Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Spiritual

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-17-2003, 07:08 PM   #176
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
I wrote:

Than why do some people still believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki? because they found evidence... I think not. It's time they grow up.

Robert H.G Burrell wrote:

"Let's see, perhaps the same reasons people beleive in faith or fate, soul mates, God, or whatever other belief systems are out there. They are all beliefs until science can explain them... I do object to your critisisims of telling folk to grow up because someone belives" different to you!"

I agree with you. It's all belief untill science prooves it, and then it becomes knowlege ( uncertain knowlege). But some beliefs contradict what science tells us about whe world ( ki- ostensibly paranormal ) and therefore since there is a contradiction between your belief about the world and the way science explains the world, both percpectives can not be correct at the same time. Both ways of thinking of the world may be incorrect (science and belief in ki), or one way may be correct (science or belief in ki) while the other is not (science or belief in ki). Since there is no way of knowing with certainty which is actualy the case, than a person must make a decision between one ( belief in ki ) or the other ( what science says about ki ), or simply not make any decision at all (suspention of jugdement). I "believe" that one should choose what science says about an ostensibly paranormal ki (does not exist). Why? Because to me the truth is desirable in itself and because the most reliable way of to get to that truth is by way of science, not the only method, but the best. A scientific fact is not certain but it is the least uncertain of perspectives.

While the belief in ki does contradict what science says about the world... faith or fate, soul mates or God do not. Why? Not because science accepts them but because science only speeks of observable, verifyable, measurable, quantifyable and refutable phenomena ( an ostensibly paranormal ki, for example, can be examined scientificaly ). Faith or fate, soul mates or God do not fit thouse conditions. Belief is necessary where knowledge can not go, just as knowledge is preferable to belief where it's applicable.

Just as children grow out of believing in Santa clause (an observable, verifyable, measurable, quantifyable and refutable phenomena) from lack of evidence, the same thing should be happening with the belief in an ostensibly paranormal ki. Yet some adults still believe in it .... why? I suspect it is because of there conception of what constitutes sufficient evidence. it may be sufficient for them but it isn't sufficient for science. And for reasons I have already stated above, I prefer scientfic proof.

Yes, I am telling folks to grow up ( be more sceptical ) because I believe differently then them. How could it be otherwise? The opposit would be quite unusual. And I believe I have good reasons to say so: being right is better than being wrong or not believing anything ( even if being right makes things less enjoyable, less desirable [the truth is better than a joyfull illusion] or even if being right or wrong makes no practicle difference at all for an a´kidoka since his techniques still work), science is better than pseudoscience and not believing in ki is better than believing in ki.

Robert H.G Burrell wrote:

"If someone believes in something that has a positive impact on their life, and they have made that choice on their own, who has the right to tell them it is all just bullshit and they should quit or are deranged?"

In a sens your right... who has the right to tell a child that Santa Clause is bull shit (does not exist) and that they should quit (stop believing in Santa Clause) or are deranged (unsceptical), since the child believes in something that has a positive impact on his life ( I hope ), and they have made that choice on their own?

The child would probably be very upset and maybe for a long time and... anyways the child grows out of it... why not let the pleasure last as long as it does... Why would the child be upset? because if you tell him Santa Clause doesn't exist he will believe you!! But for us adults, I don't see how stating our opinion in a discution, ever made another adult cry or be unhappy or mad for more than the discution lasts unless that adult was doubting himself. If someone can't handle someone elses opinion than he should think over his own...so I don't see why I wouldn't have the right to tell someone else my opinion... as he, to me.

Plus if children never stopped believing in Santa Clause would we eventually tell them that he doesn't exist. Obviously not because we were all children once, therefore we would all believe in Santa Clause... but suppose if children grew up and never stopped believing in Santa Clause (they are certain they saw him when they were kids[ It was a fake ] )... (as some still believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki)... do you think it would be strange???... undesirable???... unnatural... why??

