Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 I don't find looking to masters from long ago to be bazaar at all. No matter what evolution in medicine has taken in the past 2,000years, I bet the nature of consciousness has remained stable and consistent since the beginning of time. The core of what is remains the same. We just scurry around and try to interpret it. Given the master of old had less distraction from finding the source and they seemed to be more intent to attain a connection with the source, the chances of them coming up with the closest interpretation of chi seems quite reasonable to me. (I do realize that using words to describe the indescribable is impossible. We will be able to get as close to a description of Qi as the interpretation of the words will allow.) Of course all this doesn't mean I wouldn't look to modern science for a better interpretation as to what the supplements are doing. I'm sure it will be interesting having you posting again Lon. ;-) Chris In a message dated 1/19/2004 9:15:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, Spiritpathpress writes: 3. The notion that "what qi is" is to be found in a literature written by people long dead is bizarre at best. What about EVOLUTION? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 I totally agree with you Lon. These texts are over 2000 years old and need their interpretation updating. They were wrote for that time frame and are largely out of date. Look at the Bible, that's a classic example. It's not the words that are necessarily important its what's hidden between the lines that count. Language in itself it so limiting. It at best, badly expresses our inner thoughts and feelings. If you can convey an image in words then that's enough to pass on that thought. It doesn't have to be an exact passing of thoughts (translation) as we all interpret and translate them differently within our minds as we're all different people on different paths. Also, a lot of ancient literature was never really edited. There's a lot of TCM concepts out there that are wrong. Everything is taken as gospel and we really need to go through everything and edit it. Attilio Spiritpathpress@a... wrote: > 3. Is languuage important? Yes. Is the knowledge in classical literature, > formed by an animistic/absolutist culture representative of a 2500 yo form of > consciousness capable of defining whhat something is NOW, today? Absolutely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Lon, You presented this same evolutionary argument at lunch one day in San Diego, I recall. Harriet and Efrem and I were sitting minding our own business, and you joined us and more or less those exact same words came out of your mouth. I have to say that they don't make any more sense to me now than they did then, but I'm glad you brought the subject up. And since you're ready willing and able to talk about the meanings of terms, let's proceed. What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean the gradual progress of development that leads from the state of relative moral and ethical torpitude in which you evidently place the Chinese to that enlightened state in which the USA currently threatens the entire world with its nuclear arsenal on the basis of the superiority of its evolved awareness of certain values that bear an unmistakable resemblance to the utterings of General Boinkin? What is this highly evolved state to which you refer? Is it the state of your own mind? Is your god or your spirit or your destiny bigger than others? Are you spiritually superior to the Chinese nation? Do you really believe that you possess a set of values that is so far superior to others that you can assess them by your own merits and issue judgments like the one you just have? I would dismiss it all as Euro-centric nonsense, or perhaps Euro-American centric nonsense; but I sense that it is truly centered on your own rather narrow interpretations of certain vast Chinese ideas, which, whether you know or will admit, or like to recognize or not were originally written by people who are, indeed, long dead. On what basis do you claim to understand the means by which the authors of ancient texts and ideas arrived at their insights? Do you or do you not read classical Chinese texts? No doubt you have also borrowed liberally from every other tradition known to man or beast, as this is the order of the day. But when you say you are ready to testify before congress, I shudder, Lon. Do you recall the discussion we had on CHA a year or two ago in which I was simply trying to find out what you meant when you used certain terms, like shen2, for example, or " destiny " for that matter in your book, in which you purvey nourishment for both? As I recall you couldn't answer direct questions then concerning what your own understanding of these terms was. And, I believe that Pere Larre's description of the discussion that you cite is altogether applicable to your own use of Chinese terminology to convey fanciful notions of hip-hop spirituality that pretend to be evolved but I assure you are not. Don't get me wrong. I'm not picking on you because I don't like you or because I get off on picking on people. The idea you present is dangerous and destructive. Think it through. It is the exact same rationale by which mega tons of explosives are dropped on destitute masses in other parts of the world that Americans view as under-evolved. If you want to fight about this in public, please be my guest. But it is not going to be pretty. If you plan to disengage because it all looks too negative or uncomfortable to you, then perhaps sooner is better than later. I can assure you that I will not become suddenly reasonable about this. You've made some truly outlandish remarks here. Maybe in your circle people ooh and ahh when you say things like that. But I find it highly offensive. Wherever I encounter this kind of spiritual imperialism that identifies itself as the evolved state of mankind and looks down its nose, typically at people of other skin color or ethnic characteristics, I fight it with a dedication that exceeds my enthusiasm for language. And if you are going to stay and fight, then please defend what I submit is your absolutely indefensible assertion that the Chinese are somehow evolutionarily disadvantaged...and by comparison to whom? or to what? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Unfortunately, I didn't catch this one. I really don't see the need for this overly strong tone Ken, especially the challenge of public fights, which you know grates on me. This is an academic discussion group not a school playground. Please tone is down. Attilio " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote: > Lon, > > You presented this same evolutionary > argument at lunch one day in San Diego, > I recall. Harriet and Efrem and I were > sitting minding our own business, and > you joined us and more or less those > exact same words came out of your mouth. > > I have to say that they don't make > any more sense to me now than they > did then, but I'm glad you brought > the subject up. And since you're ready > willing and able to talk about the > meanings of terms, let's proceed. > > What do you mean by evolution? > > Do you mean the gradual progress of > development that leads from the > state of relative moral and ethical > torpitude in which you evidently > place the Chinese to that enlightened > state in which the USA currently threatens > the entire world with its nuclear arsenal > on the basis of the superiority of its > evolved awareness of certain values > that bear an unmistakable resemblance > to the utterings of General Boinkin? > > What is this highly evolved state to which > you refer? > > Is it the state of your own mind? > > Is your god or your spirit or your > destiny bigger than others? Are > you spiritually superior to the > Chinese nation? > > Do you really believe that you > possess a set of values that is > so far superior to others that you can > assess them by your own merits and > issue judgments like the one you > just have? > > I would dismiss it all as Euro-centric > nonsense, or perhaps Euro-American centric > nonsense; but I sense that it is truly > centered on your own rather narrow > interpretations of certain vast Chinese > ideas, which, whether you know or will > admit, or like to recognize or not > were originally written by people > who are, indeed, long dead. > > On what basis do you claim to understand > the means by which the authors of ancient > texts and ideas arrived at their insights? > > Do you or do you not read classical Chinese > texts? > > > No doubt you have also borrowed liberally from > every other tradition known to man or beast, > as this is the order of the day. > > But when you say you are ready to testify > before congress, I shudder, Lon. > > Do you recall the discussion we had on > CHA a year or two ago in which I was > simply trying to find out what you meant > when you used certain terms, like shen2, > for example, or " destiny " for that matter > in your book, in which you purvey nourishment > for both? > > As I recall you couldn't answer direct questions > then concerning what your own understanding > of these terms was. And, I believe that > Pere Larre's description of the discussion > that you cite is altogether applicable to > your own use of Chinese terminology to > convey fanciful notions of hip-hop spirituality > that pretend to be evolved but I assure > you are not. > > Don't get me wrong. I'm not picking on > you because I don't like you or because > I get off on picking on people. > > The idea you present is dangerous and destructive. > > Think it through. > > It is the exact same rationale by which > mega tons of explosives are dropped on > destitute masses in other parts of the > world that Americans view as under-evolved. > > If you want to fight about this in > public, please be my guest. But it is > not going to be pretty. > > If you plan to disengage because > it all looks too negative or > uncomfortable to you, then perhaps > sooner is better than later. > > I can assure you that I will not > become suddenly reasonable about > this. You've made some truly outlandish > remarks here. Maybe in your circle > people ooh and ahh when you say > things like that. But I find > it highly offensive. > > Wherever I encounter this kind of spiritual > imperialism that identifies itself as the > evolved state of mankind and looks down > its nose, typically at people of other > skin color or ethnic characteristics, I > fight it with a dedication that exceeds > my enthusiasm for language. > > And if you are going to stay and fight, > then please defend what I submit is > your absolutely indefensible assertion > that the Chinese are somehow evolutionarily > disadvantaged...and by comparison to whom? > or to what? > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 So Lon, You say you will do it ... describe Qi to a congressman. I think Ken is asking us to proceed .... as if he were a congressman considering including CM in his national health bill. You say you can do it. You say you will do it. So, Brother, go for it! We'll be cheering you on from the sidelines. We won't think you're pompous or any other nasty epithet. We'll just cheer for you as you take your best shot. This is a bit of taiji we can practice on the Internet. So ... let's practice. Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 if we are interested in what is true now and relevant to our life conditions on planet earth today, we'll have to leave the classical literature in the dust. Oww! That's what I mean by lacking somewhat in respect. I said a long time ago, if we had to invent acupuncture today, I doubt if it could be done. No evolutionary molecular biologist with a doctorate in biosemiotics would sit up straight in the middle of the night and say "That's It!". Not enough inner peace to feel the qi these days, maybe. sorry. People and dis eases have changed some, thoSpiritpathpress wrote: In a message dated 1/16/04 4:47:48 AM, Chinese Medicine writes:<< Do you understand what qi is? >>1. I remember Porkert and Frijtof Capra in 1982 discussing the nature of Qi in fornt of, what then was most of the non asian acupuncturists in America. After 5 minutes Claude Larre (a man with a reasonable grasp of the classical literature who spent 50 years writing the most comprehensive dictionary of Chinese on planet earth) took the mic and said "you sound like a bunch of pompous school boys. You are trying to put words to a mystery far bigger than language could ever convey." 