Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Hi Pete, You are certainly correct with your formulation of " principle of non-contradition: [Rich]> > There are many kinds of logic. For example, there can be the proposition: > > A is either A or Not A in the same time and the same place. This is one form of logic. (A bedrock of Aristotelian logic). > [Pete]: > Hi Rich! > A or non-A in the same time, same place _and_ in the same respect. >In this formulation there is no conflict between Yin/Yang theory and >Aristotle. > Pete I found this on the Internet and I think it provides the basic rationale behind this logic " " [T]he same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; … For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be,… and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject … and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it [is] impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. . . " So the question is whether: 1) It is possible for one to believe the same thing to be and not to be (e.g. something exists and does not exist) 2) It is possible for contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject 3) It is possible that a person is _not_ mistaken to have contrary opinions at the same time. For me qi (the manifestation of yin/yang) is an ancient discovery of the concept of quanta. And to quote Niels Bohr: " If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. " I can say that my own personal exploration of Yin/Yang and qi leads me to the same conclusion and if I try to make " heads or tails " out of it, as Aristotelian logic would have me do, I would short circuit. :-) Does Schrodinger's cat exist or not exist at the same time, and same place, and same respect - before it is observed? Or is it even in a a space and time before it is observed? Strange stuff indeed and I am glad Lao Tzu and Niels Bohr warned me, otherwises I would blow a fuse. :-) Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 On 10/10/2004, at 11:04 AM, Rich wrote: > > > Hi Pete, > > You are certainly correct with your formulation of " principle of > non-contradition: > > [Rich]> > There are many kinds of logic. For example, there can be the > proposition: >>> A is either A or Not A in the same time and the same place. This > is one form of logic. (A bedrock of Aristotelian logic). >> > [Pete]: > Hi Rich! >> A or non-A in the same time, same place _and_ in the same respect. >> In this formulation there is no conflict between Yin/Yang theory and >> Aristotle. >> Pete > > I found this on the Internet and I think it provides the basic > rationale behind this logic " > > " [T]he same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to > the same subject and in the same respect; … For it is impossible for > any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be,… and if it is > impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to > the same subject … and if an opinion which contradicts another is > contrary to it, obviously it [is] impossible for the same man at the > same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man > were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the > same time. . . " > > So the question is whether: > > 1) It is possible for one to believe the same thing to be and not to > be (e.g. something exists and does not exist) > > 2) It is possible for contrary attributes should belong at the same > time to the same subject > > 3) It is possible that a person is _not_ mistaken to have contrary > opinions at the same time. > > For me qi (the manifestation of yin/yang) is an ancient discovery of > the concept of quanta. And to quote Niels Bohr: > > " If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't > understood it yet. " > > I can say that my own personal exploration of Yin/Yang and qi leads me > to the same conclusion and if I try to make " heads or tails " out of > it, as Aristotelian logic would have me do, I would short circuit. :-) > > Does Schrodinger's cat exist or not exist at the same time, and same > place, and same respect - before it is observed? Or is it even in a a > space and time before it is observed? Strange stuff indeed and I am > glad Lao Tzu and Niels Bohr warned me, otherwises I would blow a fuse. > :-) > > Regards, > Rich > > > Hi Rich, I really don't want to say much on this topic because I believe it is taking the logic and yin/yang theory into philosophical semantics and assuming such arguments apply to its applications in practical TCM. Yin and yang are not contradictory so I don't see how any of the above applies to TCM logic or yin/yang. Yin and Yang are two aspects of the same thing. One cannot exist without the other (they are co-dependant) so any claim that yin/yang theory in TCM is analogous to the existance/non-existence of Schrodinger's cat is not TCM yin/yang theory at all. Yin and Yang always exist, they have the same source and are just terms attached to the two theoretical extreme manifestations of that source. In TCM nothing is all Yin or all Yang, it is ALWAYS a mixture of the two. ie. the both always exist because in essence they are just different expressions of the same thing. Non-existence does not come into it. To me, TCM logic entails knowing the nature and functions of a substance, the inter-relationships this substance