objective truth is as easy to uncover as the examples given above. We can’t always be sure whether something is objectively true or not. But that in itself is an objectively true statement! So we can sometimes be sure.

Even so, we often make mistakes and come up with wrong answers. But we only know this because we later discover the right answers! Thus, the pursuit of objective reality is a convergent process: it does get closer to the truth over time, rather than simply going around in endless circles, like that ultimate in cultural constructs, the fashion industry.

Some people accuse scientists of arrogance: “Who says Science has a monopoly on the truth?” they ask. “There are other ways of knowing besides Science”, they claim.

In fact, I like to turn this the other way round: if you come up with a new way of knowing (as opposed to merely believing), then it is worthy to be called Science. All you’ve got to do is prove that it works—that the truths you think you’ve uncovered can in fact be verified by others.

As human beings, we are notoriously prone to making mistakes. But another well-known human trait is that we find it easier to notice other people’s mistakes than our own. Science depends on this as a powerful tool: to get other people to accept your ideas as true, you have to show them all your reasoning, so that they can check it for themselves. If a fact is true for one, it is true for all.

Or, to put it another way, Science teaches us that nobody has a monopoly on the truth."

Also there is a crapload of stuff we still have no idea how it works. We can't even figure out what makes muscles get fatigued. The research on our physical bodies is still far from complete. That isn't even getting into issues of consciousness, which are still in the realm of metaphysics. When I am typing on my keyboard my muscles are receiving signals from my nerves. The nerves get the signal from the brain. The brain "fires" certain neurons to start the signal. What gives the neuron the command to fire causing a calcium ion to quantum tunnel from one neuron to another? We still can't answer that basic question which is just a simple modern version of the philosophical question of "what am I"?

Perhaps Chris M. can tell you about muscles..but I agree about consciousness etc.

It is entirely possible that our current avenue of investigation into fundamental questions of reality is so far off the ultimate mark that we are just barking up the wrong tree. There may be a more substantial theory that could explain the observable universe in more accurate terms and would also allow us to advance to a level that would allow the detection of what people have experienced and called qi, akasha, prana, ruach, etc.

I agree here, heck, we don't even know exactly what "dark matter" is, they are close, I even know a nuclear physicist who personally worked on such experiments (went to Stanford at like 15, was told he was best student since Einstein.) Dark matter makes up a whole lot (don't remember the amount) of the matter in the Universe. The problem is that as far as we have come there is still nothing to be seen of Qi.

But for obvious reasons, these Qi discussions ultimately seem to boil down to a form of apologetic s. Insomuch that like the appolgetics of religion, they start from an ancient axiom / "doctrine" and then attempt to bend whatever discoveries around it and metaphorically correlate them retrospectively. Its like a christian trying to reconcile the evolution, which has millions of pieces of corroborating evidence with the genesis creation myth which has none, is internally inconsistent, and is dis proven thoroughly by scientific evidence.

Thanks for the thoughtful post Duess, best,

G

[GaryR]

[i] ... As Western science gets a better understanding of the role that Polyamines play in the human body, we can finally have a Western equivalent for what is called 精 Jīng (vital essence) in the Chinese paradigm.

http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/ ... 2.full.pdf

.

While that is a nice article from 1986, it makes no mention of Qi, unless my tired eyes (and my control find feature) somehow missed it. But can you describe how preciously does it fit within the Chinese paradigm, what correlation is present in the meridian theory ect. and what has been discovered? Hopefully some other folks will have some input.

Best,

Gary

[Wanderingdragon]

Gary cited an article in which was written

"Head of the University's molecular contractility group, Professor John Trinick said the molecular motors were similar to a railway network.

"Our body is full of proteins which form tracks. Along these tracks, molecular motors are the locomotives, transporting a variety of cargoes to wherever they are needed."

He does the research and reads the text, yet his mind will not open to idea

"One would have thought that a meridian system that should theoretically make such an impact on systems we know so much about would be detectible already? Perhaps not, but possibility does not equal probability. "

[GaryR]

Just got off of work and just wanted to say, it sure sounds an awful lot like science to me. Mans mind is knowledge, and the greater the technology the further he can go incorroborating his theory, I say never ignore the knowledge of the ancients, it is for us to explore and develop to the point beyond understanding, but to the reality of knowing. Now ... I see Mr. Glen has quite a bit of reading for me do

Welcome back WD, well, the science being described has not been measurably or even logically at this point been correlated with Qi etc. Perhaps it is forthcoming though.