For us adults, (even if believing in an ostensibly paranormal phenomena is harmless to ourself or to others and actualy makes us or others happy) who decided not to believe in Santa Clause anymore for lack of evidence, it would seem unusualy inconsistent to maintain belief in ki, since both ideas are comparable in scientific status...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 01:18 AM   #177
Col.Clink
Dojo: Waiuku Ki Society
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
I agree with you. It's all belief untill science prooves it, and then it becomes knowlege ( uncertain knowlege). But some beliefs contradict what science tells us about whe world ( ki- ostensibly paranormal ) and therefore since there is a contradiction between your belief about the world and the way science explains the world, both percpectives can not be correct at the same time. Both ways of thinking of the world may be incorrect (science and belief in ki), or one way may be correct (science or belief in ki) while the other is not (science or belief in ki). Since there is no way of knowing with certainty which is actualy the case, than a person must make a decision between one ( belief in ki ) or the other ( what science says about ki ), or simply not make any decision at all (suspention of jugdement). I "believe" that one should choose what science says about an ostensibly paranormal ki (does not exist). Why? Because to me the truth is desirable in itself and because the most reliable way of to get to that truth is by way of science, not the only method, but the best. A scientific fact is not certain but it is the least uncertain of perspectives.
I almost agree entirely here. I think the difference is in our beliefs. You are of the belief that science is the number one way to disimilate anything, and anything that does not conform to scientific fact cannot exist because it is conflict with scientific law (correct me if I'm wrong )

I'm of the belief that since science is still evolving, and human's obviously limited exploration & disimilation of the universe and other things, that Ki and other phenomena may be entirely possible because: A) it has not been proven otherwise, and B) I don't hold science as an absolute truth on all possibilities because it is evolving.
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
While the belief in ki does contradict what science says about the world... faith or fate, soul mates or God do not. Why? Not because science accepts them but because science only speeks of observable, verifyable, measurable, quantifyable and refutable phenomena ( an ostensibly paranormal ki, for example, can be examined scientificaly ). Faith or fate, soul mates or God do not fit thouse conditions. Belief is necessary where knowledge can not go, just as knowledge is preferable to belief where it's applicable.
Science determines though what is measurable, and if they think it is not, then they don't measure/examine it, which is why I guess no studies have been done on Ki, which brings us back to belief.


Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
Just as children grow out of believing in Santa clause (an observable, verifyable, measurable, quantifyable and refutable phenomena) from lack of evidence, the same thing should be happening with the belief in an ostensibly paranormal ki. Yet some adults still believe in it .... why? I suspect it is because of there conception of what constitutes sufficient evidence. it may be sufficient for them but it isn't sufficient for science. And for reasons I have already stated above, I prefer scientfic proof.
That's ok, because I don't need proof due to my experiences, which is also un-measurable, unless I get ki tested
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
Yes, I am telling folks to grow up ( be more sceptical ) because I believe differently then them. How could it be otherwise? The opposit would be quite unusual. And I believe I have good reasons to say so: being right is better than being wrong or not believing anything ( even if being right makes things less enjoyable, less desirable [the truth is better than a joyfull illusion] or even if being right or wrong makes no practicle difference at all for an a´kidoka since his techniques still work), science is better than pseudoscience and not believing in ki is better than believing in ki.
Now this is where we definately disagree, I don't think I need to explain why.
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
But for us adults, I don't see how stating our opinion in a discution, ever made another adult cry or be unhappy or mad for more than the discution lasts unless that adult was doubting himself. If someone can't handle someone elses opinion than he should think over his own...so I don't see why I wouldn't have the right to tell someone else my opinion... as he, to me.
Trust me I'm not crying, I've heard and been called a hell of a lot worse. But discussion becomes more of an argument when name calling or unnecessary comments are made from one about the other because of a belief. Opinion is great to listen to even if I don't agree, and opinions are welcome, but I think we can have an adult disscussion without the "grow up" comments really, and that is what I meant by what I said earlier, no offence intended.
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
Plus if children never stopped believing in Santa Clause would we eventually tell them that he doesn't exist. Obviously not because we were all children once, therefore we would all believe in Santa Clause... but suppose if children grew up and never stopped believing in Santa Clause (they are certain they saw him when they were kids[ It was a fake ] )... (as some still believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki)... do you think it would be strange???... undesirable???... unnatural... why??
If everyone believed in santa claus that would be great!! everyone would be doing good deeds to make sure they got some goodies at christmas!! But really, I don't mind what others believe as I stated previously.
Quote:
Jean-David Robert (Jean-David;-)) wrote:
For us adults, (even if believing in an ostensibly paranormal phenomena is harmless to ourself or to others and actualy makes us or others happy) who decided not to believe in Santa Clause anymore for lack of evidence, it would seem unusualy inconsistent to maintain belief in ki, since both ideas are comparable in scientific status...
Santa claus and Ki....interesting analogy, but since I don't belive in Santa Claus (sorry kids) and belive in Ki I really cannot answer, but that comes down to another thing....choice!

Like science, I too am evolving, my thoughts today will be different or expressed differently another day due to influences and experiences, what I belive to be truth one day, may be false the next, but I'm not going to try to tell someone they must think the same as me because of scientifical fact or fiction.

If Ki was proven scientifially tommorrow, I'd still teach students the same as I do now, it is their choice weather fact or fiction, as long as it helps them.