has with other substances, the manifestations caused by not enough or too much of this substance and the manfiestations when the relative balance between a substance and its related substances in upset. Then, TCM uses that knowledge to address what needs adjustment so that extremes are minimised and balance is restored. This is all 1 +1 = 2 in my eyes. Sure, there are a lot of 1+1 =2's to be considered simultaneously; but I don't see any 1+1 =3 or 1+1 = 2 AND 3 anywhere. But that is just me. Best Wishes, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Hi Steve et al, > Yin and yang are not contradictory so I don't see how any of the > >above applies to TCM logic or yin/yang. Yin and Yang are two aspects > of the same thing. One cannot exist without the other (they are >co-dependant) so any claim that yin/yang theory in TCM is analogous >to the existance/non-existence of Schrodinger's cat is not TCM >yin/yang theory at all. This is from the Wu translation of the Neijing: " Yin or Yang is only a name which has no shape. " .. Although its change is infinite, the process of Yina nd Yang development which is the unity opposites of things in the course of development of one. " This is to say that Yin/Yang is a singularity of opposites - it has no shape. This is exactly the nature of quanta - a " singularity " of opposites (wave and particle) that is _infinite_ in all directions. The Dao? What does it mean in the Dao De Jing:? Dao gives birth to one; one gives birth to two; two gives birth to three; three gives birth to the ten thousand things [everything] How does " one " , without shape (i.e. a singularity), give birth to two? (By creating a wave of no size and shape?). How is this relevant to the practice of TCM. The way I interpret it is that when dealing with " qi " in the context of TCM, one most be prepared to be " shocked " by what one discovers. An alternative " logic " may be required - just like Quantum Physics. > Non-existence does not come into it. Yin and Yang have no shape but form a unity of opposites. At the exact moment they transform (i.e. " Yin " becomes " Yang " , they both exist in " full " . It is another way of expressing Schrodinger's Cat. Is the Cat alive or dead? At the exact moment before it is observed, it is both. It is both fully Yin and fully Yang simultaneously. > > To me, TCM logic entails knowing the nature and functions of a > substance, Yes, substance that is " observed " at the macro level. Just like Newton's laws apply (roughly) at the macro level. However, in order to do " new things " we must invoke quantum mechanics, which is just as real and allows us to develop new technology. By invoking the fundamental nature of Yin/Yang, and not being bound by Aristotelian logic, we can accept - or be shocked by - new aspects of Yin/Yang such as " non-substance " . This may fall under the categories of Medical Qigong, " placebo affect " , " phsyician/patient relationships " , working with " emotions " , etc. All are " non-substance " but well within the capabilites of e.g. Medical Qigong. We may be " logically " more " comforable " with herbs because herbs have substance. We may semi-comfortable with " needling " , (since needles have " substance " ) but may be uncomfortable because the exact nature of needling is ot understood. (It has been shown that " nerve paths are insufficient to explain the action of acupunture). We may be " shocked " by Medical Qigong where there are no " substances " yet work in exactly the same manner and needling. Quantum physics always existed, but it was only when people were willing to accept the plausiblity that " substance " may not exist at the deepest layer of the universe (quanta) that we achieved new breakthroughs in our own capabilities as human beings. Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 On 11/10/2004, at 12:04 AM, Rich wrote: > > > Hi Steve et al, > >> Yin and yang are not contradictory so I don't see how any of the > >> above applies to TCM logic or yin/yang. Yin and Yang are two aspects >> of the same thing. One cannot exist without the other (they are >> co-dependant) so any claim that yin/yang theory in TCM is analogous >> to the existance/non-existence of Schrodinger's cat is not TCM >> yin/yang theory at all. > > This is from the Wu translation of the Neijing: > > " Yin or Yang is only a name which has no shape. " .. Although its > change is infinite, the process of Yina nd Yang development which is > the unity opposites of things in the course of development of one. " > > This is to say that Yin/Yang is a singularity of opposites - it has no > shape. This is exactly the nature of quanta - a " singularity " of > opposites (wave and particle) that is _infinite_ in all directions. > The Dao? > Yes, a singularity. ONE thing, artificially divided into two for the sake of explaining its nature. Yin and Yang are theoretical opposites, theoretical because they are both always present in equal quantities in the " universe " (for want of a better word). However, at one certain point at one certain time; a " location " may measurably have relatively more yin than yang at a certain moment in time. Overall however, when viewed as a whole; yin and yang are still in balance. > What does it mean in the Dao De Jing:? > > Dao gives birth to one; > one gives birth to