"Never ignore the knowledge of the ancients"?? No offense, but that reads like a bad copy for a David Carradine Kung-Fu movie.

I think this is appropriate: “A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”
― Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian & Other Essays on Religion & Related Subjects. As I said in another post, it seems the debate re; Qi boils down to a form of appolgetics on one side and a call for measurable data and evidence on the other.

Best,

Gary

[Wanderingdragon]

No apology necessary, it's why I stated earlier, those who understand are not arguing, I think you're almost there... ready for more bad copy?.. Understanding is the simplicity of an open mind

[D_Glenn]

While that is a nice article from 1986, it makes no mention of Qi, unless my tired eyes (and my control find feature) somehow missed it.

No your eyes are working just fine. I never said it did.

But can you describe how preciously does it fit within the Chinese paradigm

No. Not that I couldn't, just that I can't really be bothered to as I already have in the past. You can search through some of my older posts where I detailed it and posted links to more information on the correlations between the polyamines and 精 Jīng.

Sorry. But as people on here already know (or have figured out over the years), I don't really post information to get into a discussion or debate. RSF is more like my personal blog where I post translations, definitions, theories, pictures of half-naked women, etc.

[I-mon]

I find the controversy over the word "Qi" endlessly frustrating. Firstly you have Westerners "buying into it" and saying it's a magical "energy", based on their romantic exoticised fantasies of kung-fu dungeons&dragons Chinese culture, and then you have other Western "skeptics" saying "it's never been proven to exist!"

"Qi" simply means "transformation(s)". Physical, chemical, physiological, mechanical, meteorological, etc. In TCM and Daoist philosophy living beings and everything in the manifest universe are described in terms of "Jing-Qi-Shen", "Jing-essence" is the physical substance ie the physico-chemical structure, what we call atoms, protons electrons particles etc in our models - the stuff. "Shen-spirit" is what we call consciousness, present in varying levels in all living things or possibly in all self-organized or self-creating systems according to people like Varela, Bateson and that lot. "Qi-energy" is the reactions and processes occuring within and between the different kinds of stuff and different levels of consciousness. It's easy. Chinese language, even technical jargon, is mostly metaphorical.

So you can pretty much say that "Qi" means "process(es)", and leave it at that. It instantly resolves a lot of confusion, but most likely materialists will still refuse to listen and say "no no Qi is energy and it doesn't exist! (Foolish superstitious orientals!)" etc.

Of course in the Chinese language a single word usually has many meanings depending on the context, and many Chinese people will sometimes use the word as if talking about some sort of substance. Many apparently seem to think that it is a kind of "stuff", as well - it's a big country, with lots of people with varying levels of education. Given that Qi is an incredibly broad term used to describe an enormous variety of phenomena, any individual's understanding of the term extends only to the limit of their understanding of the various processes at work in the physical universe.

[Chris McKinley]

It's easy. Chinese language, even technical jargon, is mostly metaphorical.

I pretty much figured that out about 20 years ago, and I've never really had a problem with the term since. It's also just as frustrating to hear from the "buying into it" Westerners that it absolutely must be a magical energy that transcends and defies the laws of physics. To me, that's at least as irritating as the immovable skeptic. At least with the skeptic, you can still have an objective empirical discussion about practice and training without the issue of qi even being relevant.

[I-mon]

Absolutely - despite his arguing against its existence, Gary at least sounds like he has a much better understanding of the general concept (infinite irreducibly complex interactions between transient phenomena) than your average "qi-hugger".

So the intellectual understanding of the concept depends upon an individual's intellectual understanding of natural processes. The felt experience of what these terms mean depends entirely on the nervous system of the individual and the types of exercises they are using to develop it.

Sometimes you get people who are very well developed in the realm of felt experience, yet have very little intellectual or verbal understanding of natural processes, sometimes you get the opposite.