- This topic has 15 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello All,
Here was the question that I originally posed to myself . . .
Could I write an introductory essay that accomplishes the following?:
1. Introduces the complete newbie to spirituality.
2. Assumes a scientifically minded audience.
3. Presumes that readers might be skeptical, but are also open-minded
4. Provides a logical introduction that would provide credible
reasons for spirituality.
5. Introduces the reader to some Taoist ideas, but at a watered-down,
simplified level
6. Provides an explanation as to why one might want to be interested
in something called “qigong”.
7. Acts as a logical adventure taking the person from knowing nothing
to a position where they might be motivated to learn more–possibly
deciding to learn Healing Tao, for instance.After several long months of effort, I think I have accomplished the goal I set
for myself. I was tempted to call the said essay
“Qigong Fundamentals 0”, but decided against it, as in doing so,
it would implicitly imply that Michael had approved/sanctioned
this essay. Moreover, since some of the essay covers spirituality in
general and since I didn’t want to be overly precise in the Taoist
concepts I did introduce, I didn’t think the name appropriate–although
this essay could provide some kind of prologue for HT.At any rate, it is complete, and I’ve decided to share it.
Caveats:
1. Almost everything in Chapters 1 and 2 is purely my opinion formulated
through years of internalizing various beliefs.2. Many of the ideas in Chapters 3-5 were presented previously by
Michael Winn or Mantak Chia. I do not claim that they were originally
thought up by myself, although I certainly believe in the philosophy that
is espoused.3. While I used certain ideas from Michael Winn and Mantak Chia,
etc. especially in the later chapters, this should in no way be construed
that I am presenting their beliefs or that I’m speaking on their behalf.
I take responsibility for all such interpretations, and while I borrowed
certain things, the organization and the beliefs presented are my own.4. I reserve the right to retain authorship to this text. While you may
freely copy this, and store this, I ask that you do so in its
entirety–including this preface. I ask this because this took
me a long time and effort to write, but have nonetheless decided to share it.Acknowledgements:
The life-force/chi-field
The Wuji/Supreme Mystery and/or God
The Tao Te Ching
Michael Winn and Mantak ChiaAn intense outward inner smile and cosmic embrace to each of you,
StevenHere we go . . . Steven
——–
An Introduction to Spirituality and the Tao (Chapter 1)
CHAPTER 1: BEYOND SCIENCE
FACT: It is impossible to explain the universe completely through science.
Proof:
By Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, any system containing mathematics (i.e. the universe) can not be completely explainable through a finite set of laws. Since science is built on a finite set of laws, there will always be an infinite amount of the universe left unexplained, no matter how much scientific information is ever acquired.—————————————————————————————————–
FACT: You are a conscious being.
Proof: “I think, therefore I am” — Rene Descartes
—————————————————————————————————–
FACT: The universe is conscious.
Proof:
There are two possibilities.
Case I: You are a god, and are responsible for creating everything in your conscious field.
That is, other people don’t have an individual consciousness; they are merely created by you. The universe is merely an extension of you, and since you are conscious, so is the universe (i.e. the universe is just a subset of your conscious field).
Case II: Other people have an individual consciousness.
In this scenario, the universe contains conscious beings. Since conscious beings are part of the universe, the universe at least *contains* consciousness.
Now since you are not a god, your individual consciousness must have arisen from the intelligent part of the universe that was not you. Thus the universe not only contains consciousness, but the universe is itself conscious on some level that we can’t understand completely, due to the inexplicability of the universe scientifically.
In any case, the universe is conscious.
—————————————————————————————————–
We are born out of a conscious, intelligent universe.
The definition of life is a scientific one, so it can’t be applied directly to the universe using the standard definition. However, given the above statement, the universe certainly has a life-like quality to it. This conscious life-like aspect to the universe that is creating everything we can call the “life-force”. Another name for it is the “chi field”.