We have different beliefs, based on different thoughts or facts, and all I can say is if everyone followed what science always beleived, then perhaps the Teslas and Eiensteins may have never been known, but who knows?

Thanks for the convo and your thoughts. I still hope you find what your looking for in Aikido.

Cheers

Rob

"Excess leads to the path of Wisdom"
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 02:00 AM   #178
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,032
Japan
Offline
Quote:
Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink) wrote:
Science determines though what is measurable, and if they think it is not, then they don't measure/examine it, which is why I guess no studies have been done on Ki, which brings us back to belief.
This is a bit of a canard in that science is not a monolithic entity conspiring to keep the "unscientific" at bay.

There have been quite a few attempts to apply scientific methods to chi, some quite rigorous. Unfortuneately for those who believe in Ki as a projectable force - it has not been demonstrated. That doesn't stop people from quoting some questionable studies as proof positive - just do a search on google or even this site.

The experiments cost too much: wrong - preliminary experiments of a whole range of possiblities can be done on standard lab equipement. The effect of Ki on protein structure used circular dichroism to probe conformational changes although in this case more was made out of noise than should have been. This is how science tends to work - another project has already paid for the equipement, you get some preliminary results and get more equipement, maybe even a slave/student.

The results can't get published: wrong - if they are good they will be. Even if there is some question they might be. Polywater got published, cold fusion was published, and if I remember correctly a whole section of quack science was in hysterics with an experiment showing that infinately diluted samples could still give an antibiotic respose. In all the above cases the value of the peer review and publication system was demonstrated. The peers didn't quite believe it but could not figure out what was wrong, the studies were published and subsequently it was figured out what was actually being observed. There are so many competing journals not to mention the popular media that if someone did clearly show the existance of ki - the world would hear of it.

As Craig has pointed out there are scientists that have no problem with Ki - just that we will talk about it in a different way than we would talk about our work.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 04:13 AM   #179
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
Suppose if children grew up and never stopped believing in Santa Clause (they are certain they saw him when they were kid )... (as some still believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki)... do you think it would be strange???... undesirable???... unnatural... why??

CORRECTION
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 11:55 AM   #180
kironin
 
kironin's Avatar
Dojo: Houston Ki Aikido
Location: Houston,TX
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,032
United_States
Offline
Ki Symbol

Quote:
Peter Rehse (PeterR) wrote:
As Craig has pointed out there are scientists that have no problem with Ki - just that we will talk about it in a different way than we would talk about our work.
And I actually agree very much with Peter's post.



I think of Ki as a topic of metaphysics and part of Japanese culture not as part of a scientific discourse. Science is a pretty recent invention as a human method of knowing. It's taken on a high status indirectly through the success of applied science in manufacturing and warfare. Other older more intuitive human ways of knowing often have views of the world and concepts that appear to clash with scientific theories. Actually most of the clash is in details of reality where science can make measurements and the previous ways of knowing relied on extrapolation/speculation or just simple assertion that didn't necessarily have to follow from the world view. Because the high status of science, some, I would say misguided, souls attempt to use science-like methods to prove concepts/worldviews derived from other human ways of knowing. Thus is born a form of pseudoscience like the Logos club of the 1930's, creationism, or ki/chi detectors. The pitfall lies at the beginning. Actual scientific method tries in general to prove a hypothesis wrong while pseudoscience is trying to prove one very particular hypothesis right (cold fusion was a spectacular example of how scientists as human beings can get caught up in the same dead end thinking as those trying to prove ki exists as some form of energy we do not know about). In science, big paradigm changes requires dramatic results, not an analysis of something at the noise level of an instrument or anecdotal case studies.

I don't have a problem with someone saying they used ki to make their arm unbendable or to throw their opponent. That is a human way of knowing the world that is just as valid as it ever was. For some people it's a far more intuitive way of learning - what I would call the inside-out approach as opposed to a outside-in approach that might appeal to others (yoshinkan being an example). Not everyone is or wants to be hyper-rational. Human intuition is generally not rational.

The following Ki Saying by Tohei Sensei could bother those that wish only to read things as a literal interpretation,
Quote:
THE ESSENCE OF KI

We begin with the number one in counting all things. It is impossible that this one can ever be reduced to zero. Because just as something cannot be made from nothing, one cannot be made from zero.

Ki is like the number one. Ki is formed from infinitely small particles, smaller than an atom. The universal Ki condensed becomes an individual, which in turn condensed becomes the one point in the lower abdomen, which in turn infinitely condensed never becomes zero, but becomes One with the Universe. Thus we understand the essence of Ki.
So Ki is the elemental basis of the Universe. So Ki is everything, nothing and something.

