Bad answers to martial training queries are inconvenient, but ultimately innocuous. If every theory and technique is tested, as common sense requires, then false information will eventually be recognized and discarded.
Bad questions are more dangerous. A bad question is one with a useless answer: there is no benefit to answering it correctly. People who ask too many bad questions find themselves hamstrung, and unable to deepen their understanding. These questions are a defense mechanism of the ego, breeding complacency and conceit.
Are references to Chinese life science—qigong and TCM, specifically—a necessary component of Chinese martial arts instruction? This subject resurfaces every few months on Internet kung fu forums. Most recently, Joanna Zorya of the Martial Tai Chi Association argues against the practice. She invokes the names of famous instructors—Tim Cartmell, Chen Zhenglei, and Hong Junsheng, to name a few—in support of her claim that talk of qi is superfluous at best, and outright deceptive at worst.
Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of a bad question. The obvious answer is no, qigong and TCM are not required, but the implication of the question is false. By reframing this question, with the aim of self-improvement rather than self-satisfaction, we arrive at a more practical answer.
How could qigong and TCM awareness improve my practice of martial art? These disciplines all operate in the same domain—the human mind and body—and the knowledge and skills cultivated in one discipline are therefore highly relevant to the others. This is not an abstract theoretical point (cf. “the hidden correspondences between boxing, baseball and Christianity”); it can specifically observed in the practices of each discipline. For example:
| Medical application | Attribute | Martial application |
|---|---|---|
| Massage therapy (tui na) | Strength | Grappling, wrestling (shuai jiao) |
| Pulse reading | Sensitivity | Listening and sticking techniques |
| Chiropractic (die da) | Skeletal anatomy knowledge | Joint locks (chin na) |
| Acupuncture, acupressure | Circulatory anatomy knowledge | Point striking (dim mak) |
Throughout Chinese history, men such as Wong Fei Hung leveraged these correspondences to become both respected fighters and medical doctors.
Of course, America’s modern medical landscape is far different than that of 19th century China. For today’s average martial art instructor to open a self-certified medical clinic would be irresponsible, and probably also violate several laws. Fortunately, Chinese medicine is not just for fixing other people; it can also be used to protect and improve your own health.
In pursuit of peak performance, martial artists place a greater strain on their bodies than most people. A smart practitioner will do everything they can to avoid inflicting chronic damage on their own body. Dit da jow, a topical liniment for healing training injuries, is just one example of the benefits that medical knowledge offers to martial artists.
In contrast to the well-known link between pugilism and Parkinson’s disease, the dangers of intensive and incorrect internal martial arts training have scarcely been investigated in the West. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. An ounce of preventative insight provided by TCM may be worth a pound of medication and treatment.
Internal Strength and Other Dangerous Assumptions
Accepting the value of evidence-based TCM and qigong does not require the rejection of sports medicine or alternative approaches. Why would anyone argue against its utility?
There are many widespread misconceptions about chi in the martial arts community. Classical teachings on the correct use of chi are usually correlated with postural adjustments, and this has led some clever practitioners to conclude that chi is good posture. Such “practical explanations” are an appealing alternative to the traditional use of the term, which was anything but precise.
Accepting qigong, while simultaneously insisting that qi is merely a synonym for skeletal alignment, would result in an unpleasant cognitive dissonance. So purveyors of Internal Strength, Combat Taiji and other “demystifications” have little alternative but to reject Eastern medicine—a system in which qi plays a central role, and is decidedly not mere alignment or coordination. It is a futile attempt at saving face and avoiding the embarassment of an inevitable public rebuke.
Will medical knowledge make you a more complete martial artist? That is a bad question. Instead, ask yourself, how can it make you a better person?
Receive free updates by email or RSS
52 responses so far ↓
1
Formosa Neijia
// Jul 29, 2007
Excellent! Your linking of the medical application, attribute and martial application is right on.
Unfortunately, those with too practical an outlook will be missing this training and the results it can bring. Too bad.
2
Joanna
// Jul 29, 2007
“It is a futile attempt at saving face and avoiding the embarassment of an inevitable public rebuke.”
It has nothing to do with saving face and everything to do with liberating people from pseudoscientific world views and potentially damaging (& distracting) practices. As has been pointed out to me, my rejection of qi puts me in a tiny minority within the world of Tai Chi.
Given that I have studied Chinese philosophical concepts such as taiji, wuxing and bagua in some detail and been trained fairly extensively in qigong / neigong and authorised to teach it, it would be far easier for me just teach it along with every other teacher, in spite of the fact that I don’t believe in qi. I would have far less hassles and criticisms from people if I did, and almost certainly a lot more students. I know for a fact that teachers who will teach qigong and Tai Chi purely as a form of “qigong” to martially-disinterested people make a lot more money and enjoy a lot more adulation than I do.
As I have explained before, I do teach practices similar to neigong, but these carry an entirely physical and martial rationale.
By rejecting the existence of qi, I’m sticking my neck out to try to challenge something I genuinely see as a spiritually dangerous paradigm and a potentially hazardous metaphysical mystification.
The fact that I have chosen to do this has frequently caused scorn and criticism, sometimes from people who had previously thought my material to be very good. Trust me – if I was just concerned with my reputation, I would never have started my “100% Qi-Free” campagn, I’d have kept my position on the Executive Committee of the Tai Chi Union for Great Britain, and reaped the benefits.