What is God and does God exist? That really depends on what you mean by God. If you mean the infinite intelligence and consciousness shaping and guiding our reality, then you mean the life-force/chi field. If you are looking for something beyond that and looking for where it came from, then you are asking a question that is really unknowable and beyond comprehension. That which lies beyond this is considered the
“Supreme Mystery” or “Wuji”.An Introduction to Spirituality and the Tao (Chapter 2)
CHAPTER 2: LIFE-FORCE, THE TAO, AND SPIRITUALITY
From Chapter 1, the universe is guided and directed by a boundless, energetic life-force, also called the chi field. Life is directed by change, and this change is caused by this chi field. This conscious life-energy interacts with everything and causes change to occur.
We know that we can not explain it completely through science.
Thus if we ever hope to acquire a deeper understanding of life, the universe, and everything–that is, if we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the life-force/chi field–and for that matter things that might be beyond that, we must resort to methods that lie outside the scope of standard science!
It is reasonable to assume that if the life-force/chi field contains information unreachable by science, then it might be reachable in other ways: hence, spirituality.
Spirituality could be almost defined by “trying to connect with something higher than yourself outside of that which is reachable by science”.
The question is then, “how should we try to connect with it, and of what purpose will it serve?”
To answer this question, we observe that since we are caught in the flowing river of conscious life-energythe life-force or chi field, that our life is directed by this “flowing river”.
The path that is instantaneously being birthed every moment by this “flowing river” is called the Tao (“Dow”).
The Tao is kind of the master plan for everything. It is the direction that this river flows in. Being immersed in the life-force, the Tao is the path that our life is directed to follow. The path, however, is not preordained. It is being created instantaneously at every single moment. Thus the Tao is really the path creation or, alternately, the arrow of change.
One clear initial goal of spirituality should be to gain a deeper understanding of the chi field, to develop a relationship with it, and to try to align yourself with the Tao.
Upon reflection, one realizes that unhappiness in life is caused by an incompatibility between our personal desires/goals with that of the Tao, i.e. the direction that the life-force is causing us to move. We are being directed in one direction, while personal desires and ego desire a different direction. Thus a struggle ensues. We become unhappy because we are trying to fight the direction that the chi field is trying to take us; we are maligned with the Tao.
That is not to say that we are mere puppets and we have no free will. Like a passenger on a raft being carried downstream, we don’t have the option of fighting the current, but we can still steer the raft.
Like someone being offered cake or ice cream, we still have a choice; we just can’t decide however that we’d prefer pie.
Happiness comes from being able to align our inner will to the direction the current is taking us. If we can make choices that are compatible to the direction that the current is flowing, then there is no struggle, and we will always be pleased with the outcome.
The goal then is to let go of the struggle and enjoy the different vistas of possibility that present themselves in a natural way.
Thus the purpose of spiritual methods is:
1. To understand better the direction the life-force/chi field is taking us–thus making it easier to align our inner will with the Tao.
2. To learn how to let go of the struggle.
3. To learn to accept the path presented to us.
4. To gain a deeper understanding of the life-force/chi field, the Tao, the nature of reality, our place in it, and who we truly are at a fundamental level.
Another purpose of spirituality that people might argue for is the securement of an afterlife. However, this will come later, as you can’t really deal with the future when you haven’t even learned how to deal with the present–because our present affects our future!
Now one might argue that spiritual methods can not be proven scientifically from an objective outside standpoint, but that is the point–since it is not science. We hope to connect with that which lies beyond science.
Spirituality can really ONLY be verified on an individual level. It becomes a personal experiment, whereby you try to gain access to information unreachable in other ways. If you are personally successful, then nothing more needs to be done. You’ve achieved your goal. You won’t be able to prove your discoveries to others, but that is unnecessary as you’ve verified it yourself. The lack of being able to verify it to others is unimportant. You’ve learned it for yourself, and others–so motivated–can do the same.
But that is the nature of spirituality.
An Introduction to Spirituality and the Tao (Chapter 3)
CHAPTER 3: CHI AND QIGONG
So our main goal is to learn to develop a relationship with the life-force/chi field. Chi is flowing through our bodies continuously, so the logical first step is make sure that it is flowing through our bodies smoothly and effortlessly.
