Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hugo, I do not have any study or research that claim that Qigong is mind control. I don't believe I ever said it is. Earlier in this thread you said that This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM. That's why I responded with the question; Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should practice it. You said that Qigong *opens your eyes* and that it *answers many of these questions.* My question was whether or not people who practice CM believe in the idea of an Taoist afterlife, or a soul that survives death. Or do people think this is a primitive relic of CM's poetic past. Does Qigong answer that question? Or open one's eyes to the existence of an ethereal soul? If so, I'd like to hear what your experience has revealed. EM Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Just as an aside, pot calling the kettle black and such - " claims without evidence " . Would you like to share with the group on the basis of which study or research you claim that Qi Gong constitutes errm, to be blunt, mind control? Just in case you try pass it off to me, no one in this conversation, except for you, said or implied that Qi Gong might " somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence " . > I am assuming that it was a baseless assertion. If in fact this assertion has no basis in research, or other types of evidence, then on what basis do you make this assertion? > I am wondering if you will adhere to your standard. > > Hugo > > > establishment_man <establishment_man > > > Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims > > without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should > > practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the > > some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious) claims made in the > > literature of OM. > > > > EM > > > > > > _________ > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it > now. > http://uk.answers./ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 The issue that I have with Hugo's statement is that it doesn't really reflect the whole range of applications qi gong encompasses. If you're talking about Daoist and Buddhist spiritual cultivation techniques, then obviously the spiritual aspects become important, but qi gong had and still has a much broader set of applications in terms of physical culture, healing, and even relatively non-spiritual cultivation of focus and intent. Par - Greg A. Livingston Chinese Medicine Friday, October 19, 2007 5:29 AM Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. Hi Hugo, You wrote: > " You are right to say that the aspect of survival after death and so on is not clinically important in most cases, however, it is of vital importance in order to progress beyond basic stages of Qi Gong training. " I'm not an expert in Qi Gong, but I wonder if this is really considered vital in all Qi Gong traditions. Can you explain why it's important? Thanks, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Hi Hugo, Thanks, for the most part I agree with you. Western medicine is culture bound to extent that there are anatomical variations (European anatomists regard skull sutures as mobile joints, UK and US see them as fixed), fairly deep issues like the excellent notion of " terrain " that you find in French thinking, the fact the people in Mexico will often demand an injection instead of oral medication as they regard it as more efficacious. It seems likely that the only reason it is not more apparently culture bound is that the US has had such a hegemony over its development and still serves as a model for the education of Allopathic physicians. Apparently one aspect of our culture that has attached itself to medicine is that it is incredibly expensive and nobody really seems to know why... The non-homogenous part was meant to refer to the fact that ideally Western medicine is built on the corpses of many discarded ideas, while Chinese medicine generally invites everybody along for the ride. Look at Wang Qing Ren, spewing invective at the classics, and now held up by many as a great example of development in Chinese medical thinking, by people who still hold great faith in the models that he was actively militating against. I think there is a maturity in being able to hold several opposing viewpoints in mind and choose between them based on merit. It is something that the science establishment, and Western medicine could probably benefit from. Par PS, no slag intended on the qi gong comment, I just wanted it noted that qi gong's not just for breakfast anymore. - Hugo Ramiro Chinese Medicine Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:01 PM Re: Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. Hi Par, I enjoyed your post: one comment: I felt you put too fine a point on the issue I quoted below. I personally don't buy the delusion that there is a system...somewhere...that is truly standardised or /not/ culturally bound. All systems are culturally bound and impossible to standardise. For example, western medicine as practiced by Russians, Western Europeans and North Americans are three very distinct schools. i.e., not standardised to the degree they're supposed to be. Europeans regularly refer to the second kidney (taking both " actual " kidneys to be the " first " kidney) - a concept (and _organ_) that is not recognised at all in North America. Standardisation practices always involve, to some degree or another, procrustean bed scenarios. Hugo Par Scott <parufus Chinese Medicine Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 1:37:24 PM Re: Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. inside, and while Chinese medicine is definitely a profoundly non-homogeneous and culture bound system, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Hi Greg, I realize that much of CM works clincally. It is the theories and metaphors used to describe WHY it works that are both wonderfully poetic, and a bit specious. Like you, I would not dismiss them outright or be *arrogant enough to say they are not real.* However, I also will not embrace them outright, or be faithgul (gullible) enough to embrace them blindly. Even though many of the phenomena predicted by CM turn out to be clinically useful and concsistent, that does not necessarily mean that they result from the workings of Qi, or Hun, or Shen, or Jing, or what have you. In ancient times, people might look at the rain and say that *The Gods must be Sad* and the rains are the result of their tears. We know that the rain itself was real, as are the clinical manifestations we see in CM. What is of dubious authenticity is their rational for WHY the rain fell, not the existence of rain itself. This is what gives me pause with the theories of CM. Is there a Rain God behind the scenes? Or is there a more rational explanation that can explain the existence of the rain in a more quantifiable way? EM -- In Chinese Medicine , " Greg A. Livingston " <drlivingston wrote: > > Hi EM (we still don't know your name...) > > I suppose there's a certain amount of faith required in embracing CM, > but I feel it ceases to become faith once one has first hand > experience watching CM ideas play out in the real world. At this point > I've seen a lot of what I've studied pan out in the clinic and in the > real world, so at least that part of it, for me anyway, doesn't feel > like faith but a belief in something real, even if the reality is > described in somewhat metaphorical sounding ancient language. The > remaining parts that I have yet to experience first hand could, I > suppose, be described as faith. Some are second hand experiences that > have been described to me by experienced doctors that I trust, and > because I trust them, maybe this could be considered at least not > blind faith. Some other parts are what I've read in classics or gained > elsewhere, and the parts from reliable sources that seem reasonable to > me I tend to take at face value. This may be a slightly larger degree > of faith, but tolerable for me. Where I draw the line is on things > such as where the Hun and Po go after death. These are not easily > verifiable, not like dry eyes and thin pulse due to Liver yin xu, etc. > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to no > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second hand > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just don't know. > > Greg > > Chinese Medicine , > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote: > > > > Greg, > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of the > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas. > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, I > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, tio > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of Blood > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way to > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not mean > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something like > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM texts > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that is > > more easily quantified? > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance not > > require faith? > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > > begin! > > > > EM > > > > Chinese Medicine , " Greg A. > > Livingston " <drlivingston@> wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > > recall > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing), > > or > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > > nothing > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > > where > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of > > Hun > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > functions. > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and > > Po, > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and > > Six > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not > > be > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > > remain > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. > > I'm > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will > > have > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 HI Hugo " TempOro-Centrism " , if I may correct your typo. In some philosophical circles it is referred to as " the arrogance of the present " . " Thanks for the clarification and the correction...I don't mind, I always want to learn...maybe I should have looked in the dictionary but I am only coming to terms with the idea as I learn more about Chinese medicine. I grew up in the " Space Age " and now we have the " Information Age " ...add to it a culture that believes we " saved the world for Democracy " and, well there you have it...as you put it " the arrogance of the present " we use phrases like " spent their life struggling with their demons... " " like a man possessed... " " haunted by the ghosts of their past... " " skeletons in the closet... " yet, ancient people were merely superstitious when they used the concepts...lucky for them, flying saucers landed and showed them how to build the canals, Great Wall and the pyramids...because the Ancients couldn't have possibly done it on their own. Maybe we need to try to learn and understand their works and not judge and measure by 21st century standards... Thank you also for your poignant story...it is a great reminder that we all, no matter how well intentioned, might disregard the knowledge and abilities...the situation of " the other " . I just asked someone to press the button on the side of the cell phone to stop the ringer...I suppose that if I carried a purse I would realize that the phones aren't always very accessible....it's on every level isn't it? Stephen Woodley LAc -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hi EM, I personally don't think it's correct to think about things like Qi and Jing and Shen or any of the other things we find in CM as things that actually " exist " as discreet, concrete, physical entities, but rather as terms used to describe phenomenon which actually do exist. In my mind, Qi is not an entity, but a word that describes many different, very real, phenomenon. Same with Jing, Shen, Liver, etc. The things that make up these phenomenon exist, obviously, but you can't dissect the body to find Jing, Qi, or any of the rest of them as discreet entities. They are the manifestations of extremely complex processes that are difficult, if not impossible, to get to the bottom of. I'm not sure if I'm making my ideas clear.... Greg Chinese Medicine , " establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > I realize that much of CM works clincally. It is the theories and > metaphors used to describe WHY it works that are both wonderfully > poetic, and a bit specious. > > Like you, I would not dismiss them outright or be *arrogant enough > to say they are not real.* However, I also will not embrace them > outright, or be faithgul (gullible) enough to embrace them blindly. > > Even though many of the phenomena predicted by CM turn out to be > clinically useful and concsistent, that does not necessarily mean > that they result from the workings of Qi, or Hun, or Shen, or Jing, > or what have you. > > In ancient times, people might look at the rain and say that *The > Gods must be Sad* and the rains are the result of their tears. We > know that the rain itself was real, as are the clinical > manifestations we see in CM. What is of dubious authenticity is > their rational for WHY the rain fell, not the existence of rain > itself. > > This is what gives me pause with the theories of CM. Is there a Rain > God behind the scenes? Or is there a more rational explanation that > can explain the existence of the rain in a more quantifiable way? > > EM > > > > -- In Chinese Medicine , " Greg A. > Livingston " <drlivingston@> wrote: > > > > Hi EM (we still don't know your name...) > > > > I suppose there's a certain amount of faith required in embracing > CM, > > but I feel it ceases to become faith once one has first hand > > experience watching CM ideas play out in the real world. At this > point > > I've seen a lot of what I've studied pan out in the clinic and in > the > > real world, so at least that part of it, for me anyway, doesn't > feel > > like faith but a belief in something real, even if the reality is > > described in somewhat metaphorical sounding ancient language. The > > remaining parts that I have yet to experience first hand could, I > > suppose, be described as faith. Some are second hand experiences > that > > have been described to me by experienced doctors that I trust, and > > because I trust them, maybe this could be considered at least not > > blind faith. Some other parts are what I've read in classics or > gained > > elsewhere, and the parts from reliable sources that seem > reasonable to > > me I tend to take at face value. This may be a slightly larger > degree > > of faith, but tolerable for me. Where I draw the line is on things > > such as where the Hun and Po go after death. These are not easily > > verifiable, not like dry eyes and thin pulse due to Liver yin xu, > etc. > > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to > no > > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second > hand > > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would > > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just > don't know. > > > > Greg > > > > Chinese Medicine , > > " establishment_man " <establishment_man@> wrote: > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of > the > > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central > ideas. > > > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, > I > > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, > tio > > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of > Blood > > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way > to > > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not > mean > > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something > like > > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM > texts > > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that > is > > > more easily quantified? > > > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance > not > > > require faith? > > > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > > > begin! > > > > > > EM > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , " Greg A. > > > Livingston " <drlivingston@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > > > recall > > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole > thing), > > > or > > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po > in > > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > > > nothing > > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > > > where > > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role > of > > > Hun > > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > > functions. > > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun > and > > > Po, > > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang > and > > > Six > > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all > these > > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should > not > > > be > > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > > > remain > > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they > don't. > > > I'm > > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I > will > > > have > > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hi Greg, I agree that it would be difficult to verify certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not invested the time and energy to experience CM. Same goes for the Qi Gong. As my teacher said to me (though I've been practicing Qi Gong for 20 years) " you don't have to worry [about getting lost], you don't get very deep " . I take that to be a double-edged sword - on the one hand I'm being berated for not having done enough work, and on the other it really has a lot to do with the depth of the art and science of Qi Gong itself. Or maybe it's just me. But anyway... Like I was saying, if we want to get deep, we can't really get there for free. So if we are willing to follow the fairly strict practices which high achievement in Qi Gong requires (specific diet, restricted sexual activity, lessened passion, hard work, the list goes on...), then we can get \first\ hand experience. If not, then yes, we will have to reply on the classics...or just ignore them altogether. " I haven't been there, so it obviously doesn't exist " is a common refrain from some folks. Hugo Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston Chinese Medicine Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:23:32 AM Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to no chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second hand experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just don't know. Greg Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " establishment_ man " <establishment_ man wrote: > > Greg, > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of the > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas. > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, I > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, tio > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of Blood > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way to > measure or quantify such things? > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not mean > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something like > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM texts > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that is > more easily quantified? > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance not > require faith? > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > begin! > > EM > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Greg A. > Livingston " <drlivingston@ > wrote: > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > recall > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing), > or > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > nothing > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > where > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of > Hun > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > functions. > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and > Po, > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and > Six > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not > be > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > remain > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. > I'm > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will > have > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > My two cents... > > > > Greg > > > <!