This is not about science and therefore to try to form a scientific definition of Ki is really a meaningless waste of time IMO.

Care to try to bend my arm ?

Craig
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 09:30 PM   #181
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
[quote="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"]I almost agree entirely here. I think the difference is in our beliefs. You are of the belief that science is the number one way to disimilate anything, and anything that does not conform to scientific fact cannot exist because it is conflict with scientific law (correct me if I'm wrong )

No, on the contrary, I believe that any logical explanation of an observation may be true,

What is science?

A set of cognitive and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred (concluded from evidence) phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or conformation.

A) even if it does not conform to science's explanation of that observation. What is a scientific fact may not exist ( I am not talking here about observations [ I am not doubting the fact that the earth turns around the sun, or that some a´kidokas can stay on the ground while other's try to lift them -unliftable body exercise- ], I am talking about interpretations and explanations ). Science's explanations of reality are the most reliable but that never stopped scientists from rejecting previous explanations that do not fit the observations anymore or if a better explanation comes up... Even thouse scientific explanations that are called scientific facts today may one day be rejected if new observations are made that do not fit those explanations (however fundamental they are... if telepathy, or telekinesis for example are scientificaly proven to exist).

B) or if science has not explained it.( whether it is so because the observation is out of science's scope [as ki would be if it were only observable to the person who experiences it, or as philosophy is, because it is not felt, seen, herd... but only thought of] or because science can observe the phenomenon but has not done so yet.)
[QUOTE="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"Science determines though what is measurable, and if they think it is not, then they don't measure/examine it, which is why I guess no studies have been done on Ki, which brings us back to belief."

If you are stating that one of the defining caracteristics of ki is unmeasurability, I don't know what to answer... it's like if I told you that "laisjdghipsah" is ostensibly paranormal... how can you understand me since you don't know what the heck "laisjdghipsah" means in the first place. First, you should define the word "ki" in a way it is meaningfull and correct to you so that others dont have to guess what ki you are talking about... if, to you, ki means positive will, thoughts, a mix of both, or a special bodily sensation that one must strive to attain for the purpose of beter a´kido performance, or a fundamental property of the world, or life... matter, energy, or the world itself...or anything else please tell me. If you don't tell me what ki means, how am I supposed to know that it is unmeasurable and that it exists?
[QUOTE="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"If everyone believed in santa claus that would be great!! everyone would be doing good deeds to make sure they got some goodies at christmas!! But really, I don't mind what others believe as I stated previously."

Imagine a group of kids, one of the kids tells the others a story about himself. The other kids find the story funny and they have a good laugh together, while the kid who told the story is so pleased that everyone is cheered up and so very proud of himself that he says to himself: it was a good lie !!
[QUOTE="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"Like science, I too am evolving, my thoughts today will be different or expressed differently another day due to influences and experiences, what I belive to be truth one day, may be false the next, but I'm not going to try to tell someone they must think the same as me because of scientifical fact or fiction. "

The argument looks good... because people's and science's views change, don't try to convince others because you might be wrong yourself (however convinced you are). Because all is uncertain, (it is also uncertain that all is uncertain) shut up... Legitimate point of view.

The problem is that you are contradicitng yourself... If you realy believed what you are telling me, you would not want your "thoughts today to be different or expressed differently than another day due to influences and experiences" just in case those influences and experiences were wrong in telling you what you must think. You would have stopped learning because learning is all about others telling us what we must think (I'm not saying we can't learn thing's just by ourselves, but only that if we just believed what we learned by ourselves, than we would still be in the stone age). Whether it's going to school, or reading a book, or raising children... it's all about "telling someone they must think the same as me because of scientifical fact or belief.

Yes, peoples and science's views change but they usualy change for the better... Why would we then say that wisdom comes with age, or that the renaissance enlightenement movement was a big step forward, or that todays medicin does miracles compared to the middle ages... science progresses, people progress (although relative)...

Obviously I don't want to make someone believe something against their will (brainwashing, druging, or any other radical procedure), but when I believe or I think I know I'm right about something and they are wrong I tell others what I think and it certainly isn't just for the fun of it, it is to convince them... since to me the truth is worth in and on itself.
[QUOTE="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"If Ki was proven scientifially tommorrow, I'd still teach students the same as I do now, it is their choice weather fact or fiction, as long as it helps them."

A good lie is still a lie, just like unsceptical enjoyement is still unsceptical. Yes the students are responsible for there own learning, which doesn't stop them from being unsceptical if they believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki (measurable).
[QUOTE="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"We have different beliefs, based on different thoughts or facts, and all I can say is if everyone followed what science always beleived, then perhaps the Teslas and Eiensteins may have never been known, but who knows?"