Since chi is the life energy, blocking the flow of it will cause problems. Thus, in the Taoist view, health problems are caused by various blockages inside the body that prevent chi from flowing smoothly.
Chi that is unable to flow through the body, or chi that is “stuck and unmoving” is referred to as “toxic chi”.
Hence the immediate goal is remove energetic blockages inside the body and to remove this toxic chi. The spiritual art of interacting with chi is called “qigong” or “chi kung” (art or skill of working with chi).
In an oversimplified way, qigong is a combination of meditation and breathing exercises–some involving movement and some not. However, as you progress through the system, you will learn that is much deeper and much more profound than that.
Qigong is often connected with breathing because breathing is the fundamental aspect of life. It is the fundamental aspect of a living human being. The pulsation that we experience as we breathe in and out is akin to the pulsation that is happening on every level of every thing in the universe. If you examine all the way down to the atomic level, we see atoms in constant vibration and pulsation. So, in a way, the universe is breathing.
This breathing out-breathing in is the first example of the cycling of polarities back and forth that we refer to as the yin-yang motion of the universe. We will explore this more later, but for the time being recognize that there is a cyclical flow of polarities in nature and reality–the yin-yang flow.
Now since we are really going to be learning to communicate with chi and develop a relationship with it, qigong can really be thought of as a language.
Just like learning any language or any skill, you get better and better as time goes on. Thus at first, it may be difficult to make any sort of connection, but as time goes on, your ability to notice and detect the chi flow through your body and your ability to communicate with the greater chi field strengthens.
How do we know that this is true? Well there have been millions of people over thousands of years that have developed these skills and have made these claims–however, we don’t need to simply believe these people; we can experience the truth for ourselves. By considering the possibility that these people could be right, by investing time ourselves into learning these techniques, we can verify it personally. Thus qigong becomes kind of a “spiritual science”. We perform a spiritual experiment again, again, and again and observe the outcome. Through practice, as we develop more skill, we begin to personally observe the underlying truth that has been claimed by others. How this differs from straight science is that it can’t be verified externally by a neutral objective observer. Ultimately, however, this is unimportant. If we individually have learned the truth, then nothing more is needed.
An Introduction to Spirituality and the Tao (Chapter 4)
CHAPTER 4: ASSOCIATIONS AND FIVE-PHASE THEORY
How can we learn to communicate with the chi field, and be able to direct chi flow? Since the idea is a little abstract, we use associations to help us guide our mind and intention. Then over time as we repeat our movements and associations, the chi field picks up on our intent and understands what we mean.
Similar to teaching a dog to sit, after a while when we say “sit” the dog understands what we mean and it does so. Thus the associations that we use help us to communicate in a similar fashion. To make this programming as effective as possible, we use several associations at once to make it more powerful. Hence while doing a given movement or trying to communicate in a certain way, we may use mental and spiritual associations simultaneously. For instance, we may associate a certain movement or action with a color, a season, an organ, an emotion, a sound etc. or several of these simultaneously.
Remember that initially, our goal is to eliminate chi blockages in our bodies, and to remove toxic chi.
Now we could try to do this on a cellular level, since each cell has a programmed intelligence on how to function biologically and we could try to coordinate with the chi at this level to allow a cell to function most efficiently. However, this is not practical. There are far too many individual cells in the human body to be able to do this practically speaking. We need to keep things simple. However, just focusing on the whole body’s intelligence is too abstract and doesn’t really allow us to make a connection in an easy way.
Thus the system that we will use is what is called “Five-Phase Theory”. We will divide up our body internally into five regions of intelligence and just work with each region and use our associations on that level. In creating associations, the ancients modeled what they observed in nature. At the time, the ancients believed that nature was governed by “five-elements”: metal, water, wood, fire, and earth. Thus from these five elements came the associations that we use today in qigong.
That is not to say that when we focus on water say, that water itself is moving inside you. It is merely an association that helps us to communicate with the phase of chi that we are focused on in the particular region of interest. This is similar to the idea that the language “English” is just a convenient way to communicate, but it really carries no intrinsic meaning. Similarly, when we make an association–say
water–with chi, we are merely using it as a vehicle to communicate. Through practice, when we focus on water, the chi field begins to understand what we mean, and we are able to connect with the aspect or phase of chi that we have associated with water.Over thousands of years, through meditation and experimentation, qigong practitioners have learned which organ systems in the body tended to form the best associations with the five elements or the “five-phases” of chi, and we will use the fruits of their labor to speed along our development.