two; > two gives birth to three; > three gives birth to the ten thousand things [everything] > > How does " one " , without shape (i.e. a singularity), give birth to two? > (By creating a wave of no size and shape?). > I think it simpler than that. Although the dao that can be communicated in words is not the dao:P The ten thousand things are still just the dao. There is only dao, however, sometimes we can observe isolated parts of it............these parts are not different from the dao; just a part of it we are currently observing or interacting with. > How is this relevant to the practice of TCM. The way I interpret it is > that when dealing with " qi " in the context of TCM, one most be > prepared to be " shocked " by what one discovers. An alternative " logic " > may be required - just like Quantum Physics. > >> Non-existence does not come into it. > > Yin and Yang have no shape but form a unity of opposites. At the exact > moment they transform (i.e. " Yin " becomes " Yang " , they both exist in > " full " . It is another way of expressing Schrodinger's Cat. Is the Cat > alive or dead? At the exact moment before it is observed, it is both. > It is both fully Yin and fully Yang simultaneously. > IMO opinion, ideas of yin becoming yang or yang becoming should not be interpreted through analogy to Schrodinger's cat. Yin always contains the seed of yang and vice versa. Yin and Yang is NOT a " this or that " issue, it is always a " both " issue. Perhaps we could look at the wax and wane of Yin and Yang as one may be growing and one declining at any one point and time; but simultaneously in the " dao " the same thing is happening in another location to maintain the overal 50/50 balance of Yin and Yang in the " dao " . Yes they both exist in full because they are part of the same thing, it is just our observation of a certain place and time may " catch " the expression of the one in a certain state (filtered by our senses). >>> To me, TCM logic entails knowing the nature and functions of a >> substance, > > Yes, substance that is " observed " at the macro level. Just like > Newton's laws apply (roughly) at the macro level. However, in order to > do " new things " we must invoke quantum mechanics, which is just as > real and allows us to develop new technology. By invoking the > fundamental nature of Yin/Yang, and not being bound by Aristotelian > logic, we can accept - or be shocked by - new aspects of Yin/Yang such > as " non-substance " . This may fall under the categories of Medical > Qigong, " placebo affect " , " phsyician/patient relationships " , working > with " emotions " , etc. > Sorry, when I said substance.....what I meant was any part of " anything/everything " ie. an artifically separated part of the " whole " ; I should have been more clear about that. > All are " non-substance " but well within the capabilites of e.g. > Medical Qigong. We may be " logically " more " comforable " with herbs > because herbs have substance. We may semi-comfortable with " needling " , > (since needles have " substance " ) but may be uncomfortable because the > exact nature of needling is ot understood. (It has been shown that > " nerve paths are insufficient to explain the action of acupunture). We > may be " shocked " by Medical Qigong where there are no " substances " yet > work in exactly the same manner and needling. > Substance or non-substance as you refer here, I see as all substantial because they all reveal their existence by influence. I have no discomfort with medical qigong, nor am I more comfortable with herbs. They are all logical to me, I don't need something to be " discovered " or " proven " my scientific instrumentation (although perhaps I give that impression at times) for it to exist. The old argument that something only exists if it is observed is a red-herring in my opinion. It always exists, nothing ever ceases to exist, it just changes its form and this new form may not be observable with current technology or from a certain viewpoint; this does not change the fact of its existence " somewhere " . The phenomena of something being measurable with current technology only if it is observed by an " observer " does not confuse me. I fully comprehend that everything influences everything else, because I believe everything is just a manifestation of one thing. Just because you can not observe something does not mean it is no longer there; it is just that the way you are influencing it to reveal itself in a form you can " see " is not successful or appropriate at that time or place. The question that really bothers me, and IMO the real conundrum... is, how can something come from nothing? That is, what existed before anything.......where did it all come from to begin with? Sure; the dao gives birth to the one.....but what gave birth to the dao? This is what gives me nightmares:P Given the premise that something actually does exist; it is all rather logical from that point on IMO. > Quantum physics always existed, but it was only when people were > willing to accept the plausiblity that " substance " may not exist at > the deepest layer of the universe (quanta) that we achieved new > breakthroughs in our own capabilities as human beings. > I still believe it all exists, but that is just me:P > Regards, > Rich > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hi