To question explanations of observatoions when observations do not fit the explanation is naturaly scientific. So if you think there you are observing things that seem to go against accepted scientific explanations, then do communicate with scientisits to show them your unusual observations and they will reliably decide if your observations do indeed contradict accepted scientific explanations of the world. If you question science in specific areas of inquirey (ki?) just because it may be all wrong (as all knowledge and belief may be) and just wait for history to prove you right, it may, like it may not... I'm just glad scientists don't believe what you do, because if they did they wouldn't have the pleasure of sitting back and letting history do the hard work for them!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 10:30 PM   #182
shadow
Dojo: Aiki Kun Ren (Iwama style)
Location: Sydney
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 166
Offline
hello.

i actually started this thread and it was basically to try and show the similarities between the japanese word ki and the english word energy.

energy is used to describe almost every phenomena when it comes to the natural world. wether it is the energy given by the wind, by heat, by kinetic energy, energy in trophic levels in ecosystems, the energy from the sun, energy in terms of electricity..... there seems to be numerous different sorts of energy present in the universe and energy seems to be able to convert from one form to another.

for example the nuclear energy given off in nuclear reactions gives energy which is then harnessed as electricity to power this computer.

another example, the energy of the sun is utilised and converted by plants which are then eaten by animals to provide metabolic energy and also kinetic energy in their movement and as a result heat energy.

i just see ki energy (if you want to see it as something paranormal) as fitting in amongst these different forms of energy, one that perhaps has not been ascribed units of measurement yet, that doesnt mean its not present.

also the japanese seem to use ki (anyone who has a good grasp of the japanese feel free to back me up or tear me down for this one) in a very similar manner, with ki being present in words ascribed to processes that involve energy.


happiness. harmony. compassion.
--damien--
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 11:29 PM   #183
Col.Clink
Dojo: Waiuku Ki Society
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:
Peter Rehse (PeterR) wrote:
This is a bit of a canard in that science is not a monolithic entity conspiring to keep the "unscientific" at bay.
It's not what I meant, and maybe I can't explain what I meant properly, so I won't try to confuse myself or anyone else.

{QUOTE]just do a search on google or even this site.[/quote]
sorry but I've done google search on Ki before and I don't have the time to scroll through them all, if you have some links please post them, thanks.
Quote:
The experiments cost too much: wrong
Costs too much for me (which is what I said), AND I'm not a scientist, so I wouldn't have the slightest on how to measure ki as an energy scientifically, or the equipment involved.
Quote:
The results can't get published wrong:
-

I didn't say that either, but I agree with you.
Quote:
As Craig has pointed out there are scientists that have no problem with Ki - just that we will talk about it in a different way than we would talk about our work.
But the problem is definitive proof either way, which sceptics cleary want as much as Ki folk, but obviously for different reasons.

Peter, I'm no scientist as you can tell. I'm giving my view as I know it, right or wrong I don't know, but I have much to learn and many years left to learn it in.

cheers

Rob

"Excess leads to the path of Wisdom"
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 11:48 PM   #184
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,032
Japan
Offline
Don't worry Rob I rarely write to a specific post. When I latch onto a statement its usually a doorway into a larger issue. What triggered me in this case was the statement I quoted but what I was trying to address were the arguments often made why scientists would not even consider looking for Ki. Never said you made anything that I didn't directly attribute to you.

Cheers


Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 12:01 AM   #185
Col.Clink
Dojo: Waiuku Ki Society
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:
"Jean-David Robert (Jean-David wrote:
No, on the contrary, I believe that any logical explanation of an observation may be true,
I don't want to get into it, but what I think may be logical, you may not and vice versa.
Quote:
A) even if it does not conform to science's explanation of that observation. What is a scientific fact may not exist ( I am not talking here about observations [ I am not doubting the fact that the earth turns around the sun, or that some a´kidokas can stay on the ground while other's try to lift them -unliftable body exercise- ], I am talking about interpretations and explanations ). Science's explanations of reality are the most reliable but that never stopped scientists from rejecting previous explanations that do not fit the observations anymore or if a better explanation comes up... Even thouse scientific explanations that are called scientific facts today may one day be rejected if new observations are made that do not fit those explanations (however fundamental they are... if telepathy, or telekinesis for example are scientificaly proven to exist).

B) or if science has not explained it.( whether it is so because the observation is out of science's scope [as ki would be if it were only observable to the person who experiences it, or as philosophy is, because it is not felt, seen, herd... but only thought of] or because science can observe the phenomenon but has not done so yet.)
I agree, which is why I don't hold science as absolute truth, for tomorrow it may not be.