An Introduction to Spirituality and the Tao (Chapter 5)
CHAPTER 5: THE INNER SMILE
To recap some of what we discussed previously:
Our main goal is to eliminate any struggle between the direction the life-force/chi field is taking us and our own personal desires/goals. We seek to align ourselves with the Tao. Since chi is flowing through our bodies continuously, we first focus on making sure that the chi flow inside our bodies is smooth and effortless. In this, our initial goal is to eliminate chi blockages in our bodies and to remove toxic chi. We use qigong to accomplish this goal–a body/mind/spirit language–that we use to interact with the chi flow. As a language, it uses associations and five-phase theory to help us to connect with the chi flow.
The foundational practice upon which everything is built is called the “Inner Smile”. The Inner Smile is a meditation that is used to eliminate tension and chi blockages inside the body. Since tension and blockages are ultimately caused by this aforementioned struggle, the Inner Smile acts to release the struggle.
The struggle that we ultimately need to let go of is caused by our resistance to the life force. The chi field causes us to move in a certain way, but that is not the direction that our personal desires/goals had in mind. We resist; we struggle.
The solution is simple: Acceptance; unconditional acceptance.
Thus the Inner Smile is a means of directing the feeling and embodiment of unconditional acceptance internally in a meditation. An association that the Taoists have discovered is connected with unconditional acceptance is the idea of a smile. A true smile, not a fake one used for manipulation, projects an energy of “everything’s OK” and “I accept this.” Biologically speaking, smiling has been shown to release hormones and other “feel good” chemicals.
Thus mentally the Inner Smile is a meditation whereby we smile internally to our organs and allow them to feel accepted–without casting any judgements whatsoever–just saying “I accept you. However you are and whatever problems you have don’t matter; I accept you”. By directing this intention internally along with
this smiling energy at a particular organ say, the organ responds–it feels accepted and it releases its internal tension. In this way, certain chi blockages let go.The Inner Smile is the most important and fundamental foundational practice to learn. All of the qigong practices that follow rely on the Inner Smile to some extent, so it is important to learn first. In fact it can be argued by some that the easiest way to help your training advance to the next level is to practice the Inner Smile more.
Much more can be said about the Inner Smile than this short introduction. In fact, Michael Winn has written a 140 page book just devoted to it, called “The Way of the Inner Smile”. You can download a copy of it free from his website, https://healingtaousa.com.
——
That’s it!
Similar to the five phases of chi, I think it appropriate to stop after five chapters.
Hope you enjoyed this diversion,
StevenHello Steven
CH 1
“”””CHAPTER 1: BEYOND SCIENCE
FACT: It is impossible to explain the universe completely through science.
Proof:
By Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, any system containing mathematics (i.e. the universe) can not be completely explainable through a finite set of laws. Since science is built on a finite set of laws, there will always be an infinite amount of the universe left unexplained, no matter how much scientific information is ever acquired.
“”””””””This is of course asuming sience is equal to natural science or math. Science is of course aimed to be more than this. So perhaps it is possible to explain the universe. But there are some limits isn’t it. The tao you say is tao isn’t the tao.
Otherwaise goedel’s theorem is indeed interesting. Did learn it from reading half the goedel echer bach bock some years ago.
One perspective of making this a scinence is to change the way religious science works today by taking into accound the personal subjective experiences by the yogis. Like the way antropologist work. As in an article newly on this site claimed.
“””””Spirituality could be almost defined by “trying to connect with something higher than yourself outside of that which is reachable by science”.
“””””””I do not agree. It migth be reachable by science. Scince wies have to change to include such things as qi counsiousness and other such phenomena we know exists. Otherwise they have used the Occam knife a litle bit to much. Why not use it to take away everything so nothing could be explained anymore. Why just use it to cut away sertain aspects of the universe? Stupid!