3
FitBuff - Total Mind and Body Fitness
// Jul 30, 2007
Hey Chris!
Thanks for another great article. We’ve included it in our Eighth Edition of the Total Mind and Body Fitness Carnival.
If you have any questions at all, just let us know. And feel free to submit more great articles to our next carnival by using the submission link below:
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_1766.html
4
Chris
// Jul 30, 2007
I don’t think that rejecting the existence of an invisible force really qualifies as “sticking your neck out”. It is a savvy marketing strategy, no matter how pure your motivations.
In the broad cultural domain, qi is axiomatic, and to “reject” it is as every bit as disingenuous as the claim that “Evolution is a theory, not a fact”.
Fortunately, you are not obliged to reconcile your personal views on Tai Chi with TCM standards. Or with esoteric Tao school, or a dozen other methods. It is easier to ignore them all. Such is the pleasure of the frog in the well?
5
Joanna
// Jul 30, 2007
Chris said:
“I don’t think that rejecting the existence of an invisible force really qualifies as “sticking your neck out”. It is a savvy marketing strategy, no matter how pure your motivations.”
But by rejecting qi, and by insisting that all my students practice Taiji as a hands-on martial art rather than for any other purpose, I have lost hundreds of potential customers and caused myself no end of grief and argument – on the internet, face to face and on the phone. Out in the real world of West Yorkshire, England, every single student has to be convinced that Tai Chi is a martial art rather than a form of energetic healing, spiritual relaxation and path to enlightenment. I have to recruit from policemen, security guards and other regular folk that are prepared to hit each other and throw each other around – it isn’t always easy convincing them that Taiji is for them – even when I’ve just shown them a few techniques. The moment they hear the words “Tai Chi” they lose interest.
Most Tai Chi teachers recruit students from people who are drawn to Tai Chi and they are last people we want to recruit from. Meanwhile the “qi-believer” teachers charge a whole lot more than I do for their pseudo-philosophical energetic twaddle.
I’ve been teaching for over 5 years now and it has taken this long to start doing better than just break even. I teach full time – the day to day students that I rely on don’t generally care one way or the other about qi, so if I didn’t reject the concept of qi, my classes would be much fuller. We’d also get a lot less hands-on martial practice done.
This isn’t just speculation on my part – I have lost hundreds of potential students that were looking for magical powers and a new religion. Even some who were looking for martial arts have left over my stance on qi. Here in England, most white people are secular rather than religious, so they have a religious vaccuum to fill. I’d say 95% + of British Tai Chi seekers are looking for a religion rather than a martial art. Qi sells big time.
6
Chris
// Jul 31, 2007
Joanna,
Your niche may be small in West Yorkshire, but not on the Internet, where you could easily develop a profitable cult following (pun intended).
You write about two categories of instructor, the believers and the realists, but conveniently leave out the third. Just as you’ve declined to address the main point of this article.
7
Joanna
// Aug 1, 2007
I can accept that there may also exist a number of semi-realistic semi-believers who are yet to commit themselves one way or the other.
Regarding your original question, “can TCM make you a better person?” I suppose so, if it works. But I wouldn’t be happy about healing people at the expense of animals – that is my personal perspective as strong believer in animals rights.
Can the concept of qi and its cultivation make you a better person? No – I would say the opposite.
8
Chris
// Aug 1, 2007
The third category consists of masters who make extraordinary claims, then proceed to demonstrate them.
Thermal cameras and LEDs do not register fantastical concepts, they reflect reality.
9
Joanna
// Aug 2, 2007
Oh – great TV. Have you ever seen Uri Geller? Or James Randi?
Your film clips just show absolute nonsense and trickery. People go to great lengths to make people believe they have amazing powers, but they never do have really under laboratory testing, otherwise the whole world would know about it.
I’ve managed to replicate some iron shirt style tricks and misleading fajin demos myself with a handful of students, solely in the interests of research (there was no deception at any stage I hasten to add – everyone knew they were involved in myth-debunking from the very start), but I don’t know how all these tricks are done – not even the magic circle knows every trick. Luckily Sima Nan does what he can to dispel such myths, as he was taught many of the tricks himself. His efforts have earned him a broken spine, courtesy of the charlatan heavy mob.
“In daring to speak the truth about qigong, Sima Nan has been kicked, beaten, detained, tortured, ridiculed and accused of betraying his culture. He has suffered two crushed vertebrae, a crushed trachea and other injuries at the hands of those who were unhappy with Sima Nan’s questioning the validity of qigong and the claims of various qigong masters.” http://www.csicop.org/sb/9903/sima-nan.html
With the animals lying down, maybe they detected an increase in humidity and felt that it was about to rain, so they lay down to keep a patch of ground dry to sleep on (as cows do). Careful timing (and access to a barometer) could have let the magicians stall the camera crew until the right moment. Maybe they used ultrasound, who knows? Someone will know how it is done.
But I think it would be completely unethical to use animals in this way, even if it were possible, which raises a secondary issue.
From “The Trouble with Qi” http://www.martialtaichi.co.uk/articles/trouble_with_qi.php
3) Is it morally or spiritually acceptable to use qi?