2. Yes, I feel perfectly comfortable discussing the meanings of CM terminology and would be glad to do so in fornt of congress or any other body.3. The notion that "what qi is" is to be found in a literature written by people long dead is bizarre at best. What about EVOLUTION? Fact is, the Chinese culture as a whole is just making it to the French enlightenment with the acquisition of Hong Kong and a "free market" economy. They certainly haven't made it to the egalitarian consciousness of the 1960's (when it showed up in Tianmen square they rode over it with a tank). And the leading edge of Human consciousness is now 4 stages beyond that. The classics might be a good place to serve as a foundation for a discussion of any part of CM but the fact is, if we are interested in what is true now and relevant to our life conditions on planet earth today, we'll have to leave the classical literature in the dust.3. Is languuage important? Yes. Is the knowledge in classical literature, formed by an animistic/absolutist culture representative of a 2500 yo form of consciousness capable of defining whhat something is NOW, today? Absolutely not. When you loook in your hearts as Ken advises try to avoid wallowing inn the insecurity of not haveing access to an old literature. Instead, try to do what the people who wrote that literature did. Look in your hearts, look at your current experience and discover what is relevant and true NOW.With Love, LonMembership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear. To change your email settings, i.e. individually, daily digest or none, visit the groups’ homepage: Chinese Medicine/ click ‘edit my membership' on the right hand side and adjust accordingly. To send an email to<Chinese Medicine- > from the email account you joined with. You will be removed automatically but will still recieve messages for a few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Come on Emmanuel, there's no need to run in and take Ken's side. He's a big man, he can fight his own battles. Lon has a right to say what he feels without it being thrown back at him and taunted. Attilio " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen@i...> wrote: > So Lon, > > You say you will do it ... describe Qi to a congressman. I think Ken is asking us to proceed .... as if he were a congressman considering including CM in his national health bill. You say you can do it. You say you will do it. So, Brother, go for it! We'll be cheering you on from the sidelines. We won't think you're pompous or any other nasty epithet. We'll just cheer for you as you take your best shot. This is a bit of taiji we can practice on the Internet. So ... let's practice. > > Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Hi, I have found the exchange most stimulating if somewhat disturbing. I for one would love for Ken to give us his version of what his understanding of Qi is. I also would like to make the point that the last thing I would do with a congresman or more importantly any lay person that wanted to know how I could help them and how does acupuncture work is to discuss concepts like Qi. We all have a responsibility to make ourselves understood and the easiest is to understand people's native conceptual languague. If for example a hypothetical western person's knowledge is limited to stress, muscles, structure and hormones then I say lets us explain ourselves in these terms and give examples of how we have helped. salvador _______________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 C'moc kids, let see a little more heat and a little less flame, we're getting close to the purely subjective, jazz of chi/qi. the elan vital ,etc i had somebody who almost died come to see me, and described it as the sky was calling. thank you all, great group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Bravo Salvador Thoughts and words relative to the situation at hand. Any AP/OM definitions for a supposed Congress-person or lay person should be tailored to the smallest number of words in practical ervery-day English even if it not be the most profound. When we wish to split hairs into atoms then those laudable efforts need be delegated to a time and place appropriate. Richard In a message dated 1/19/2004 7:02:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, salvador_march writes: Hi,I have found the exchange most stimulating if somewhat disturbing.I for one would love for Ken to give us his version of what his understanding of Qi is.I also would like to make the point that the last thing I would do with a congresman or more importantly any lay person that wanted to know how I could help them and how does acupuncture work is to discuss concepts like Qi.We all have a responsibility to make ourselves understood and the easiest is to understand people's native conceptual languague. If for example a hypothetical western person's knowledge is limited to stress, muscles, structure and hormones then I say lets us explain ourselves in these terms and give examples of how we have helped.salvador Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 I'll join into this and not because either Lon or Attilio need any help. Of course we can split subatomic particles on the meaing of words......but observing this fray from the sideline it appears there is clearly some intent at flaming a respected colleague and coupled with sarcasm. And those who don;t respect Lon.......please don't project those unclean thoughts into the world. If we want a free-for-all then let's have at it. If we want decorum....then lets not hide behind words and split hairs about flaming. Flaming is flaming no matter how one hides it. Richard In a message dated 1/19/2004 7:04:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Musiclear writes: Emmanuel also has the right to say what he feels without it being thrown back in his face. Why do you feel the need to defend Lon so vigorously? I also think Lon has said some pretty outrageous things. Why wouldn't you want others to reply with what they think about it? Chris In a message dated 1/19/2004 6:19:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, attiliodalberto writes: Come on Emmanuel, there's no need to run in and take Ken's side. He's a big man, he can fight his own battles. Lon has a right to say what he feels without it being thrown back at him and taunted.Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Thanks Richard for your support. I'm now sorting this out offlist. Don't want to interupt the free flow of TCM related info here. Attilio acudoc11@a... wrote: > I'll join into this and not because either Lon or Attilio need any help. > > Of course we can split subatomic particles on the meaing of words......but > observing this fray from the sideline it appears there is clearly some intent at > flaming a respected colleague and coupled with sarcasm. > > And those who don;t respect Lon.......please don't project those unclean > thoughts into the world. > > If we want a free-for-all then let's have at it. If we want decorum....then > lets not hide behind words and split hairs about flaming. > > Flaming is flaming no matter how one hides it. > > Richard > > In a message dated 1/19/2004 7:04:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Musiclear@a... writes: > Emmanuel also has the right to say what he feels without it being thrown > back in his face. Why do you feel the need to defend Lon so vigorously? > I also think Lon has said some pretty outrageous things. Why wouldn't you > want others to reply with what they think about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.