“”””The Tao is kind of the master plan for everything. It is the direction that this river flows in. Being immersed in the life-force, the Tao is the path that our life is directed to follow. The path, however, is not preordained. It is being created instantaneously at every single moment. Thus the Tao is really the path creation or, alternately, the arrow of change.
One clear initial goal of spirituality should be to gain a deeper understanding of the chi field, to develop a relationship with it, and to try to align yourself with the Tao.
Upon reflection, one realizes that unhappiness in life is caused by an incompatibility between our personal desires/goals with that of the Tao, i.e. the direction that the life-force is causing us to move. We are being directed in one direction, while personal desires and ego desire a different direction. Thus a struggle ensues. We become unhappy because we are trying to fight the direction that the chi field is trying to take us; we are maligned with the Tao.
“””””I realy like this explanation and
“”””Happiness comes from being able to align our inner will to the direction the current is taking us. If we can make choices that are compatible to the direction that the current is flowing, then there is no struggle, and we will always be pleased with the outcome.
The goal then is to let go of the struggle and enjoy the different vistas of possibility that present themselves in a natural way.
Thus the purpose of spiritual methods is:
1. To understand better the direction the life-force/chi field is taking us–thus making it easier to align our inner will with the Tao.
2. To learn how to let go of the struggle.
3. To learn to accept the path presented to us.
4. To gain a deeper understanding of the life-force/chi field, the Tao, the nature of reality, our place in it, and who we truly are at a fundamental level.
“””””””””This is something I recognize from my life from my study of Jungian psychology. Good explanations! Important and easy aspects of this.
Just some comets on your paper.
Important to find short good explanations for people that are somewhat skeptical and scientific minded.
Good work but not completely finished as I see it.
Sincerely S D
What is qi? Have with life and change and as I belive then with time to do. How we are conected to everything. How everything is alive and have some inteligence.
What is counsiousness? Is it right to call it consious life-energy???
With our counsiousness we can feel the qi. What happens in this interaction. How does the consiousness feel qi. Is the changing part in the counsiousness also qi that interacts with other kind of qi. Like memories and feelings conected to them and so on. A feeling contains also qi. But qi is always something more. A mystery?
How are they related? Are they the same. Or are qi within everything and perhaps the qi is somehow a holistic aspect of the universe and the counsiousness and as so able to feel ohter aspects in time and space and qi is the thing making such conections possible. This is conectded to inteligence and to the tao some how.
Some notes from Stevens paper.
“””This conscious life-like aspect to the universe that is creating everything we can call the “life-force”. Another name for it is the “chi field”.
“”””””“””””the universe is guided and directed by a boundless, energetic life-force, also called the chi field. Life is directed by change, and this change is caused by this chi field. This conscious life-energy interacts with everything and causes change to occur.
“”””””Just some vague tries to see what I have not jet understood realy.
Sincerely S D
>>>Hello Steven
>>>””””CHAPTER 1: BEYOND SCIENCE
>>>
>>>FACT: It is impossible to explain the universe completely through science.>>>Proof:
>>>By Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, any system containing
>>>mathematics (i.e. the universe) can not be completely
>>>explainable through a finite set of laws. Since science
>>>is built on a finite set of laws, there will always be an
>>>infinite amount of the universe left unexplained, no matter
>>>how much scientific information is ever acquired.
>>>””””””””SD: This is of course asuming sience is equal to natural
science or math. Science is of course aimed to be more than
this. So perhaps it is possible to explain the universe.
But there are some limits isn’t it.
The tao you say is tao isn’t the tao.S: Science has a precise definition. It has to follow
the scientific method. That is, you first observe some
phenomenon. Then you form a hypothesis to explain it based on
previously established facts. You then perform
an experiment to test the hypothesis. A neutral objective
observer has to be able to watch the experimenter perform
the experiment. The consequences of the experiment have
to be observed by the experimenter and the external observer.
They both have to agree on what is observed. If the results
don’t match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out.