-- #ygrp-mkp{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;} #ygrp-mkp hr{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd{ color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} #ygrp-mkp #ads{ margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad{ padding:0 0;} #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} --> <!-- #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} --> <!-- #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{ font-family:Georgia; } #ygrp-text p{ margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-tpmsgs{ font-family:Arial; clear:both;} #ygrp-vitnav{ padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} #ygrp-vitnav a{ padding:0 1px;} #ygrp-actbar{ clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;} #ygrp-actbar .left{ float:left;white-space:nowrap;} ..bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{ font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} #ygrp-ft{ font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; padding:5px 0; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-vital{ background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} #ygrp-vital #vithd{ font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\ ercase;} #ygrp-vital ul{ padding:0;margin:2px 0;} #ygrp-vital ul li{ list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\ ght:.5em;} #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-vital a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color:#999;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding:8px 0;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\ ;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin:0;} o{font-size:0;} ..MsoNormal{ margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrp-text tt{ font-size:120%;} blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} ..replbq{margin:4;} --> _________ Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hugo, Interesting ideas. However, there seems to be a flaw in your logic when you said, *it would be difficult to verify certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not invested the time and energy to experience CM* My question to you is this; is a person's personal, subjective experience a reliable measure of the validity of something? You seem to be saying that there are truths to , but that only certain people are able to understand those truths. If subjective perception is the only means by which the existence of something is able to be verifed, it seems that the margin of error left would be so large, that no actual verification could be possible. This kind of thing happens all the time with psychics, astrologers, prophets, and the like. All of these types of people have some sort of perception that they claim is authentic, but sadly there is no objective way to quantify their claims. I am of the opinion that if something cannot be objectively observed, measured or tested then it cannot be said to " exist. " This is not to say that its existence is eliminated from the realm of possibility, only that it's existence is questionable at best. For me, I have not seem any kind of tangible evidence of the existence of a Shen, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence that points to the existence of Qi. I am not saying that such things do not exist, per se. But if they do exist, then there must be some way to devise a test that would verify their existence. If anyone knows of such verification, please let me know. I would love to see the evidence. Until then, however, I must continue to relate with such things as useful metaphors that poetically describe the biological, nervous, and hormonal activities of the body, and not as actual or material entities in their own right. EM Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Greg, I agree that it would be difficult to verify certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not invested the time and energy to experience CM. Same goes for the Qi Gong. As my teacher said to me (though I've been practicing Qi Gong for 20 years) " you don't have to worry [about getting lost], you don't get very deep " . I take that to be a double-edged sword - on the one hand I'm being berated for not having done enough work, and on the other it really has a lot to do with the depth of the art and science of Qi Gong itself. Or maybe it's just me. But anyway... > Like I was saying, if we want to get deep, we can't really get there for free. So if we are willing to follow the fairly strict practices which high achievement in Qi Gong requires (specific diet, restricted sexual activity, lessened passion, hard work, the list goes on...), then we can get \first\ hand experience. If not, then yes, we will have to reply on the classics...or just ignore them altogether. " I haven't been there, so it obviously doesn't exist " is a common refrain from some folks. > > Hugo > > > Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston > Chinese Medicine > Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:23:32 AM > Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. > > > > > > > > > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to no > > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second hand > > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would > > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just don't know. > > > > Greg > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > > " establishment_ man " <establishment_ man@> wrote: > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of the > > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas. > > > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, I > > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, tio > > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of Blood > > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way to > > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not mean > > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something like > > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM texts > > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that is > > > more easily quantified? > > > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance not > > > require faith? > > > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > > > begin! > > > > > > EM > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Greg A. > > > Livingston " <drlivingston@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > > > recall > > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing), > > > or > > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in > > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > > > nothing > > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > > > where > > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of > > > Hun > > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > > functions. > > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and > > > Po, > > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and > > > Six > > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these > > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not > > > be > > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > > > remain > > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. > > > I'm > > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will > > > have > > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > #ygrp-mkp{ > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > #ygrp-mkp #hd{ > color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line- height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} > #ygrp-mkp #ads{ > margin-bottom:10px;} > #ygrp-mkp .ad{ > padding:0 0;} > #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ > color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} > --> > > > > <!-- > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ > font-family:Arial;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ > margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ > margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} > --> > > > > <!