This is an issue where surely there is no room to sit on the fence. However, many people do just that, without really thinking through the issue of whether or not they have a consistent religious or spiritual justification for what they are doing. In 21st century culture, people’s souls are up for grabs, whether you are into Qigong, Reiki, Yoga, Crystal Healing, Tantra, Tenaga Dalam, Chanelling, Wicca or whatever. Some people will dabble freely in anything and everything, without any concern other than “Does this feel good to me?” “Does this feel right for me?” This is in spite of the fact that we are specifically warned against consorting with supernatural or occult forces in several major world faiths, including Sikhism, Christianity and Islam.
There is plenty of further reading at the foot of the article. You should be aware that even if qi powers were found to have any validity at all, it would not necessarily make it OK. Not all that is possible is desirable – just look at the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction caused by nuclear missiles.
In the UK next week, politicians are going to vote on whether or not it is acceptable to make “hybrid embryos” by injecting human DNA into animal embryos. These will be experimented on and then murdered rather than being allowed to go full term. This is an absolute abomination and a total disregard for the sanctitiy of life (both human and animal). In the Bible we are commanded “not to mix species.” Who could have forseen that the process of breeding mules (an unnatural pairing for human convenience) would eventually lead to hybrid embryos? Only God.
If qi powers such as those demonstrated were real, they would be tantamount to sorcery, and we have been warned very strongly against that too.
Returning to the animal demonstration – I am technically a Reiki master (I’ve stopped doing it though) and have done a little buqi, back in the days when I considered such things acceptable. I have experienced some supposedly energetic interractions with animals that seemed quite amazing.
But perhaps the results were more of a reflection of the animals’ greater sensitivity to pheremones and other postural and expression indicators. Maybe if you sit at a tank in a Marine Life Centre and exude nothing but love for a wounded turtle (rescued from a fishing net) it shouldn’t come as a surprise when the turtle swims up to you and sits with you for 20 minutes looking happy and sleepy. I’ve experienced similar things with dogs. I guess we all want to be loved.
But is it really magic or did it only feel magical? Since I quit doing Reiki and stuff like it, I’ve had just as many (actually way more) amazing prolonged encounters with animals. I’ve sat and watched woodmice, voles, weasels, fox-cubs, deer, young birds and all kinds of creatures that would have every reason to be frightened by my human presesnce. Seems like the Reiki was a non-essential part. The danger would have been if I had become convinced that it was all down to the Reiki. Then, had an animal run away or it hadn’t seemed to work, I would have agonised over what I had done differently and the trap of superstition would have started to take hold. Who knows – I might have got into trying to enhance my “Reiki powers” with energised crystals, until that stopped working and I moved on to the next thing. It is a slippery slope of self deception and superstition. We need to find rational explanations rather than indulging the hucksters and being drawn in.
10
Formosa Neijia
// Aug 2, 2007
Oh brother. I’m actually with Joanna regarding your last comment, Chris.
11
Chris
// Aug 2, 2007
The effects of qi emission have in fact been laboratory tested, and the results published. Did you even bother to look? Or are you waiting for the whole world to do your homework?
The animals know, but sadly, they won’t talk.
You are right. They warn against using those skills which, as you repeatedly insist, do not actually exist. And I wonder how these same faiths would address this?
Joanna: all your base are belong to us
12
Joanna
// Aug 2, 2007
Chris said: “You are right. They warn against using those skills which, as you repeatedly insist, do not actually exist. And I wonder how these same faiths would address this?”
That’s an easy one. Such powers are delusional and belief in them infects people minds. You could see monotheism and its struggles as a forerunner of atheism – trying to stamp out superstition and charlatanism – things that hold peoples minds in a prison of ghosts and demons. The stance the monotheistic faiths takes is that it is wrong to even want to do tricks like that and wrong to try to develop superhuman, supernatural powers. It is wrong to convince people that you could curse them as the fear this may generate in them is the curse itself, unless they know that you cannot have any power over them. They need to have faith that only God has god-like powers.
13
Chris
// Aug 3, 2007
For the sake of your innocent readers, I’ll answer the question myself. No major religion supports your stated goal to isolate spiritual teachings, from martial arts or anything else. To suggest that Jesus or Mohammed sanction the precepts of Martial Tai Chi would be blasphemous, hypocritical and absurd.
“Please, God, wait outside; we are fighting in here between 7:30 and 9pm.”
14
Joanna
// Aug 3, 2007
You misread my post, or are pretending to have done so – qi believers often do this – their arguments are frequently slippery and erratic.
You need to study Judaic theology and history, which is the bedrock of Christianity and Islam. (Judaism for Dummies by Rabbit Ted Falcon; The Religion of Israel by Yehezkel Kaufmann; Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan…) These faiths have also informed the Guru Nanak when he launched the Sikh religion. You should check a book called “Sikhism – A Comparitive Study if its Theology and Mysticism.” by Daljeet Singh.
All of these faiths set out to liberate peoples minds from superstition, sorcery, polytheism and their associated charaltan practices.
15
Chris
// Aug 4, 2007
I ask whether thermal cameras can be trusted, and you segue into world religions and animal rights.
When I point out that Qigong has already been tested in the lab, you change the subject again to God.
And when I observe that your practice is in fact incompatible with Christianity and Islam, you introduce Judaism to the discussion–but yet again avoid responding specifically to my point.
Which of us is slippery and erratic? You are not giving your readers enough credit.
I’ll make my last point crystal clear, to prevent any further misunderstanding. Here is a quote from your website:
For a person of faith, there are no circumstances under which spirituality is a “false purpose”. No, it is to be observed 24 hours a day, and without exception for Tai Chi training.