Steve, > > Yes, a singularity. ONE thing, artificially divided into two for the > sake of explaining its nature. Yin and Yang are theoretical opposites, > theoretical because they are both always present in equal quantities in > the " universe " (for want of a better word). However, at one certain > point at one certain time; a " location " may measurably have relatively > more yin than yang at a certain moment in time. This is the whole point Steve. At any moment (however a moment is defined and realized since a moment has no time), they both exist as a singularity. This is the great paradox of Yin/Yang and Quanta. Singularity has no location. It is both infinitely small and infintely large at the same time. This is why Bohr says one should be " shocked " by Quantum Physics. Are you shocked? :-) > Overall however, when viewed as a whole; yin and yang are still in balance. Yes, they are always in balance because each is infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time. However, being " in balance " does not mean that it is " flowing " . > I think it simpler than that. Although the dao that can be communicated > in words is not the dao:P The ten thousand things are still just the > dao. There is only dao, however, sometimes we can observe isolated > parts of it............these parts are not different from the dao; Yes, I liken it to the waves in the ocean. Each wave is separate, yet each wave is still part of the ocean. So when one " touches " a Wave, one is also, simultaneously, touching the whole ocean. The two are distinct and inseperatable at the same time. This is also what Quantum Physics suggests. The whole and the part are all contained in each other. Or as Attilio's article suggests, we are all part of a holographic universe. This type of wierdness cannot be discussed within the context of a True/False logic framework. True/False loses meaning since the True and the False occupy the same space, at the same time, from the same perspective - if indeed everything is holographic. >just > a part of it we are currently observing or interacting with. In a holographic universe we are interacting with the whole and a part at exactly the same time. Just like waves in an ocean. When we touch the the Wave, are we touching the Wave or are we touching the Ocean? Both actions are happening simultaneously - aren't they? >but simultaneously in the " dao " the same thing Yin and Yang is NOT a > " this or that " issue,is happening in another location to maintain >the overal 50/50 balance of Yin and Yang in the " dao " . Location has no meaning when when considers a singularity or infinite in all directions. (The Dao?). Everything is everywhere and Yin and Yang take on infinite dimensionality. The are not separate, they are " One " . The Oneness of Everything is the key concept and suggests new ways of looking at all types of TCM practice. > > Yes they both exist in full because they are part of the same thing, it > is just our observation of a certain place and time may " catch " the > expression of the one in a certain state (filtered by our senses). Yes, I agree. Our senses are constantly switching " On and Off " . It is pretty wierd that our senses act like this. It is like looking at a picture where you see one thing in one moment and another thing at another moment. Why cannot the " Mind " see both simultaneously? It is like the expressions " My Mind is playing a trick on Me " ? Is it really " Playing " ? :-) > > The phenomena of something being measurable with current technology > only if it is observed by an " observer " does not confuse me. I fully > comprehend that everything influences everything else, because I > believe everything is just a manifestation of one thing. Yes, if everything is a manifestation of one thing, than how does it become " two " ? > The question that really bothers me, and IMO the real conundrum... is, > how can something come from nothing? Yes, I believe that this is the central point. How does something come from nothing? I think this is the central issue when talking about health and disease. How does " disease " (something) manifest from a " non-diseased " (healthy) body. In Chapter 8 of the Neijing (Ni translation): " The heart is the sovereign of all organs and represents the consciousness of one's being. It is responsible for intelligence, wisdom, and spiritual transformation. " ... " If the spirit is clear, all the functions of the other organs will be normal. [Note: I believe that this is the most important phrase in all of the Neijing]. It is in this way that one's life is preserved and perpetuated, just as a country becomes prosperous when all its people are fulfilling their duties. If the spirit is disturbed and unclear, the other organs will not function properly. This creates damage. The pathways and roads along which the qi flows will become blocked and health will suffer. " The way I view it, when Richard cups or guashas the spine/verterbrae, he is, non-metaphorically, opening up and " releasing " the spirit, so that it can flow again and allow consciousness (Shen) to create a healthier body. The Shen, as I see it, flows from the Heart through the spine, nourishing Life. Like a Wave within an Ocean. :-) Regards, Rich 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.