Quote:
If you are stating that one of the defining caracteristics of ki is unmeasurability, I don't know what to answer... it's like if I told you that "laisjdghipsah" is ostensibly paranormal... how can you understand me since you don't know what the heck "laisjdghipsah" means in the first place. First, you should define the word "ki" in a way it is meaningfull and correct to you so that others dont have to guess what ki you are talking about... if, to you, ki means positive will, thoughts, a mix of both, or a special bodily sensation that one must strive to attain for the purpose of beter a´kido performance, or a fundamental property of the world, or life... matter, energy, or the world itself...or anything else please tell me. If you don't tell me what ki means, how am I supposed to know that it is unmeasurable and that it exists?
No, I don't know if it can be measured scientifically or not, and I have defined it in this thread and others what it means to me, or what I beleive it to be.
Quote:
Imagine a group of kids, one of the kids tells the others a story about himself. The other kids find the story funny and they have a good laugh together, while the kid who told the story is so pleased that everyone is cheered up and so very proud of himself that he says to himself: it was a good lie !!
Just say what you mean, call me a liar if you wish. That's your opinon based on whatever it is you want to base it on, and I'm OK with that..true!!
Quote:
The argument looks good... because people's and science's views change, don't try to convince others because you might be wrong yourself (however convinced you are). Because all is uncertain, (it is also uncertain that all is uncertain) shut up... Legitimate point of view.
I'm not saying I'm right, I know I could be wrong in my beliefs, and I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone otherwise, I'm responding to your thoughts because that is what this forum is for, Opinion's, fact's etc etc etc to help us all learn a little about ourselves and others and what we do. If I don't question anything, I do not grow, that's just the way I see it. I have as many questions about Ki as sceptics do, but first I must understand that perspective before I can totally admonish it, I believe.
Quote:
The problem is that you are contradicitng yourself... If you realy believed what you are telling me, you would not want your "thoughts today to be different or expressed differently than another day due to influences and experiences" just in case those influences and experiences were wrong in telling you what you must think. You would have stopped learning because learning is all about others telling us what we must think (I'm not saying we can't learn thing's just by ourselves, but only that if we just believed what we learned by ourselves, than we would still be in the stone age). Whether it's going to school, or reading a book, or raising children... it's all about "telling someone they must think the same as me because of scientifical fact or belief.
I don't think I am, what I learnt in school I had no choice over, I couldn't question because I was taught what was said was gospel( which is how kids are taught/brainwashed/whatever). As an adult I can question what I am told, and choose if I think it is absolutly right or not if there is no definitive proof to say otheriwse. And as science is evoloving, I don't BELIEVE it is definitive on everything. I am open to studys as much as the scpetic is, but I would also have to have an understanding of science too, unless it was explained in laymans terms. But one thing at a time, huh.
Quote:
Obviously I don't want to make someone believe something against their will (brainwashing, druging, or any other radical procedure), but when I believe or I think I know I'm right about something and they are wrong I tell others what I think and it certainly isn't just for the fun of it, it is to convince them... since to me the truth is worth in and on itself.
That's great for you, but I'm for free will and free choice, I'm not here to convince anyone anything.
[quote][quote="Robert H.G Burrell (Col.Clink)"

"If Ki was proven scientifially tommorrow, I'd still teach students the same as I do now, it is their choice weather fact or fiction, as long as it helps them."

A good lie is still a lie, just like unsceptical enjoyement is still unsceptical. Yes the students are responsible for there own learning, which doesn't stop them from being unsceptical if they believe in an ostensibly paranormal ki (measurable).[/QUOTE]Exactley!!
Quote:
To question explanations of observatoions when observations do not fit the explanation is naturaly scientific. So if you think there you are observing things that seem to go against accepted scientific explanations, then do communicate with scientisits to show them your unusual observations and they will reliably decide if your observations do indeed contradict accepted scientific explanations of the world. If you question science in specific areas of inquirey (ki?) just because it may be all wrong (as all knowledge and belief may be) and just wait for history to prove you right, it may, like it may not... I'm just glad scientists don't believe what you do, because if they did they wouldn't have the pleasure of sitting back and letting history do the hard work for them!
Great, any scientist is welcome to come on down and test Ki (at their expense), although they maybe better suited on testing someone with more year's experience than myself. And like you, I'm glad there are more open minded people in this world willing to test boundaries rather than just accept them outright!

Have an enjoyable life Jean-David.