This is the context in which your repeated invocations of monotheism are hypocritical. Only a fair-weather Jew, Muslim or Christian would accept them.
Doctors are ethically bound in a similar way, by the Hippocratic Oath. They are obliged to consider the impact of their actions and advice on a patient’s health. The fact that you are not a doctor, and your students technically not patients, would not excuse a reckless disregard for their physical and mental well-being–a disregard implied by your list of false purposes.
Change the subject again, if you must, but please bear this in mind:
16
geemann
// Aug 4, 2007
I cant believe what I am reading! I have always believed that to learn Tai Chi correctly you had to learn it in the context it was intended to be. [A martial art] Different people have different interpretations of what that is exactly. If you learn it as a martial art, the health, meditation, and other benefits manifest within us through our practice. On the other hand, to deny chi, is to deny the classics. Call it whatever you want, but its not Tai Chi! When you understand that the mind leads and the body follows, you begin to understand how chi functions in your movements. I use Tai Chi in competition on a fencing strip by remembering the classics even though I am usually not performing the movements in the form. [there are striking similarities] but, being able to differentiate between yin and yang, and use, “mind intent” will give any martial artist an edge. This discussion of animal rights, religion, blah , blah, blah, is entertaining but where is the point? Tim Carmel is a great author, and a decent martial artist, but very few of us have all the answers!
17
Joanna
// Aug 4, 2007
Well as it is getting so tedious, I’ll keep it quick
Judaism is very relevant to Christianity because Jesus was a Jew – the precedents for his teachings are within Judaism and must be understood in that cultural context, hence the inclusion of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) within the Christian Bible. Judaic and Christian history and belief are also relevant to Islam.
Tai Chi is not in and of itself a form of spirituality, hence the phrase “Never teach Tai Chi for any of the following (false) purposes – relaxation, therapy, healing, meditation or spirituality.” Tai Chi is a martial art. That is not to say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Atheists alike cannot practice it. But the way we do Tai Chi, there are no practices that would be forbidden by observing members of those faiths, or that would be incompatible with atheism.
And religion remains relevant while people worship qi and attempt to deceive people with fake magical powers.
18
cjurakpt
// Aug 7, 2007
it’s a nice fantasy; the problem is that there are many tremendous fighters who never studied healing, and many “healers” with the manual skills comparable to TCM who have never studied fighting (e.g. – osteopathy, especially how it is practiced outside of the US, relies on sensitivity skills similar to pulse reading, and employs techniques that are essentially the same as tuina and jing gwat; they may help each other in some individual cases, but frankly one is not needed at all to become high level in either – the “marriage” of fighting and TCM from the fighter side is probably due to 2 things: need for fighters to know dit da for practical purposes, and the desire to foster social acceptance: tradidionally the “fighter’ class in Chinese society was looked on as little better than common thugs, so also beng a doctor helped to raise one’s level of prestige
as for qi, it is essentially a metaphorical construct that was derived based on the observation of the net effect of functional interrelationships within the body and the environment around it; qi is not a discreet “thing” that can be measured such as light, heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation, gravity, etc., although all of the quantifiable forces are part of the function of the human organism within the universe, and therefore contribute to the overall state of one’s health in various way; TCM’s use of qi is useful because it has predictive value, in terms of diagnosis and prognosis, but itis a model that is limited to macro-observation; because it is a very well designed model, it still has relevance to working with non-life threatening, chronic systemic issues (e.g. – fibromyalgia, osteo-arthritis), or helpful improving the overall level of function for someone with more serious issues;
in terms of martial use, good qi means having strength, coordination, balance, endurance, sensitivity, timing, etc.; it’s not some mystical force that you push people around with 9tha’s called entrainment); if you have good connection to the ground via the connective tissue system, you enable a more efficient vertical movement of ground reaction force, which coupled with an efficient neuromuscular system (e.g. – agonist / antagonist balance) gives one the ability to effectively push / grapple / strike;
19
Joanna
// Aug 16, 2007
I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Scott Phillips over on his “Weakness with a Twist” blog has edited one of my posts on the thread “A Parade in India 15 Miles Long” adding a paragraph of his own and thereby completely changing the spirit of what I was saying. He also edited out a comment by another person along with my reply to it. I thought you’d be interested in case he did it to anyone who reads this blog. Of all the sneaky, dishonourable tricks I’ve come across on forums and blogs, this was the lowest.
20
taiwandeutscher
// Aug 17, 2007
Joanna,
even I can understand and accept your aversion on qi (I observe and feel it subjectivly, don’t talk so much about it, never concentrate on it), I really feel sorry for all your hardship teaching the way you do. Shouldn’t it be fun also to instruct such a nice art? Even I teach for more than 20 years, on and off, never professionally, it always has been a pleasure. Otherwise, I wouldn’t do it! Did you do something wrong to make you feel so miserable?
21
Joanna
// Aug 17, 2007
Hi taiwandeutscher,
The only thing that makes me miserable is the behaviour and attitudes of many people who practice Tai Chi & qigong. In other arts I have practiced, there has always been a fun-loving sense of cameraderie and honour. Practicing Tai Chi as a purely martial discipline, the way we practice (100% Qi-free) we have a lot of fun – our classes are very warm, friendly and dynamic.
22
edouard
// Aug 19, 2008
Joanna,
Keep up the good work!