-- > > #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} > #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} > #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} > #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} > #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} > #ygrp-text{ > font-family:Georgia; > } > #ygrp-text p{ > margin:0 0 1em 0;} > #ygrp-tpmsgs{ > font-family:Arial; > clear:both;} > #ygrp-vitnav{ > padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} > #ygrp-vitnav a{ > padding:0 1px;} > #ygrp-actbar{ > clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text- align:right;} > #ygrp-actbar .left{ > float:left;white-space:nowrap;} > .bld{font-weight:bold;} > #ygrp-grft{ > font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} > #ygrp-ft{ > font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; > padding:5px 0; > } > #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ > padding-bottom:10px;} > > #ygrp-vital{ > background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} > #ygrp-vital #vithd{ > font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text- transform:uppercase;} > #ygrp-vital ul{ > padding:0;margin:2px 0;} > #ygrp-vital ul li{ > list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; > } > #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ > font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text- align:right;padding-right:.5em;} > #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ > font-weight:bold;} > #ygrp-vital a{ > text-decoration:none;} > > #ygrp-vital a:hover{ > text-decoration:underline;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ > color:#999;font-size:77%;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ > padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ > padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ > list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ > text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} > #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ > background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} > #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ > padding:8px 0;} > #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ > font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font- size:100%;line-height:122%;} > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ > text-decoration:none;} > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ > text-decoration:underline;} > #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ > margin:0;} > o{font-size:0;} > .MsoNormal{ > margin:0 0 0 0;} > #ygrp-text tt{ > font-size:120%;} > blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} > .replbq{margin:4;} > --> > > _________ > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it > now. > http://uk.answers./ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hi all, EM: First, thanks for the very germane issue you've brought to discussion. Putting my humble 2 cents in, I'd like to say that some concepts we take for granted cannot be objectively observed, measured or tested. Still, they may refer to very real, even vital issues in life. Take " health " , for instance. It cannot be " objectively observed " - in fact it's hard even to conceptualize in western terms, except in a very roundabout and hardly objective way as " the absence of disease " , or as " the silence of the organs " . Same applies for " cure " , " life " , " art " or " love " and several other fundamental dimensions of human experience. I think this suggests that many of our culture's conceptions - better, social representations - that actively influence or even determine the things we feel and do may well belong to a plane of reality that can't be scientifically or even sistematically observed or measured. If one agrees that there is such a thing as " qi " , and that its presence and configuration explains many of the effects one obtains on other people's health through needling, one may well be ready to incorporate concepts such as " shen " etc, since one has already accepted that a so-far unmeasurable, untestable and unverifiable category is central to his/hers therapeutic action . " Qi " has so far resisted objective measurement and testing, and though some of its effects have been observed - such as change in scientifically established growth rate of bacterial cultures in Petri dishes to give just one example - that's not to say the concept such as it was put forth in chinese tradition has obtained any kind of scientific backup. In short, if you can take " qi " , you can take Shen, Po and Hun, it makes no difference from a scientific or even cultural standpoint - you've crossed the line already. Allow me to say that one of the things I am very thankful for in chinese medicine is that it is such a vast edification that it can shelter many ways of thinking, while providing coherent, time-tested patters of knowledge transmission and re-creation. Individual skill determines the session's outcome, instead of the specif set of categories one uses to understand life, the phenomena of its deviation from norm, and how to go about righting things up. How do we explain " individual skill " ? Well, we don't. Take an artist like Nelson Freire playing Chopin, and take a technically competent but artistically null pianist playing the very same piece: the result will always be inferior, despite the fact that none of them will play the piece in the exact same way twice. The weird thing is, whenever I listen to a piece performed by Freire, say, on the radio, I can tell it's him, even if the music has already begun. That, I think, is the something to look for, that is the undefinable what that makes you competent. The conceptual tools you use may take you there, but are not the thing itself. Cheers, Daniel. 2007/10/23, establishment_man <establishment_man: > > Hugo, > > Interesting ideas. However, there seems to be a flaw in your logic > when you said, *it would be difficult to verify certain " things " , but > please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many ways > it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time into > learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or > somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not invested the > time and energy to experience CM* > > My question to you is this; is a person's personal, subjective > experience a reliable measure of the validity of something? You seem > to be saying that there are truths to , but that only > certain people are able to understand those truths. > > If subjective perception is the only means by which the existence of > something is able to be verifed, it seems that the margin of error > left would be so large, that no actual verification could be > possible. This kind of thing happens all the time with psychics, > astrologers, prophets, and the like. All of these types of people > have some sort of perception that they claim is authentic, but sadly > there is no objective way to quantify their claims. > > I am of the opinion that if something cannot be objectively observed, > measured or tested then it cannot be said to " exist. " This is not to > say that its existence is eliminated from the realm of possibility, > only that it's existence is questionable at best. > > For me, I have not seem any kind of tangible evidence of the > existence of a Shen, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence that > points to the existence of Qi. I am not saying that such things do > not exist, per se. But if they do exist, then there must be some way > to devise a test that would verify their existence. > > If anyone knows of such verification, please let me know. I would > love to see the evidence. Until then, however, I must continue to > relate with such things as useful metaphors that poetically describe > the biological, nervous, and hormonal activities of the body, and not > as actual or material entities in their own right. > > EM > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > Hugo Ramiro > <subincor wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, I agree that it would be difficult to verify > certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. For > example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has not > invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because it > doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have > not invested the time and energy to experience CM. Same goes for the > Qi Gong. As my teacher said to me (though I've been practicing Qi > Gong for 20 years) " you don't have to worry [about getting lost], you > don't get very deep " . I take that to be a double-edged sword - on the > one hand I'm being berated for not having done enough work, and on > the other it really has a lot to do with the depth of the art and > science of Qi Gong itself. Or maybe it's just me. But anyway... > > Like I was saying, if we want to get deep, we can't really get > there for free. So if we are willing to follow the fairly strict > practices which high achievement in Qi Gong requires (specific diet, > restricted sexual activity, lessened passion, hard work, the list > goes on...), then we can get \first\ hand experience. If not, then > yes, we will have to reply on the classics...or just ignore them > altogether. " I haven't been there, so it obviously doesn't exist " is > a common refrain from some folks. > > > > Hugo > > > > > > Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:23:32 AM > > Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to no > > > > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second > hand > > > > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would > > > > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just don't > know. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > > > > " establishment_ man " <establishment_ man@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > > > > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of > the > > > > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas. > > > > > > > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, > I > > > > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, > tio > > > > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of > Blood > > > > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > > > > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way > to > > > > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > > > > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not > mean > > > > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something > like > > > > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > > > > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > > > > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM > texts > > > > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that > is > > > > > more easily quantified? > > > > > > > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance > not > > > > > require faith? > > > > > > > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > > > > > begin! > > > > > > > > > > EM > > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Greg A. > > > > > Livingston " <drlivingston@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > > > > > recall > > > > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole > thing), > > > > > or > > > > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > > > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po > in > > > > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > > > > > nothing > > > > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > > > > > where > > > > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > > > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role > of > > > > > Hun > > > > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > > > > functions. > > > > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun > and > > > > > Po, > > > > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang > and > > > > > Six > > > > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all > these > > > > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should > not > > > > > be > > > > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > > > > > remain > > > > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they > don't. > > > > > I'm > > > > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will > > > > > have > > > > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > #ygrp-mkp{ > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px > 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > > #ygrp-mkp #hd{ > > color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line- > height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} > > #ygrp-mkp #ads{ > > margin-bottom:10px;} > > #ygrp-mkp .ad{ > > padding:0 0;} > > #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ > > color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} > > --> > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ > > font-family:Arial;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ > > margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ > > margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} > > --> > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, > sans-serif;} > > #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} > > #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, > clean, sans-serif;} > > #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} > > #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} > > #ygrp-text{ > > font-family:Georgia; > > } > > #ygrp-text p{ > > margin:0 0 1em 0;} > > #ygrp-tpmsgs{ > > font-family:Arial; > > clear:both;} > > #ygrp-vitnav{ > > padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} > > #ygrp-vitnav a{ > > padding:0 1px;} > > #ygrp-actbar{ > > clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text- > align:right;} > > #ygrp-actbar .left{ > > float:left;white-space:nowrap;} > > .bld{font-weight:bold;} > > #ygrp-grft{ > > font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} > > #ygrp-ft{ > > font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; > > padding:5px 0; > > } > > #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ > > padding-bottom:10px;} > > > > #ygrp-vital{ > > background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} > > #ygrp-vital #vithd{ > > font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text- > transform:uppercase;} > > #ygrp-vital ul{ > > padding:0;margin:2px 0;} > > #ygrp-vital ul li{ > > list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; > > } > > #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ > > font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text- > align:right;padding-right:.5em;} > > #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ > > font-weight:bold;} > > #ygrp-vital a{ > > text-decoration:none;} > > > > #ygrp-vital a:hover{ > > text-decoration:underline;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ > > color:#999;font-size:77%;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ > > padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ > > padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ > > list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ > > text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} > > #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ > > background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ > > padding:8px 0;} > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ > > font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font- > size:100%;line-height:122%;} > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ > > text-decoration:none;} > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ > > text-decoration:underline;} > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ > > margin:0;} > > o{font-size:0;} > > .MsoNormal{ > > margin:0 0 0 0;} > > #ygrp-text tt{ > > font-size:120%;} > > blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} > > .replbq{margin:4;} > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the > answer. Try it > > now. > > http://uk.answers./ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hey Daniel, I wholeheartedly agree with the points that you raise, and I fully accept the existence of *Qi, Shen, Hun, Po, etc* as abstractions, in the same way that Love, Health, The Economy are all abstractions. But I think this is the key point. Nobody disputes the fact that Love or Health are conceptual abstractions. Nobody that I know of insists that Love is an actual tangible or material substance, or that Health has some kind of sentient, self-existent quality. Everybody pretty much agrees that such things exist, as abstractions. In the realm of TCM, however, there are voices that insist that Qi,Shen, Hun, etc. are actually material entities. I have said several times that I accept the existence of such things as metaphors, but question their existence as entities. I do not believe that there is any material entity, *Health,* or a physical substance called, *Love.* As long as we keep the conceptual and the abstract clearly identified as such, I feel very happy to accept Qi, Shen, Hun, Jing. It is when they are made material that I raise the skeptical eyebrow and say, " Show Me the Money! " EM Chinese Medicine , " Daniel Luz " <paraodaniel wrote: > > Hi all, EM: > > First, thanks for the very germane issue you've brought to discussion. > Putting my humble 2 cents in, I'd like to say that some concepts we take for > granted cannot be objectively observed, measured or tested. Still, they may > refer to very real, even vital issues in life. Take " health " , for instance. > It cannot be " objectively observed " - in fact it's hard even to > conceptualize in western terms, except in a very roundabout and hardly > objective way as " the absence of disease " , or as " the silence of the > organs " . Same applies for " cure " , " life " , " art " or " love " and several other > fundamental dimensions of human experience. I think this suggests that many > of our culture's conceptions - better, social representations - that > actively influence or even determine the things we feel and do may well > belong to a plane of reality that can't be scientifically or even > sistematically observed or measured. If one agrees that there is such a > thing as " qi " , and that its presence and configuration explains many of the > effects one obtains on other people's health through needling, one may well > be ready to incorporate concepts such as " shen " etc, since one has already > accepted that a so-far unmeasurable, untestable and unverifiable category is > central to his/hers therapeutic action . " Qi " has so far resisted objective > measurement and testing, and though some of its effects have been observed - > such as change in scientifically established growth rate of bacterial > cultures in Petri dishes to give just one example - that's not to say the > concept such as it was put forth in chinese tradition has obtained any kind > of scientific backup. In short, if you can take " qi " , you can take Shen, Po > and Hun, it makes no difference from a scientific or even cultural > standpoint - you've crossed the line already. > > Allow me to say that one of the things I am very thankful for in chinese > medicine is that it is such a vast edification that it can shelter many ways > of thinking, while providing coherent, time-tested patters of knowledge > transmission and re-creation. Individual skill determines the session's > outcome, instead of the specif set of categories one uses to understand > life, the phenomena of its deviation from norm, and how to go about righting > things up. How do we explain " individual skill " ? Well, we don't. Take an > artist like Nelson Freire playing Chopin, and take a technically competent > but artistically null pianist playing the very same piece: the result will > always be inferior, despite the fact that none of them will play the piece > in the exact same way twice. The weird thing is, whenever I listen to a > piece performed by Freire, say, on the radio, I can tell it's him, even if > the music has already begun. That, I think, is the something to look for, > that is the undefinable what that makes you competent. The conceptual tools > you use may take you there, but are not the thing itself. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > 2007/10/23, establishment_man <establishment_man: > > > > Hugo, > > > > Interesting ideas. However, there seems to be a flaw in your logic > > when you said, *it would be difficult to verify certain " things " , but > > please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many ways > > it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time into > > learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or > > somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not invested the > > time and energy to experience CM* > > > > My question to you is this; is a person's personal, subjective > > experience a reliable measure of the validity of something? You seem > > to be saying that there are truths to , but that only > > certain people are able to understand those truths. > > > > If subjective perception is the only means by which the existence of > > something is able to be verifed, it seems that the margin of error > > left would be so large, that no actual verification could be > > possible. This kind of thing happens all the time with psychics, > > astrologers, prophets, and the like. All of these types of people > > have some sort of perception that they claim is authentic, but sadly > > there is no objective way to quantify their claims. > > > > I am of the opinion that if something cannot be objectively observed, > > measured or tested then it cannot be said to " exist. " This is not to > > say that its existence is eliminated from the realm of possibility, > > only that it's existence is questionable at best. > > > > For me, I have not seem any kind of tangible evidence of the > > existence of a Shen, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence that > > points to the existence of Qi. I am not saying that such things do > > not exist, per se. But if they do exist, then there must be some way > > to devise a test that would verify their existence. > > > > If anyone knows of such verification, please let me know. I would > > love to see the evidence. Until then, however, I must continue to > > relate with such things as useful metaphors that poetically describe > > the biological, nervous, and hormonal activities of the body, and not > > as actual or material entities in their own right. > > > > EM > > > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Traditional_Chinese_Medi cine%40>, > > Hugo Ramiro > > <subincor@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Greg, I agree that it would be difficult to verify > > certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. For > > example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has not > > invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because it > > doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have > > not invested the time and energy to experience CM. Same goes for the > > Qi Gong. As my teacher said to me (though I've been practicing Qi > > Gong for 20 years) " you don't have to worry [about getting lost], you > > don't get very deep " . I take that to be a double-edged sword - on the > > one hand I'm being berated for not having done enough work, and on > > the other it really has a lot to do with the depth of the art and > > science of Qi Gong itself. Or maybe it's just me. But anyway... > > > Like I was saying, if we want to get deep, we can't really get > > there for free. So if we are willing to follow the fairly strict > > practices which high achievement in Qi Gong requires (specific diet, > > restricted sexual activity, lessened passion, hard work, the list > > goes on...), then we can get \first\ hand experience. If not, then > > yes, we will have to reply on the classics...or just ignore them > > altogether. " I haven't been there, so it obviously doesn't exist " is > > a common refrain from some folks. > > > > > > Hugo > > > > > > > > > Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston@> > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Traditional_Chinese_Medi cine%40> > > > Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:23:32 AM > > > Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little to no > > > > > > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even second > > hand > > > > > > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I would > > > > > > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just don't > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > > > > > > " establishment_ man " <establishment_ man@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question. > > > > > > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of > > the > > > > > > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, > > I > > > > > > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, > > tio > > > > > > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of > > Blood > > > > > > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all > > > > > > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way > > to > > > > > > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not > > mean > > > > > > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something > > like > > > > > > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act > > > > > > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM > > texts > > > > > > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that > > is > > > > > > > more easily quantified? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance > > not > > > > > > > require faith? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing > > > > > > > begin! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine @. com, " Greg A. > > > > > > > Livingston " <drlivingston@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > > > > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't > > > > > > > recall > > > > > > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole > > thing), > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any > > > > > > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po > > in > > > > > > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance > > > > > > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role > > of > > > > > > > Hun > > > > > > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun > > and > > > > > > > Po, > > > > > > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang > > and > > > > > > > Six > > > > > > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all > > these > > > > > > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should > > not > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po > > > > > > > remain > > > > > > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they > > don't. > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > #ygrp-mkp{ > > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px > > 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > > > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > > > #ygrp-mkp #hd{ > > > color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line- > > height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} > > > #ygrp-mkp #ads{ > > > margin-bottom:10px;} > > > #ygrp-mkp .ad{ > > > padding:0 0;} > > > #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ > > > color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ > > > font-family:Arial;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ > > > margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line- height:122%;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ > > > margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, > > sans-serif;} > > > #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} > > > #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, > > clean, sans-serif;} > > > #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} > > > #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} > > > #ygrp-text{ > > > font-family:Georgia; > > > } > > > #ygrp-text p{ > > > margin:0 0 1em 0;} > > > #ygrp-tpmsgs{ > > > font-family:Arial; > > > clear:both;} > > > #ygrp-vitnav{ > > > padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} > > > #ygrp-vitnav a{ > > > padding:0 1px;} > > > #ygrp-actbar{ > > > clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text- > > align:right;} > > > #ygrp-actbar .left{ > > > float:left;white-space:nowrap;} > > > .bld{font-weight:bold;} > > > #ygrp-grft{ > > > font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} > > > #ygrp-ft{ > > > font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; > > > padding:5px 0; > > > } > > > #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ > > > padding-bottom:10px;} > > > > > > #ygrp-vital{ > > > background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} > > > #ygrp-vital #vithd{ > > > font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font- weight:bold;color:#333;text- > > transform:uppercase;} > > > #ygrp-vital ul{ > > > padding:0;margin:2px 0;} > > > #ygrp-vital ul li{ > > > list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; > > > } > > > #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ > > > font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text- > > align:right;padding-right:.5em;} > > > #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ > > > font-weight:bold;} > > > #ygrp-vital a{ > > > text-decoration:none;} > > > > > > #ygrp-vital a:hover{ > > > text-decoration:underline;} > > > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ > > > color:#999;font-size:77%;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ > > > padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ > > > padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ > > > list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ > > > text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ > > > background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ > > > padding:8px 0;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ > > > font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font- > > size:100%;line-height:122%;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ > > > text-decoration:none;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ > > > text-decoration:underline;} > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ > > > margin:0;} > > > o{font-size:0;} > > > .MsoNormal{ > > > margin:0 0 0 0;} > > > #ygrp-text tt{ > > > font-size:120%;} > > > blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} > > > .replbq{margin:4;} > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the > > answer. Try it > > > now. > > > http://uk.answers./ > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Good point, EM. However, I don't think that I, even though I have been following this thread - on the whole - quite understand what is it that you mean by " material " . I really can't find in any of my chinese sources a reference to Shen that will clearly pin it down as a " material " thing. A " real " thing, i.e. that is consensually percieved by all that partake of our culture's paradigms and that interferes with emotional/mental/physiological states, like " art " or " love " , yes... but a " material thing " ?? Qi, for instance: is it a " material thing " ? When you see a martial qigong demonstration, you can see it changes human body properties in a very material level. It's just not possible, if you take the materials involved, for someone to bend an iron rod half an inch thinck by holding it with two hands and giving it a good hard bang against one's own outstreched leg - smack in the shin. I have seen it done, and was challenged to unbend the rod, wich proved quite impossible. Of course, you can see a lot of that over the internet, but it's different when you personally know the people involved, as I did. So, can we affirm that qi is an " abstraction " ? Now, as to sentience, as in Shen, Hun and Po, now that's another very good and complex angle, hard to reduce to rational explanation - I'm one of the faithful myself, you see - but the point I was raising in my reply is about the actual relevance of the question in itself - by wich, mind you, I don't mean it is something that " should not be asked " , of course. It's that I don't go for " truth " , as it is the ultimate - and ultimately sterile - abstraction; I much prefer " efficacity " . If a discourse has inner coherence; if its explanations and rationale are, to one's point of view, convincing; if it is steadily workable in practice... that's as objective (I feel) as a therapist should get. For I see a great similarity between healing in the chinese way and all other artistic activities such as painting or making music. Do you know of the " indiciary paradigm " that Carlo Ginzburg describes in his book er... myths, emblems, signs? Very interesting, has everything to do with medicine, as he brilliantly demonstrates using sherlock holmes as an example... keep up the good work, Daniel. 2007/10/24, establishment_man <establishment_man: > > Hey Daniel, > > I wholeheartedly agree with the points that you raise, and I fully > accept the existence of *Qi, Shen, Hun, Po, etc* as abstractions, in > the same way that Love, Health, The Economy are all abstractions. > > But I think this is the key point. Nobody disputes the fact that > Love or Health are conceptual abstractions. Nobody that I know of > insists that Love is an actual tangible or material substance, or > that Health has some kind of sentient, self-existent quality. > > Everybody pretty much agrees that such things exist, as > abstractions. In the realm of TCM, however, there are voices that > insist that Qi,Shen, Hun, etc. are actually material entities. I > have said several times that I accept the existence of such things > as metaphors, but question their existence as entities. I do not > believe that there is any material entity, *Health,* or a physical > substance called, *Love.* > > As long as we keep the conceptual and the abstract clearly > identified as such, I feel very happy to accept Qi, Shen, Hun, Jing. > It is when they are made material that I raise the skeptical eyebrow > and say, " Show Me the Money! " > > EM > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > " Daniel Luz " > > <paraodaniel wrote: > > > > Hi all, EM: > > > > First, thanks for the very germane issue you've brought to > discussion. > > Putting my humble 2 cents in, I'd like to say that some concepts > we take for > > granted cannot be objectively observed, measured or tested. Still, > they may > > refer to very real, even vital issues in life. Take " health " , for > instance. > > It cannot be " objectively observed " - in fact it's hard even to > > conceptualize in western terms, except in a very roundabout and > hardly > > objective way as " the absence of disease " , or as " the silence of > the > > organs " . Same applies for " cure " , " life " , " art " or " love " and > several other > > fundamental dimensions of human experience. I think this suggests > that many > > of our culture's conceptions - better, social representations - > that > > actively influence or even determine the things we feel and do may > well > > belong to a plane of reality that can't be scientifically or even > > sistematically observed or measured. If one agrees that there is > such a > > thing as " qi " , and that its presence and configuration explains > many of the > > effects one obtains on other people's health through needling, one > may well > > be ready to incorporate concepts such as " shen " etc, since one has > already > > accepted that a so-far unmeasurable, untestable and unverifiable > category is > > central to his/hers therapeutic action . " Qi " has so far resisted > objective > > measurement and testing, and though some of its effects have been > observed - > > such as change in scientifically established growth rate of > bacterial > > cultures in Petri dishes to give just one example - that's not to > say the > > concept such as it was put forth in chinese tradition has obtained > any kind > > of scientific backup. In short, if you can take " qi " , you can take > Shen, Po > > and Hun, it makes no difference from a scientific or even cultural > > standpoint - you've crossed the line already. > > > > Allow me to say that one of the things I am very thankful for in > chinese > > medicine is that it is such a vast edification that it can shelter > many ways > > of thinking, while providing coherent, time-tested patters of > knowledge > > transmission and re-creation. Individual skill determines the > session's > > outcome, instead of the specif set of categories one uses to > understand > > life, the phenomena of its deviation from norm, and how to go > about righting > > things up. How do we explain " individual skill " ? Well, we don't. > Take an > > artist like Nelson Freire playing Chopin, and take a technically > competent > > but artistically null pianist playing the very same piece: the > result will > > always be inferior, despite the fact that none of them will play > the piece > > in the exact same way twice. The weird thing is, whenever I listen > to a > > piece performed by Freire, say, on the radio, I can tell it's him, > even if > > the music has already begun. That, I think, is the something to > look for, > > that is the undefinable what that makes you competent. The > conceptual tools > > you use may take you there, but are not the thing itself. > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2007/10/23, establishment_man <establishment_man: > > > > > > Hugo, > > > > > > Interesting ideas. However, there seems to be a flaw in your > logic > > > when you said, *it would be difficult to verify > certain " things " , but > > > please don't believe it to be impossible. For example, in many > ways > > > it would be impossible for someone who has not invested the time > into > > > learning CM to understand it. Not because it doesn't exist or > > > somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, have not > invested the > > > time and energy to experience CM* > > > > > > My question to you is this; is a person's personal, subjective > > > experience a reliable measure of the validity of something? You > seem > > > to be saying that there are truths to , but that > only > > > certain people are able to understand those truths. > > > > > > If subjective perception is the only means by which the > existence of > > > something is able to be verifed, it seems that the margin of > error > > > left would be so large, that no actual verification could be > > > possible. This kind of thing happens all the time with psychics, > > > astrologers, prophets, and the like. All of these types of people > > > have some sort of perception that they claim is authentic, but > sadly > > > there is no objective way to quantify their claims. > > > > > > I am of the opinion that if something cannot be objectively > observed, > > > measured or tested then it cannot be said to " exist. " This is > not to > > > say that its existence is eliminated from the realm of > possibility, > > > only that it's existence is questionable at best. > > > > > > For me, I have not seem any kind of tangible evidence of the > > > existence of a Shen, for example. Nor have I seen any evidence > that > > > points to the existence of Qi. I am not saying that such things > do > > > not exist, per se. But if they do exist, then there must be some > way > > > to devise a test that would verify their existence. > > > > > > If anyone knows of such verification, please let me know. I would > > > love to see the evidence. Until then, however, I must continue to > > > relate with such things as useful metaphors that poetically > describe > > > the biological, nervous, and hormonal activities of the body, > and not > > > as actual or material entities in their own right. > > > > > > EM > > > > > > --- In > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > <Traditional_Chinese_Medi > cine%40>, > > > Hugo Ramiro > > > <subincor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, I agree that it would be difficult to verify > > > certain " things " , but please don't believe it to be impossible. > For > > > example, in many ways it would be impossible for someone who has > not > > > invested the time into learning CM to understand it. Not because > it > > > doesn't exist or somesuch, but simply because they, as a person, > have > > > not invested the time and energy to experience CM. Same goes for > the > > > Qi Gong. As my teacher said to me (though I've been practicing Qi > > > Gong for 20 years) " you don't have to worry [about getting > lost], you > > > don't get very deep " . I take that to be a double-edged sword - > on the > > > one hand I'm being berated for not having done enough work, and > on > > > the other it really has a lot to do with the depth of the art and > > > science of Qi Gong itself. Or maybe it's just me. But anyway... > > > > Like I was saying, if we want to get deep, we can't really get > > > there for free. So if we are willing to follow the fairly strict > > > practices which high achievement in Qi Gong requires (specific > diet, > > > restricted sexual activity, lessened passion, hard work, the list > > > goes on...), then we can get \first\ hand experience. If not, > then > > > yes, we will have to reply on the classics...or just ignore them > > > altogether. " I haven't been there, so it obviously doesn't > exist " is > > > a common refrain from some folks. > > > > > > > > Hugo > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston@> > > > > To: > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > <Traditional_Chinese_Medi > cine%40> > > > > Friday, 19 October, 2007 2:23:32 AM > > > > Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This I would just have to take somebody's word on, with little > to no > > > > > > > > chance of being able to verify it with first hand or even > second > > > hand > > > > > > > > experience. I'm not the type to believe in such things, but I > would > > > > > > > > also never be arrogant enough to say they aren't real. I just > don't > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > > > > > > > > " establishment_ man " <establishment_ man@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good > question. > > > > > > > > > Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance > of > > > the > > > > > > > > > CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central > ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your > posts, > > > I > > > > > > > > > get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. > But, > > > tio > > > > > > > > > some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in > CM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology > of > > > Blood > > > > > > > > > production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these > all > > > > > > > > > articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable > way > > > to > > > > > > > > > measure or quantify such things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do > not > > > mean > > > > > > > > > to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes > something > > > like > > > > > > > > > this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I > act > > > > > > > > > like they are, I generally get good clinical results.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM > > > texts > > > > > > > > > say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation > that > > > is > > > > > > > > > more easily quantified? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When something canot be seen or measured - does its > acceptance > > > not > > > > > > > > > require faith? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the > bashing > > > > > > > > > begin! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine @. > com, " Greg A. > > > > > > > > > Livingston " <drlivingston@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po > > > > > > > > > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I > don't > > > > > > > > > recall > > > > > > > > > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole > > > thing), > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find > any > > > > > > > > > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun > and Po > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of > physiology- > > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death > and > > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > they go. Where does this idea originate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little > importance > > > > > > > > > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important > role > > > of > > > > > > > > > Hun > > > > > > > > > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their > > > > > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of > Hun > > > and > > > > > > > > > Po, > > > > > > > > > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five > Zang > > > and > > > > > > > > > Six > > > > > > > > > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, > all > > > these > > > > > > > > > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and > should > > > not > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > thought of as discrete physical entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun > and Po > > > > > > > > > remain > > > > > > > > > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they > > > don't. > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I > will > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > to decline to say one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My two cents... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > > > #ygrp-mkp{ > > > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px > > > 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > > > > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > > > > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > > > > #ygrp-mkp #hd{ > > > > color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line- > > > height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} > > > > #ygrp-mkp #ads{ > > > > margin-bottom:10px;} > > > > #ygrp-mkp .ad{ > > > > padding:0 0;} > > > > #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ > > > > color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ > > > > font-family:Arial;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ > > > > margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line- > height:122%;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ > > > > margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- > > > > > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, > clean, > > > sans-serif;} > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, > > > clean, sans-serif;} > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} > > > > #ygrp-text{ > > > > font-family:Georgia; > > > > } > > > > #ygrp-text p{ > > > > margin:0 0 1em 0;} > > > > #ygrp-tpmsgs{ > > > > font-family:Arial; > > > > clear:both;} > > > > #ygrp-vitnav{ > > > > padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} > > > > #ygrp-vitnav a{ > > > > padding:0 1px;} > > > > #ygrp-actbar{ > > > > clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text- > > > align:right;} > > > > #ygrp-actbar .left{ > > > > float:left;white-space:nowrap;} > > > > .bld{font-weight:bold;} > > > > #ygrp-grft{ > > > > font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} > > > > #ygrp-ft{ > > > > font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; > > > > padding:5px 0; > > > > } > > > > #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ > > > > padding-bottom:10px;} > > > > > > > > #ygrp-vital{ > > > > background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px > 8px;} > > > > #ygrp-vital #vithd{ > > > > font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font- > weight:bold;color:#333;text- > > > transform:uppercase;} > > > > #ygrp-vital ul{ > > > > padding:0;margin:2px 0;} > > > > #ygrp-vital ul li{ > > > > list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; > > > > } > > > > #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ > > > > font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text- > > > align:right;padding-right:.5em;} > > > > #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ > > > > font-weight:bold;} > > > > #ygrp-vital a{ > > > > text-decoration:none;} > > > > > > > > #ygrp-vital a:hover{ > > > > text-decoration:underline;} > > > > > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ > > > > color:#999;font-size:77%;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ > > > > padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ > > > > padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ > > > > list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ > > > > text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ > > > > background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ > > > > padding:8px 0;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ > > > > font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font- > > > size:100%;line-height:122%;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ > > > > text-decoration:none;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ > > > > text-decoration:underline;} > > > > #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ > > > > margin:0;} > > > > o{font-size:0;} > > > > .MsoNormal{ > > > > margin:0 0 0 0;} > > > > #ygrp-text tt{ > > > > font-size:120%;} > > > > blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} > > > > .replbq{margin:4;} > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the > > > answer. Try it > > > > now. > > > > http://uk.answers./ > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 EM (would you deign to give us your name?), " I do not have any study or research that claim that Qigong is mind control. I don't believe I ever said it is. " I believe everyone who has followed this thread has clear ideas on what you said and meant by it. " Does Qigong answer that question? Or open one's eyes to the existence of an ethereal soul? If so, I'd like to hear what your experience has revealed. " If you are serious, it might be possible to discuss it. Hugo _________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit For Good http://uk.promotions./forgood/environment.html 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.