Cheers

Rob

"Excess leads to the path of Wisdom"
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 12:05 AM   #186
kironin
 
kironin's Avatar
Dojo: Houston Ki Aikido
Location: Houston,TX
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,032
United_States
Offline
Ki Symbol

Quote:
Damien Bohler (shadow) wrote:
hello.

i actually started this thread and it was basically to try and show the similarities between the japanese word ki and the english word energy.

....

from your original post

...

to know more i found this and other scientific parallels in "the tao of physics" by fritjof capra.
Well, I went back and read your original post



I don't know how to put this politely.

Capra's book is very old news and is considered to be total crap by theoretical physcists who are intimately familiar with the Standard Model. The comparison between quantum chromodynamics and eastern mysticism holds up under only the most superficial comparisons. Capra glosses over the truth in a lot of places to make it seem like modern physics is confirming eastern mysticism. Don't be fooled. This is just another case of trying to use the status of science to try to bolster the legitimacy of a nonscientific human worldview. Capra could just have as easily used his book to explore the parallels between modern physics and the mysticism of the desert fathers (Orthodox Christianity).

I can see the similarities between Ki and energy. In Japanese one can say that someone is full of ki the same way someone in English can say someone is full of energy.

However when I tell you that kid on the mat over there has a lot of energy, I doubt that your response would be to ask me to quantify that in units of measure (volts, btus, calories ?). Talking about units of measure for Ki has about the same meaning. Be very careful when you try to mix worldviews like Capra tries to.

Craig
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 12:08 AM   #187
Col.Clink
Dojo: Waiuku Ki Society
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:
Peter Rehse (PeterR) wrote:
Don't worry Rob I rarely write to a specific post. When I latch onto a statement its usually a doorway into a larger issue. What triggered me in this case was the statement I quoted but what I was trying to address were the arguments often made why scientists would not even consider looking for Ki. Never said you made anything that I didn't directly attribute to you.

Cheers
Sorry Peter, I understand, and got the wrong end of the stick. Ki disscussions can go on and on and on and folk still never quite see eye to eye.

Cheers

Rob

"Excess leads to the path of Wisdom"
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 01:20 AM   #188
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
germination, not

Quote:
Ki disscussions can go on and on and on and folk still never quite see eye to eye.
That's because the people that are talking the most actually know the least about the subject, coupled with the fact that they aren't listening.

If the conditions aren't right, a seed won't grow.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 04:52 AM   #189
Col.Clink
Dojo: Waiuku Ki Society
Location: New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 68
Offline
Re: germination, not

Quote:
Mike Lee (mike lee) wrote:
That's because the people that are talking the most actually know the least about the subject, coupled with the fact that they aren't listening.

If the conditions aren't right, a seed won't grow.
Mike, I don't know if that is a compliment or an insult, but either way thanks for making it in such a polite way!

Cheers

Rob


"Excess leads to the path of Wisdom"
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 12:57 PM   #190
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
Hi, Robert

I am not calling you a liar ! on the contrary I think you are truthfull and I hope I have not offended you by my previous "cold" replies. I realy enjoy this discution! it's raising some important questions.

I don't see how we can agree, though. Why? Because one can not use reason to argue about values. Why? Because values do not give a "bip" about reason, logic, or the truth (and I'm certainly not saying here that I have these things, more than you) One can not use science, or reason, or logic against values because values are not truths or objects of knowledge, but objects of desire. The only thing one can oppose to others values is one's will. What is a truth against a tank... To say that the truth is better than an error is not a truth. To say that not believeing in Ki is better than believing in ki, is not suseptible to being prooved scientificaly, nor in any other way.

To me not all enjoyable beliefs (harmless to one's self and others) are good, one must strive for an exquisit balance between two conflicting needs : the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. And when someone else doesn't act accordingly to my desire (value), I let them know, not because they are right or wrong to want otherwise, but because I like the truth and I think they do also, even more than pleasure, so that they will realize that they are being gullible and therefore conclude that it would be inconsistent to hold there gullible belief and at the same time like the truth, since there is a greater chance of holdind the truth by being a moderate sceptic and using science as a method to search for it than any other method.

To you, all enjoyable beliefs (harmless to one's self and others) are good, because they are enjoyable.

I am not right or wrong, you are not right or wrong, my desir is not good or bad in itself, your desire is not good or bad in itself ...

That's what makes values undestructable !!

And if I don't agree about something, I will never agree, unless I realy agreed in the first place but just didn't know it (for example, if I had thought about all the implications of my value in the first place... I may have realized that I never wanted it anymore.) I was trying to see If you realized the implications of you value. It seems you do. Values are learned not through rationnaly argued discutions, but through imitation or rejection...