If they do match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded
to a theory. Additional, but necessarily different experiments
are performed, to test the theory. If anyone of them
don’t match the theory, and the experiment is double-checked
for accuracy, the theory is rejected. Otherwise, after a number
of experiments that confirm the theory, it is upgraded in
status to “law”. Then it is considered accepted as “fact”.
Of course, in science there is always the implicit assumption
that even with “laws”, a new experiment could come along that
proves the law wrong.Science can not be more than this. This is the definition of
science. People can try to do more than this, but then they
are not doing science anymore.This is precisely the reason why advocates of “intelligent
design” have no business trying to pollute the science curriculum
with their garbage. They might have a nice idea, but it’s not
science and doesn’t belong in a science class. In their case,
they should stay in a class on philosophy or religion.In fact, as an aside, the so-called “Big Bang Theory” isn’t
even a theory, because it hasn’t been tested experimentally.
In fact, you *can’t* test it (well, at least right now),
because it would involve the creation of a new universe.
In reality, it is a hypothesis–at best–to explain the
background microwave radiation and doppler red shift.
In a lot of ways, it is actually pure speculation, because
there’s really know way of knowing whether the perceived
expansion has always been taking place, all the way back to
some proposed singularity. It’s the same reason why
“string theory” is technically not science either.
There is no way to test any of the crazy things that people
look into there; it’s really no different than religious
philosophy with techno-babble thrown in.SD: Otherwaise goedel’s theorem is indeed interesting.
Did learn it from reading half the goedel echer bach bock some years ago.S: No, I never read that book.
Mainly I got curious from hearing about it come up in the mathematical
community, and I took the initiative once before to go and find
his mathematical proofs and look at them.SD: One perspective of making this a scinence is to change the way religious science works today by taking into accound the personal subjective experiences by the yogis. Like the way antropologist work. As in an article newly on this site claimed.
S: Then this is not science. (See above description of science)
In that case, it is really no different than what the
religious traditions and Healing Tao say.
So why waste your time?
You may as well just spend your time with personal
cultivation and spiritual techniques to try to connect
with the information directly.In other words, we already have the tools now.
There is no need to go looking for something else.
It’s already here.>>>”””””Spirituality could be almost defined
>>>by “trying to connect with something higher
>>>than yourself outside of that which is reachable
>>>by science”.
>>>”””””””SD: I do not agree. It migth be reachable by science. Scince wies have to change to include such things as qi counsiousness and other such phenomena we know exists. Otherwise they have used the Occam knife a litle bit to much. Why not use it to take away everything so nothing could be explained anymore. Why just use it to cut away sertain aspects of the universe? Stupid!
S: It can’t, because then it’s not science!
Again, it can’t include something like qi consciousness because then it
can’t fit into the scientific method. This falls into the realm of
“metaphysics”, which is just another form of philosophy. If it is
a “revealed truth” that can not be established by the scientific
method, then it is not science. It just ultimately becomes
some kind of spiritual knowledge of some form.Then again, why does this matter? We have already have a bag
of spiritual tools and spiritual truths that we can explore on our own.
It’s unnecessary to do anything different.By the way, Occam’s razor is just a philosophical principle.
It’s a useful principle, but just a philosophical principle, nonetheless.
People tend to put far too much weight on it, in my opinion.SD: Good work but not completely finished as I see it.
S: Thanks. As far as coming up with a “rigorous proof”,
that’s impossible for the very reasons that the paper espouses, namely
Goedel’s incompleteness theorem. So in some sense it can
never be complete. However, my hope was to create a
philosophical argument that makes the case for spirituality
to be *plausible*–meaning I wanted to make the argument for
spiritual techniques to be “believable” for an open-minded, but
slightly skeptical, person.Best,
StevenSD: What is qi?
S: Technically it called “subtle breath”; that is, the subtle
breath of the universe. It is sort of an intelligent conscious
bio-energy if you will. It is part of the life-force, or maybe
more appropriately, a manifestation of the life-force. Of course,
that is a very rough first approximation to describing it. There’s
a lot to it, and I’m sure someone like Michael could expound about
it for hours pinning down more precisely what it actually is.SD: Have with life and change and as I belive then with time to do.
S: What is time? Not as far as measurement, but as far as time itself . . .
That is, what is *it* exactly. If you really devote a lot of energy
to try to understand what it is, then assuming you don’t get a stroke,
in my opinion you will discover at a very fundamental level that “time”
is in its definition “change”. Time is change. Change is time. They
are really different words to describe the same thing.SD: How we are conected to everything. How everything is alive and have some inteligence.
S: That’s the big question isn’t it. The short answer is that this is
unknowable–part of the big mystery, the Wuji. The best we can really
seem to say is that everything is connected, because the life-force flows
through everything, so everything is connected to it. Therefore, we are
connected to everything by transitivity.SD: With our counsiousness we can feel the qi. What happens in this interaction. How does the consiousness feel qi. Is the changing part in the counsiousness also qi that interacts with other kind of qi. Like memories and feelings conected to them and so on. A feeling contains also qi. But qi is always something more. A mystery? How are they related? Are they the same. Or are qi within everything and perhaps the qi is somehow a holistic aspect of the universe and the counsiousness and as so able to feel ohter aspects in time and space and qi is the thing making such conections possible. This is conectded to inteligence and to the tao some how.
S: There’s an old saying. “The chi flows where the mind goes.”
Why are consciousness and chi linked? Because they are really different
manifestations of the same thing–just different aspects of the life-force.Best,
StevenHello Steven
Well I think the reasons why we not agree is that you have a specific definttion of what is science. If not fits into that definition it isn’t science. In my opinion your defintition is a definition that is used in the natural sciences. It is not always used in social studies or other sciences. Sometimes people use it even when it isn’t the best definition of science in theire field, beacase the asumption of that science always most look like this otherwise it isn’t science.
But I’m almost shore many scientist in other fields than physics chemistry and biology for instance have made up other definitions of what is science. Some may say then it isn’t science other may say it is. For me it isn’t important. It’s only a question of definition. If you are a scientist you only have to explain what definition you have used in your studies. And yes it have to be a rigid one in some sence otherwise we have problems.
So for me your defintiion is just one of diferent ones on scinence. For you it is the defintition of what is science. Thats the reason we not agree.
The reason why I not like the definition used traditionaly in natural science is that it is not the best one in the study of the world always. For instance when study history social sciences religion and sometimes psychology it doesn’t fit. Everything isn’t always repitable for instance. If you want to study acupuncture for instance and claim you must do the same treatment on people with the same decises, you have to change the definition of science beacase people with the same decises not necessarily have the same energetic disturbances. The experiment should not be done in this way. The definition of science is made up the way it is beacase of sertain pre fabricated ideas of how the universe and everything in it works. And this definition of science can only see things within this ideas. So to study science this way is to say. If the word is like this then I can study it and tell you how it works. If the world isn’t like this then I can’t do scientific studies on it. So the scientific tells the universe how to be then studies the efects in the universe that fit into theire prefabricated ideas. Then they come to the conclusion well the world is like our prefabribated ideas. If you tell anything else well then we use the occams rasor and just cut it away. How can we then trust science at all?
This is not science as I see it. The science have to make methods use ideas to see what the world realy is. If they use methods that not see the world then they have to change methods. And I belive many scientist already know this. And use other defintions of science than the one you described Steven. In sertain studies. For instance antropology.
Sincererly S D
History, anthropology, psychology, social studies, etc. are not sciences.
It’s only been about the past 30 years that some people in pop culture
have started referring to them as sciences. Many people have tried
to reclassify their field as a science because they’re afraid of
not appearing legitimate or because it is a political move designed
to try to get funding from some agency.In fact, even Christian fundamentalists, have tried to reclassify
their belief in the Adam and Eve creation myth, as “Creation science”.It’s all nonsense in my opinion . . . and somewhat dangerous, as
it led to the “Intelligent Design” people trying to argue that
they should be able to teach some form of creationism in a science
classroom.Science has a precise definition. Science is any study that
develops its truths through the scientific method. That’s it.
No more; no less.That’s not to say that other fields of study, like sociology,
anthropology, history, etc. are not legitimate fields of study . . .
but the manner in which they acquire their information is different.If something is not science according to the strict definition of
the word, then the learned information is a “revealed truth” rather
than a “scientific one”–but that doesn’t mean that that is bad.
You can learn information through various types of analysis
and study that don’t come from the scientific method.Of course, this in my opinion, is the problem. There are many
people in this world that discount religious and spiritual truths,
because they argue that “it can’t be proven”, and “it’s all
subjective”, and “it’s not scientific”.My point is that their argument is ridiculous, because most
of what they do or believe in isn’t due to science (in the
most strict definition of the word) either. They’ve just
fooled themselves into thinking that somehow it’s more
legitimate by using the word “science” (inappropriately in mind).This is the reason why I think it’s such a travesty that
classical Chinese medicine was watered down or “truncated” as
Michael put it, and turned into TCM (“traditional Chinese medicine”)
where such notions and chi and shen and etc. were eliminated
from the system with the argument that they are not scientific–but
the thing that I think is ridiculous about that, is that
most of what they did keep doesn’t fit the definition of science
either!In other words, in my opinion, the improper use of the word science
has–in a lot of ways–made people discount the revealed truths
from religion and spirituality as though that they are not
as “valid”–when in fact they are just as valid (if not more so).Best,
StevenHello Steven
Wery clear arguments. Didn’t know that part of TCM. But I have heard something about it but never got it this clear. (That they have taken away the consepts of shen and qi.) It’s scandalous and even more than rediculous.
I quite agree with you. I think to keep science with the definitions theire is to it and call the other things for something else is ok. I myself want to call the some other methods also for science. Even make science of spirituality. But in some way or another it’s only a matter of definitions.
But the thing about what is dangerous. I see so much danger in using science as you defined it at the only legitimate method in the society today. You can’t as a doctor use method that isn’t proven scinetifically. But if there is methods that works but not are proven scientifically? There is so much problem with this defintition today. If we keep on to the medicin fields there are so much methods developed from history that haven’t been proven strict scientifically but still are used and still works.
I will stop here. Your thinking makes alot of sence and I feel you too are aware of the dangers within the narrow minded only science aproach.
Sincerely S D
>>Didn’t know that part of TCM.
>>But I have heard something about it but never got it
>>this clear. (That they have taken away the consepts
>>of shen and qi.) It’s scandalous and even more than rediculous.Michael talks about this a bit in QF1.
Apparently, classical Chinese medicine was retooled as I
described (eliminating chi/shen ideas) sometime in the 1950’s
and renamed “traditional Chinese medicine” by the Communists
after they took over China–in part, due to the underlying
agenda to get rid of religious/spiritual concepts.Regarding the science issue:
There are people who try to even make spirituality “scientific”.
However, for the most part, it is kind of impossible really
to fit spiritual techniques into the scientific method model–as
it typically lacks the neutral objective independent observer
feature. This, of course, has fueled many heated debates.
Many debates between Intelligence and jsun on this list
revolve around this issue of “conducting experiments” to
“test spiritual knowledge” . . . to “prove it to the world”
or whatever.Ultimately, a complete waste of time in my opinion.
As pointed out in the first argument using Goedel’s incompleteness
theorem, science is *extremely* limited in what it can
accomplish in the way of total understanding.That’s not to say that science should be totally abandoned.
It’s an interesting and fun endeavor in its own right.My problem is that I think that too many people have put
“science” on a pedestal, and try to have it to do much.
It’s like–take a hammer for instance–it’s an extremely
useful tool, but that’s all it is. It can only do certainly
things. You wouldn’t want to use it to chop wood for instance!
But as far as this analogy goes, some people want to try.
They’re out there hammering away, while we just sort of stand
back and say to them, “why don’t you just use a saw?!”, and
they reply “because I like hammers, and hammers are the best
tool ever; anything that is not a hammer is just not as good!”So, if anything, my “chapter 1” is a carefully constructed
argument to demonstrate that sometimes you need a saw
and that a hammer can’t do everything.At any rate, this has been a fun discussion.
Smiles to you,
Steven
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.