Taijiquan. used by ruffians and village people to where it is now “New Age Babble” for those eeking enlightment and spirituality is a sign! Of what, I shall not say but we must meet up one day and tell arse kicking stories and share the real essence of taijiquan!
I have been pilloried so many time for my stance on taijiquan with all the qi mierda and good feeling that I am glad people get what they are looking for! C’est la vie!
je suis d’accord avec tois!
yaz
23
Bob
// Dec 23, 2008
It sounds like your only calling those question that are asking about the validity of chi, bad questions. Are you not?
24
Chris
// Dec 23, 2008
Is Qi real? That I consider the textbook example of a bad question, because its direct answer is hardly actionable. Yet it draws some interesting responses from both sides, so it is a good starting point for discussion.
How is Qi real? is not satisfied by a simple yes or no answer. It presumably relates to specific, repeatable phenomena; it is data-driven. Unfortunately, it also puts me (as site administrator) in the position of asking those readers with no data to keep their mouths shut and keyboards quiet.
Joanna, for example, calls herself a Reiki master, and characterizes qi as a concept, which does not exist. Maybe you don’t need any data to validate or disprove a concept? Come to think of it, do concepts themselves exist? I’ve never seen the proof, so I remain skeptical.
25
Steven Smith
// Jan 11, 2009
Wow. I fell into a trap…a fascinating back-and-forth that kept me reading.
I’m in a bind. I don’t believe. And I spend time eradicating beliefs: all of them. Believing is so unnecessary (is that a belief? Damn it!)
The conflict of believing in God and not believing in Qi (or the other way) is a rousing, complex deception. An experience of one or the other can happen, but the words themselves lead us on a mysterious tour through imagined meanings.
I’m a fan Joanna: of your explanations and of Taiji for fighting. I use fighting to gain relaxation and health and healing. My position begins the same: I seek to revive the greatest, extreme boxing ever! But that creates energetic healing.
(I know…I’m real late here…but I had a good time.) Thanks for keeping comments open.
26
Chris
// Jan 12, 2009
Steven,
You are right. Disbelief is a belief; one with dangerous consequences–the believers further believe they are operating rationally. At root, this is more an emotional problem than an intellectual one.
One of my favorite quotes from Ordosclan, when he was asked a similar question:
“I don’t harbor beliefs; I perform acts.”
P.S. I like Joanna too. She’s got moxie!
27
Joanna
// May 10, 2009
Chris wrote:
“Joanna, for example, calls herself a Reiki master”
I just wanted to clear this up. For the record, I was given a series of Reiki attunements and coaching up to Master level in return for some illustration work I did for a “Reiki Master”. I gave it a fair crack of the whip at a time when I was trying very hard to keep an open mind on or even actively believe in such things. It is partly through exposure to Reiki and so-called qi-healing that I became a skeptic. I do not do Reiki – I think it is a load of BS, just like qi.
28
Chris
// May 10, 2009
Thank you for the clarification, Joanna. What did her coaching consist of?
29
Joanna
// Jun 1, 2009
Hi Chris,
All sorts of stuff – symbols, mudras, supposedly therapeutic hand waving, alleged energetic unblocking, attunements… I learned it from a guy, incidentally…
30
Chris
// Jun 1, 2009
Yeah, actually my experiences with Reiki practitioners have been negative too. It seems like they all call themselves Masters, and that they are more interested in “attunements”, “empowerings” and “transmissions” than in self-cultivation. This I found disagreeable and contrary to my martial arts background.
But I see no reason to presume that ki, qi and prana are all the same thing. Reiki, Qigong and Pranayama are clearly different, in their methods, goals, audiences and results.
31
Joanna
// Jun 2, 2009
Hi Chris – so do you see qi, ki, prana and reiki as all existing side by side or are they culturally different explanations for similar concepts? What do you see as the differences between them? Can you accept that they all seem to elevate breathing and / or other natural bodily mechanisms to encompass some kind of spiritual component?
Finally, do you think such concepts are TRUE in any kind of actual sense?
Regards,
Joanna
32
Chris
// Jun 5, 2009
Do they exist “side by side”? Yes–but that metaphor is less than ideal, as it reflects the assumption of a material model. Like it or not, these are properties of functional models. If we are honestly investigating whether qi is real or not, then we cannot begin by redefining the meanings of words.
Based on the literature, it might seem as if these practices (or at least some of them) subliminate matter into spirit. Actually, I do not think that is the case. More precisely, they are (initially) repurposing energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter.
As for whether such concepts are true…I’ll defer my response until I have time to answer comprehensively.
33
Joanna
// Jun 7, 2009
Please would it be possible for you to explain what these phrases mean: “subliminate matter into spirit” and “repurposing energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter”
Thanks,
Joanna
34
josh young
// Jun 7, 2009
Nowhere in the classics does it mention meridian theory, but it mentions qi. This is because qi is a word that means energy, not the mumbo jumbo BS that attracts wanna-be jedi knights, but real honest to god energy.
The placebo effect is very strong but just because a teacher can manipulate your qi doesn’t mean it would work on an outsider, as a matter of demonstrable fact in most cases it doesn’t work at all on outsiders or there is a physical component using real qi, physical energy.
There is a clear benefit to qi circulation practice like small and large circuit methods, however this benefit is arguably mental and the sensations are psychosomatic.
35
Joanna
// Jun 7, 2009
Hi Josh,
Would you mind explaining to me what you think the benefits of “qi circulation practice like small and large circuit methods” are?
Thanks,
Joanna
36
Chris
// Jun 7, 2009
Oops, I misspelled sublimate. With respect to this particular comment, you may assume that: Spirit = Reality – (Matter + Energy). One example of transmutation would be the transition of grass into cow, into hamburger, into human muscle.
37
Joanna
// Jun 7, 2009
Thanks Chris though I must say I’m still a bit confused. You seem to be saying that practices such as qigong (and perhaps Reiki, ki cultivation and pranayama – correct me if you’re not including those things) direct or rather “repurpose” (redirect?) “energy” into spirit (which you define as the non-material and non-energetic component of “reality” – this is actually no small or insignificant claim, but I’ll stay on topic…) and that both energy and spirit are ordinarily concerned with governing transmutation of matter into other forms of matter, but that they can be redirected to convert matter into spirit. Is this what you are saying? How does it work and what evidence is there that this is what is taking place? Could you tell me where the idea comes from? Would I find it in a medical textbook?
Regards,
Joanna
38
Chris
// Jun 7, 2009
Joanna,
First of all, my definition of Spirit, for the limited purposes of this discussion, is not a claim of any type. It is a definition. You can use Information instead if you prefer, which may clarify things somewhat. DNA for example, can be represented as Information, and can also be represented as Matter (obviously) or Energy (at the very least, to the degree matter and energy are equivalent). But truthfully, DNA is none of these things; it is nothing other than what it is.
Respectfully, I will not supply proof for what is axiomatic.
Now, you may already be familiar with the popular conceptions or descriptions of the jing-qi-shen progression, from your study of Chinese martial gongfu. (If not, please look it up as a prerequisite for any further discussion.) What I was trying to say above, is that such descriptions of esoterica are confusing enough in their original cultural context (and especially when repeated and distorted by those without a practical understanding); change the context and you only add additional confusion, e.g. if people start looking for proof in the form of particles (or materials or stasis in general) when they should be looking for effects (or relationships).
(Technically, these silly folks won’t even look for particles, but wait for someone else to do the work, and assert that in the meantime “there is no proof…”, all to satisfy their immature emotional needs.)
I said before that Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents. I can’t really say what you might find in a medical textbook.
39
Joanna
// Jun 8, 2009
Hi Chris,
Firstly allow me to point out that your tone has taken a change for the worst – you are now employing an arrogant and rather smug attitude accompanied by use of esoteric jargon, which I see as a little overly defensive and quite in keeping with the demeanour so often generated by esoteric so-called “self development” methods.
That aside, it is highly problematic for you to claim that your definition of spirit is axiomatic – this presupposes we (and perhaps everyone else) agree/s on the relevant axiom and we evidently do not. Further, I’m sure many people – be they Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish or whatever might well also disagree with your definition of spirit.
The evidence I required was not for your definition of spirit but for your claim that that spirit and energy could be employed for the transmutation of matter into spirit. Definitions aside, that is a big claim and such claims certainly require some kind of evidence if they are to be accepted. For the record, yes, of course I have come across the theory of jing and qi and shen and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it – and as I see it, I have no reason to do so. I have no more reason to believe that stuff than a Chinese person learning Western Boxing has reason to believe in Jesus just because it is culturally normal (at least historically) for his Western boxing coach. I’m sure you would not expect this Chinese student of Western boxing to automatically convert to Christianity. You see, without evidence, statements pertaining to jing and qi and shen are highly problematic, particularly when your audience does not believe in qi and may well not believe in spirit either. Alternatively, your audience might not agree with your definition of what spirit is or whether or how it can be used.
I know you said before that “Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents.” but I asked you to explain in what ways you see them as being different. Is that too much to ask? I’m asking because I genuinely want to know your thoughts.
40
Chris
// Jun 8, 2009
Your assessment of my attitude is not required at this time.
For the third time: I defined Spirit within the context of my own comments only. So whether that definition is in accord with other religious traditions is really irrelevant. You asked for a clarification and I supplied it. All definitions are axiomatic within their own context.
If you want to widen the scope of inquiry, that’s fine. Bill Bodri has written books on the common elements of various world religions, and their relationship to neidan. I’m sure he’ll be happy to sell you a copy or two, just please don’t ask me to retype their contents here for your pleasure.
You misread my comment.
“…Based on the literature, it might seem as if these practices (or at least some of them)
subliminatesublimate matter into spirit. Actually, I do not think that is the case…”Whatever claims I make here are not to be accepted. They are to be independently investigated.
There is no indisputable proof that the IEEE exists, only hearsay, but if you choose to believe in it, then I recommend you read IEEE 1016, learn to appreciate the difference between a decomposition and a design view, and how the “proof” or “disproof” for one affects the other.
When we use models, it is because they are useful. Utility may be a form of truth, or not, but it doesn’t matter whether they are true in any other respect. That is beside the point–as is belief.
It would be easier to start with their similarities. They are all concerned with unseen forces. Done.
If you read a modern history of Qigong, you’ll find that “Qigong” itself sprung into existence only a few decades ago, born of a need for categorization, arguably as a means to exert social control. Prior to that, there were dozens or hundreds of distinct practices; and yes, they had some overlap, but it was not considered terribly significant. (Soccer players and tennis players both run around their fields of play, does that make them similar sports?) Point being, it is hard enough to discuss Qigong alone in a categorical way (unless one knows nothing about it).
Differences would include the relative importance placed on posture, mudra, mantra, active control of the breath and other circulations versus observation, solo versus paired practice, moving versus still methods, et cetera.
Furthermore, if your practice is geared towards healing others (for example), your attention will obviously be shaped by that desire, as will your results. For this last point I will not provide evidence, but from your own experience with wushu taolu you should know it to be true. Results of practice are not governed solely by the outward appearance of the method.
41
Joanna
// Jun 8, 2009
Hello again Chris,
You said:
“For the third time: I defined Spirit within the context of my own comments only. So whether that definition is in accord with other religious traditions is really irrelevant. You asked for a clarification and I supplied it. All definitions are axiomatic within their own context.”
How useful is it I wonder to only be prepared to discuss concepts with others in such a hermetically sealed manner? I think this is known as having everything on one’s own terms, but no matter. Actually you’ve evaded many of my questions. Your statement “All definitions are axiomatic within their own context” is rather like my saying that that which fails to deliver is never merely in the eye of the beholder. The point of an axiom is that you must agree on it in order to have a dialogue of the kind you sem to want – one that does not question whether the claims you and all the other “internalists” make are actually true in a real sense. Talking of axioms, I do not accept at all your statement “When we use models, it is because they are useful. Utility may be a form of truth, or not, but it doesn’t matter whether they are true in any other respect. That is beside the point–as is belief.” I happen to believe, as you no doubt know, that there is such a thing as truth and fact and yes these things matter a great deal. The world is not just our little intellectual playground – it existed before we arrived here and to a very major extent we are bound to play by its rules. My leg is a leg and will function as a leg however much I try to will it to become something else. Just as I do have legs, I do not have dantians or chakras or meridians or whatever else people wish to invent in order to try to understand how bodies work. On this we’re unlikely to agree, I suspect, but I’d have to point out that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of legs and precious little for the existence of dantians. You are correct that soccer and tennis are not identical, but they do still use physical bodies which work much the same for both.
Now follow this dialogue:
You said “Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents.” Previously you’d said “I see no reason to presume that ki, qi and prana are all the same thing. Reiki, Qigong and Pranayama are clearly different, in their methods, goals, audiences and results.”
To which I asked you to explain what you thought the differences were to which you replied “It would be easier to start with their similarities. They are all concerned with unseen forces. Done.”
Now sorry to point this out, but you haven’t explained the differences so the matter is not done. You’ve merely done a u-turn and seem now to be saying that really they are very much the same, after all.
As for “You misread my comment.
“…Based on the literature, it might seem as if these practices (or at least some of them) subliminate sublimate matter into spirit. Actually, I do not think that is the case…”
No – I didn’t misread your comment. I pointed out that you stated that you thought that such practices, rather than sublimating matter into spirit, “repurposed energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter” … oh I’ll just quote what I said in post 37 and be done: “You seem to be saying that practices such as qigong (and perhaps Reiki, ki cultivation and pranayama – correct me if you’re not including those things) direct or rather “repurpose” (redirect?) “energy” into spirit (which you define as the non-material and non-energetic component of “reality” – this is actually no small or insignificant claim, but I’ll stay on topic…) and that both energy and spirit are ordinarily concerned with governing transmutation of matter into other forms of matter, but that they can be redirected to convert matter into spirit. Is this what you are saying?”
So – what do you see as the purpose of “repurposing” energy and spirit? What are they “repurposed” to do? You referred to “the jing – qi – shen progression” which might seem to imply that you think that it is possible to create spirit. If you do not think this is the case, could you explain what you think does happen?
Rather than taking such a pompous attitude, why not just explain what you mean? You take part in dialogues with other people on forums and blogs about this stuff, yet you seem to find the process tiring and you can’t be bothered with such lowly things as clear explanations. I know I’m not the only one who is struggling to understand what you are saying.
42
Joanna
// Jun 9, 2009
I think the main reason my discussions with CMA practitioners often turn a little sour is because of an essential difference in attitude to the student-teacher relationship. I see the teacher’s role as being to teach – it is his or her responsibility to convey information clearly and to work hard to do so, being patient with those who struggle to understand.
Many CMA practitioners seem to prefer the idea that the onus is on the student to learn, however reticent, enigmatic, evasive, whimsical or inconsistent the teacher is. The student will be expected to hang around and copy the teacher and deduce rather than having things clearly explained. The student will be made to feel a fool if he or she does not understand something in such a climate.
This situation is exacerbated by the unfortunate mystical associations with so much of this material: one is seriously expected to intuit data rather than be taught it. Sadly, the outcome of this approach is that a great many practitioners, students and teachers alike, become very haughty in their attitude to others, taking on the air of “huh – I had to work this out for myself so so should you”. The only thing they ever seem to manage to cultivate in their bid for self-cultivation is their ego. But far worse than that is the fact that there are as many interpretations of the material as their are interpreters. Inconsistency is utterly rampant – this is one reason that so many people cannot even agree on what qi is, never mind what it is possible to do with it. It’s funny how we don’t have such problems with algebra.
You yourself appear to take an unorthodox stance inasmuch as you say you don’t accept the idea that so-called “energetic” practices “sublimate matter into spirit.” You used the term “Actually, I do not think that is the case.” in reference to that concept. You then stated immediately afterwards that “MORE PRECISELY, they are (initially) repurposing energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter.” So is the (orthodox?) interpretation of “sublimating matter into spirit” INCORRECT or merely not as precise as your definition, inferring that it isn’t wrong, just not as right as you? Your use of the term “initially” in brackets compounds this lack of clarity as it suggests that the situation changes over time, perhaps in such a way that although matter is not initially sublimated into spirit, it does become so at some later time. Is this what you are saying? If it is, I think I can be forgiven for not deducing your meaning accurately from your post as it was not stated clearly. To be frank it came across to me that you are hedging your bets, rather like someone saying “oh, the Emperor’s new clothes were a beautiful lavish green velvet with red and gold trim, though some seemed to pick up on the vibrant blueness of the attire, whilst others found them to be decidedly yellow in tint. Of course, only a fool would not recognise what colour they were and to ask at all is simply a bad question”.
Some clear answers would be genuinely appreciated, Chris.
Thanks a lot,
Joanna
43
Chris
// Jun 9, 2009
Look Joanna, text without context is pretext. In the field of information security, a surreptitious change in context (such as you have repeatedly tried to insert here) is recognized as an attack, on a process or its data. Whereas in a normal discussion, it is simply disingenuous. But let’s just assume it was an accident on your part, and that your continued digressions are entirely innocent.
If you want to discuss Spirit with respect to mainstream religion, instead of, or in addition to its definition in relation to Chinese “internal alchemy”, so be it–but kindly stop changing the premises upon which conclusions would be set.
Models have explanatory and predictive value. Predictive value is not the same property as truth. In this respect, the “truth content” of a model is not important, only the accuracy and precision of its product are important.
I am telling you that jing-qi-shen is a model. You do not seem to understand what I am saying, and yet you keep arguing about it. This is a waste of your time and mine. This point is key to understanding everything I have recently written here, so there is no use in continually changing the subject, asserting your tangential beliefs, or trying to move on prematurely.
When I say that Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are all concerned with unseen forces–done–that is to dismiss their similarities. Magnetism is an unseen force, radio waves are invisible, and that does not mean a radio is basically the same thing as a magnet. (Again, this is a statement within a context, so do not try to apply it universally; that would be irrational and illogical.)
You wouldn’t expect to learn martial arts from a book, would you? And you recognize that most introductory texts sacrifice important details for the sake of clarity, don’t you? So why should you expect this topic to be any easier?
Complaining about the structure of my prior comments is in extremely poor taste. I am not your qigong teacher. I am not being paid for this discussion. And you, not I, are forcing a complex presentation of the complex issues involved. I am only replying to you.
I will not participate in any more meta-conversation. If you have a specific point or question (that you have not already raised), go ahead. Otherwise, if you want a broad survey of the topic, read a book.
44
Chris
// Jun 9, 2009
P.S. “Secrets of the Qigong Masters” is a weekly show on Blog Talk Radio, that welcomes live or pre-submitted listener questions. That sounds like a great opportunity to chat with a real qigong expert.
45
Joanna
// Jun 9, 2009
Fair enough Chris, I’ll leave it there then. If I may just very quickly address your specific questions which are separate from the main topic.
You said:
“You wouldn’t expect to learn martial arts from a book, would you? And you recognize that most introductory texts sacrifice important details for the sake of clarity, don’t you? So why should you expect this topic to be any easier?”
I think it is indeed possible to learn a great deal from a well written and illustrated martial arts book. I certainly don’t accept that introductory sacrifice must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t. Omission of important details is not the same thing as clarity. When I teach, my students know that many of the rules they start with are not absolutely always going to be hard fast rules – they know that a degree of flexibility and judgement can come in, once basic skills have been learned, but I explain thoroughly the importance of teaching your body to abide by the rules to retrain it and gain full control over it. I give students enough respect to let them know what we are doing and why, how things might change later and why it is important to do things the way I ask right now. I do not consider this approach beyond the scope of a book.
Anyway, nice talking to you – at least some of it was
Take care,
Joanna
46
Joanna
// Jun 10, 2009
oops – little typo I didn’t spot whilst editing the post before posting…
“I certainly don’t accept that introductory sacrifice must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t.”
should of course read “I certainly don’t accept that introductory TEXTS must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t.”
sorry ’bout that
Total Mind and Body Fitness Carnival #8 | FitBuff.com's Total Mind and Body Fitness Blog // Jul 30, 2007
[...] presents What Every Martial ArtistShould Know About Chi and TCM posted at Martial [...]
The Secret of Chi « 仁力的網頁 // Aug 2, 2007
[...] , which is a Weakness with a Twist comment on Joanna’s Martial Tai Chi site. Finally, Martial Developmen’t take on the issue is also interesting to me to complete the wide range of views we’re seeing here. [...]
Carnival of Martial Arts #2 // Sep 4, 2007
[...] presents What Every Martial Artist Should Know About Chi and TCM posted at Martial [...]
Qigong and Energy Arts Forum: Volume 1 // Dec 1, 2007
[...] What Every Martial Artist Should Know About Chi and TCM by Martial Development Are references to qi gong and Traditional Chinese Medicine a necessary component of martial arts instruction? [...]
Conventional Qi Nets | Real Taijiquan // Jan 12, 2009
[...] What Every Martial Artist Should Know About Chi and TCM [...]
How to Feel Your Chi Energy in Just Ten Minutes // Jun 17, 2009
[...] More Information Chi kung (qi gong) books and DVDs Renli’s Chi FAQ What Every Martial Artist Should Know About Chi and TCM [...]
Leave a Comment