It isn't because something is good that you want it, it is because you want that thing, that it is good. Yes, I am saying murder is good for those who like it and it's bad for those who don't... That never stopped me from hating murderers.

Robert wrote :

"As an adult I can question what I am told, and choose if I think it is absolutly right or not if there is no definitive proof to say otheriwse. And as science is evoloving, I don't BELIEVE it is definitive on everything. I am open to studys as much as the scpetic is"

What you are saying is that you will believe what you want unless that belief is proved wrong. Science can disprove a scientific fact, theory or law, so untill it hasn't been disproved, or as long as it is confermed, it is maintained. But science can't disprove something that it has not yet observed because of a scientific fact, theory or law that contradicts it, because if it could, that would mean that science would know everything, that it would have stopped progressing. But how do we know for certain that we have observed everything?? In that case you can choose to believe anything you want. In that case the only criterea of what to believe in and not believe is how much pleasure it brings to you... everything is uncertain, so believe what you want ( we want what pleases us), what you like !! I like Santa so I will believe in him... I like ki so I will believe in it... As I have already stated, Your are nor right or wrong to believe this, your value is not better, nor worse than mine in itself. Still, I don't think you would make a good scientist...

Robert wrote :

"I'm not saying I'm right, I know I could be wrong in my beliefs, and I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone otherwise, I'm responding to your thoughts because that is what this forum is for, Opinion's, fact's etc etc etc to help us all learn a little about ourselves and others and what we do. If I don't question anything, I do not grow, that's just the way I see it... but I'm for free will and free choice, I'm not here to convince anyone anything."

To convince : to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action. (Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)

I don't see how moving by argument or evidence to consent is against free will and free choice... on the contrary it is because we have free will and free choice that we can move by argument or evidence to consent. I think you're confusing this "to convince" with something that people do to make other's believe something against there will ( brainwashing) or something that people do to make other's believe something when those people are not necessarily reasonable (they can't think for themselves, or rely on others to think for them). You do not mind if others do not give consent to your beliefs on this forum as long as there beliefs are harmless.

I do because even though science is uncertain, it is more certain than pseudoscience... Gravity probably exists, while Santa probably does not. I'm glad they didn't teach me about Santa at school and I'm glad they taught me Gravity.

The truth doesn't say what should be done...

That doesn't stop me from having different values than you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 01:56 PM   #191
ted murphy
Location: philadelphia
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Offline
Very interesting topic, thank you to all who posted.

When I was a apprentice plumber I worked for this old timer. He had a divining rod made up of two iron nipples and two pieces of heavy copper wire. I've seen him use it to find broken pipes underground many times. I have no idea how it worked, but every time I dug the hole the pipe was there. And believe me, digging a hole 6' deep is something you don't attempt unless you really think the pipe is there.

It was a practical application of something that may be considered supernatural, but I could never argue with the results.

Now I don't know a whole lot about Ki, it's meaning, or application. But if it does create results for the folks who use it, I cannot help but see it as something that is real.

Ted
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 04:00 PM   #192
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.shermer-skep-manifesto.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2003, 01:38 AM   #193
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
ki is everywhere, it's everything

Everything that scientists measure is ki or the result of ki.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2003, 03:49 AM   #194
shadow
Dojo: Aiki Kun Ren (Iwama style)
Location: Sydney
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 166
Offline
thats it mike. energy and ki are words that can be exchanged.

craig, have you read capra's book? i know it is old and people (especially scientists) are bound to have problems with writings like that, so they will find any reason to tear holes in it.

anyways the point i was trying to make came not from capra's comparisons, but from a chapter in which he was speaking primarily of physics not of comparisons between the two.

he said that sub sub atomically everything exists as energy, as far as i know this is straight from physics.

so scientists measure energy and everything they discuss in terms of energy. the way i see it, in eastern philosophy they consider the same energy but instead of trying to measure it and put labels on it all, they try to harness it or utilise it through their bodies.

so i think science and eastern thought are really not seperate, just two different ways of looking at the same thing.

feel free not to agree with me of course, im just a young fool who will probably look back at this in years with a completely new and different viewpoint.

happiness. harmony. compassion.
--damien--
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll: If you could be uke for yourself, would you be able to throw yourself? AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 72 08-07-2013 05:16 PM
Aikido and being Christian Nick Spiritual 178 07-31-2010 06:47 PM
Stanislavsky and Ki DaveO General 11 01-20-2006 10:11 AM
Ki is Extended. tedehara Spiritual 5 11-15-2004 10:12 PM
Train In Ki And Why chadsieger Training 54 06-15-2002 10:26 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate