ki in scientific thought

I don't like to use the words "ALL" when it comes to stuff like this, there is just too much in this universe we really don't understand yet.

As I said, ki is the life force found in all living things. The use of the word "all" is what makes this statement very specific.

Take a long hard look at a dead animal sometime. The only ki you will see is that of the insects and worms eating its dead flesh.

As an analogy, I have no problem with this, but if it is meant as literal truth, I do.

It's meant both ways. Ki is created in a living body primarily through breath. Once the breathing stops, ki is no longer created and life in the body ends. This is why ki is almost literaly equal to life and breath.

We all know that every living organism requires certain elements to live. Some are tougher than others. Some live in the hot springs at Yellowstone. Some live in the arctic.

Let's take humans for example. We need air, water, nutrition, and we need to keep our bodies within a certain temperature range, or we will die. The body also depends on the proper functioning of the internal organs, and the circulatory, nervous and skeletal system. All of these things form a system where ki is literaly created. Ki being the energy, the life force that sustains us.

But there are also spiritual elements. We know, for example, that humans can die from a lack of love. Therefore, the mind is considered to have a significant effect on the level of ki in the body.

If one remains at the level of continually attempting to distingush the dual concepts of literal and figurative, I don't believe that one can accomplish very much in one lifetime with regards to a genuine understanding of ki.

I came into Aikido from Karate where results bore a direct relation to physical effort and much time was spent in running up and down doing push-ups and sit-ups.

Because of this I found ki difficult to grasp and rationalised it as a way to make our bodies perform more efficiently by getting our conscious mind to focus on something else e.g. unbendable arm exercise where you extend to infinity whilst your partner tries to bend your arm. Your conscious mind doesn't interfere by thinking I must try to keep my arm straight.

In Aikido we spend time "proving" ki with exercises and tests. These show that what you are thinking has a massive effect on your stability and centre. What, mind and body linked, outrageous!

I developed on to a model where ki exists because it has a real effect and we show this effect (to ourselves) continually with ki exercises.

However, this is only part of the story, as so much in martial arts there are many layers which we move through in our drive for knowledge. Ki is not just applied in straight lines, and it is not just about yourself. Try the unbendable arm exercise with a partner, but this time connect to their direction (trying to bend your arm), agree and sympathise with this. See if you can feel into their structure.

Ki is also the connection with your training partner. As you become more relaxed with the techniques, feel the direction and use the shape of the aikido to guide the direction of their attack. Aikido becomes softer and flows more easily.

This is what I am working on for my own aikido at the moment.

Happy studying

Chris Fenner

Epsom Dojo, UK

Mike Lee (mike lee) wrote: As I said, ki is the life force found in all living things. The use of the word "all" is what makes this statement very specific.

I humbly disagree. Ki permeates and emanates from all things, not just living things. Ki doesn't originate because of life or objects; ki is a fundamental part of creation. A rock, the sun, the moon, fire all have ki. A rock for example has very different ki then fire, but both have ki. Rock-ki is stable, slow to move and settles downward. Fire-ki is very dynamic, expansive and moves upward. This is why in certain esoteric traditions you have "elementalist" who meditate on the spirits of the earth, fire, wolf, etc…

I think the main difference between living and nonliving thing is that living things seem to maintain a continuous connection with the quintessential ki. Living things act like a sink or conduit for the raw ki that permeates existence. This does mean that living things tend to have a higher concentration of ki surrounding them (Certain ki-exercises and Qi-Kung exercises allow one to store a higher concentration of ki in the same vessel and increase the flow of ki through ones body.), and the ki is less likely to become stagnant. When the connection to the fundamental ki is severed the vessel is no longer animated, trapping & locking the remaining ki into a set pattern (a corpse). All nonliving things (and living things for that matter) have a set amount of ki locked into its basic structure; some people call this the etheric double of an object. This etheric double is the mold from which the actual object takes its shape.

In addition certain areas can have more ki than others. When all the ki in an area (water, earth, animal, plant, human, ley lines etc…) is in a state of constructive interference you have an area with "good" feng shui.

MHO nothing more.

Hi all,

Wow, this has come a long way from the original post. It started with a "discovery" that matter and energy are related, and that this might provide a scientific explanation for "ki".

With deference to Karen Kujo, who is clearly a practicing, professional physicist where I am more or less a retired one, I'd add this more specific nugget for your consideration.

Einstein's great contribution to the language of us mere mortals is his well known equation, E=mc^2. For those who have never had to learn precisely what this means, it's simply that the Energy "E" of a mass "m" may be calculated by multiplying the mass by c^2, or the square of the speed of light "c", which happens to be 3x10^8 meters per second.

Relative to the original post, there are several important things to note. First, energy and mass are indeed interchangeable in a way--mathematically, you can convert one to another simply by multiplication with a constant. That does not mean at either the quantum or classical physical levels that it's easy to convert mass to energy, or vice versa. In fact, it's very difficult to do, mass is destroyed in the process, and it liberates a whole lot of energy (a hydrogen bomb, or the sun for example). If you think about this for a few moments it'll illustrate one of the challenges inherent in using this idea to explain ki.

Second, all mass has energy. Einstein and physics don't distinguish between a life energy and an inanimate one. So a rock has energy proportionate to its mass, as do I, and each of you. If, as one poster says, ki is only present in living things, the mass-energy equation doesn't explain ki. Likewise, if as another poster says ki is more concentrated in living things, or in the gas of a fire, then you still have a problem applying the science to explain ki, IMHO, at least THIS science.

Of course, this doesn't prove that there's no such thing as ki. It only says in a more specific way what Karen was getting at a while back--that Einstein's equation linking matter and energy is not a good way to explain it scientifically.

I can't help noticing that we have two posters who confidently disagree on whether ki is a "life force" or something that permeates all matter, like Yoda's Force ("the rock, the tree, the ship . . ."). Which of them is correct, and how do we know?

(pulls pin, lobs hand grenade onto the table, and leaves the room . . .)

Paul

I can't help noticing that we have two posters who confidently disagree on whether ki is a "life force" or something that permeates all matter, like Yoda's Force ("the rock, the tree, the ship . . ."). Which of them is correct, and how do we know?

Actually Mr. Lost is absolutely correct. I intentionally geared my post toward discussing ki in relation to the life force and to living things because this is the kind of ki we most commonly deal with in martial arts, especifically in aikido.

Originally, I said that ki is in all living things because in this form it's easier to percieve. My analogy about the dog was not absolutely correct because as long as there is some molecular structure remaining, of course there is ki, or energy, holding that structure together. But, generally, speaking the ki in a dead animal is not much use, thus the phrase, "like beating a dead horse." Yes, the dead horse has ki, but of what use is that kind of ki? He's not going to be taking you for a ride anymore!

Secondly, Mr. Lost was able to explain the effects of various forms of ki in non-living objects and other forms of energy.

A cellphone puts out energy, for example, that some say can cause cancer after prolonged use. So I guess we could say that the ki of the cellphone is damaging human ki to the point that it begins to break down and causes a possibly fatal malady.

In the end, as Einstein said, everything IS relative. Is not the earth an all things on it formed from star dust? And are not all living things fueled from the light of the Sun?

Paul the Grenade Lobber wrote: Wow, this has come a long way from the original post. It started with a "discovery" that matter and energy are related, and that this might provide a scientific explanation for "ki".

Right you are Paul. I went back to the original post and re-read it. And according to the way the Aikido world looks at Ki, Damien was onto something.

In the beginning, Damien wrote: ...that in dealing with atomic physics, when one deals with the infinitely small.... the smallest we are able to probe within the nucleons (protons and neutrons) of an atom it is found that there is no mass. mass is represented in terms of energy.... so at that sub-atomic level everything is energy. so when you think about it, if you want to think about a key building block that makes up people, animals, inanimate objects, the universe..... it is energy rather than an indestructible form of mass as was thought for so long. ...this is ki, this is the energy which is discussed in japanese arts and thought, the chi in chinese thought, the prajna in indian thought..... energy in scientific thought. ...i hope it brings a little bit of thought to you, particularly to those of you who try to deny the existance of ki or dismiss it because there is no scientific explination.

There are two main statements here. The first says matter and energy are transferable, since matter is composed of energy. The second says that "ki" is that universal energy found at the edges of scientific perception. And since the character for "ki" is found in the name "Aikido", we must all adopt the second statement's perspective in order to stay true to the tenets of Aikido's founder, who propagated it. I would say that there are several flaws in the argument.

1. The concept of Aiki did not originate with Morihei Ueshiba, and as such was not equated as harmonizing with the opponent's energy. Most Japanese martial arts identified with the concept of Aiki as a method to steal the initiative and lead the opponent's mind. In the Kotodama-rich world of Omotokyo, Ueshiba did identify Ai and Ki as separate concepts with their own guiding principles that he illustrated in his particular budo. He further defined Ki as the binding principle of the universe, which went hand in hand with the religious beliefs held within the Omoto religion.

2. The accepted Japanese version of "ki" has less to do with energy, and more to do with steam, weather, and attitude. The kanji itself shows vapor rising off a pot full of rice. The English word energy can be translated as "kiryoku" AND "seiryoku". Nuclear energy also uses the term "ryoku" rather than "ki". Ki as translated from the Chinese "Chi" or "Qi" is only one of three forms of energy identified by Taoists, who were interested in it as a life preserving agent. The term has taken on a completely foreign context within the West from what it originally stood for in the country of its origin.

3. The real ambassador of "Ki" is Koichi Tohei, who was influenced heavily by Tempu Nakamura and his system of Shin Shin Toitsu as much as he was by Morihei Ueshiba. At the inception of Aikido in America, Tohei was the main figure. Some people argue that his philosophy and methods did more to influence the original American synthesis of Aikido than the Founder, and that would include the concept of "ki".

If people want to relate experiences like the "unbendable arm" through the language and metaphor of "ki", all the more power to them. My teacher shows that particular exercise as one of unifying the body and the mind through understanding human structure and engineering rather than a quasi-mystical experience involving an ethereal force.

We all have ideas to share and appreciate and the real goal should be to stay vulnerable to the data reality gives us, rather than make the universe fit to our preconceptions.

Jim Vance

You can almost hear Godel laughing...perhaps we should rename this thread Godel's Revenge. Of course, I'm referring to his Incompleteness Theorem. 'Once more into the breach dear friends'...<here we go>...

This is a little off topic, but some arguments constructed within a closed system - let's call them recursive statements - will be unprovable within that system. Meaning every closed system is internally inconsistent, regardless of syntax, semantics, etc. - Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved this for Mathematics, but it is extensible to any closed formal system (any system with order - I dare you to find one without it). Hence, my mention of the Anthropic Principle, which is, in and of itself, a bit "loose" in definition (pun intended).

The Anthropic Principle is essentially the acknowledgment that Homo Sapiens is prone to Observation Selection Effects - the parameters of our existence are inseparable from our experience, and therefore, may taint our understanding of it (the data). If that sounds somewhat circular to you, then you're still awake - that's the gist of it. It leads to egocentric reasoning; this is what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle asserts (it seems we're awash with principles doesn't it?). The term is also applied to methods of dealing with this unpleasant phenomenon (from a scientific point of view). In this regard Karen Kujo's analogy of scale is quite appropriate, in that the object of study - Ki - may require thinking, and therefore a mathematical model, which isn't fully quantifiable on our scale of existence. Indeed, there are many forces that act on us - some more directly experienced than others - for which this is true. 'We have to overcome ourselves before we can overcome the world'.

Of course, our Scientific knowledge isn't complete; we still can't reconcile two working theories, General Relativity & Quantum Electrodynamics, and this is ironically another issue involving scales. Work on unification in physics is largely focusing on the development of M-Brane Theory, which is a higher dimensional geometrical approach to the problem - providing enough room to bring the two together.

I think what Karen is saying is this: Let's not bicker over scale (whether Relativity is the correct process or Quantum electrodynamics), but to try to understand it as it is, that being the universe and all it entails.

By the way, have you ever noticed that descriptions of "spiritual things" are about as clear as scientific definitions for time, etc.?

It is clear that our understanding is limited, and we must seek the "answers" sincerely and with an open mind.

These are just some of my thoughts on this subject,

Ward

Perhaps it would be better to provide a context for this discussion by restating the topic. After all, they say that the solution lies in correctly stating a problem.

‘It work's for me...'

To begin with, energy is a fundamental indefinable in Physics - the word originates from the Greek ‘energos' or active, which is derived from ‘en' = in + ‘ergon' = work...hey, there's something going on here! We still have no scientific idea of what ‘energy' actually is only what it does. You could think of it as a heuristic term, describing the how, where, and when of ‘something' -- to some extent anyhow - with certain mechanical (measurable) properties.



‘There seems to be no end to it...'

Whatever it is, the universe, as we know it is full of it -- literally made of the stuff - and it manifests itself in many different ways. <Maestro, if you please> ‘They say it has potential -- then whiz - it's really movin', it's cruelest form is carrots & peas, sometimes it's really groovin', it makes the wheels turn in my head and warms the house when I'm in bed...<gasp>... it starts our cars and fuels the stars, women are from Venus and men are from Mars...<now with a halftime feel>...and it has a Special, accelerated proclivity of increasing inertia and Relativity, and Generally speaking it has it's place in dragging time & warping space, it could be WIMPy or with HALO round, but it's mostly hiding and can't be found, and even in a particular way asymmetry seems to have lead astray, our Standard Model isn't replete with all the recipes at our feet, and through it's conservation makes, organic life here common place...Yeah that's - ‘It'?

Ok, I got a little carried away, but the point is we don't have a fundamental, scientific explanation of ‘what' is doing this work, only descriptions of the phenomenology, and our descriptions are not complete even though there are many.

‘That sounds like a lot of work...'

Posit: Is it plausible then, according to current scientific knowledge, a force or energy (something that performs work) exists which hasn't been described scientifically (for which no equation of state exists), which may or may not interact with all matter uniquely and in terms of organic matter specifically, would interact in proportion to complexity, and therefore as our mental state affects our physical condition - which it does -- would affect our interaction with said force or energy? Certainly our perception would affect our observation and awareness of such a hypothetical force or energy, as we aren't even cognizant of the billions of neutrinos that are passing through us as we read this, and specifically, there are many ‘mechanical' things that we become aware of only as trained martial artists. For instance, if you aren't aware of the need to relax your muscles, then you'll never be able to move any part of your body quickly and with power. You get the idea...

‘May the Work-Force be with you...(hey sounds like Capitalism)'

Ki, as a label for this proposed energy or force, is a subject of inquiry that is still open, with no contrary, empirical scientific evidence to refute it. As for the who, what, and why of ‘energy'...I'll leave you with that to wrap your noodle around...

Food for thought,

Ward

Just when we were getting to the good stuff, everyone gets bored! It must be more important to talk about punching people (33 posts), why I like to have sex after class (58 posts), or how tough Steven Seagal really is (65 posts). I guess I kind of like this nerdy stuff, you know, "science". Okay rant over, but first I have only two words to say to Ward:

You rock!

The song was geeky, but Hey! it was still cool.

You have given me a ton of "stuff" (that is a highly scientific term, you know) to look up, ponder, assimilate and validate in my practice. There is a theory that the human brain can actually register quantum fluctuations, and that this may account for intuitive flashes and some forms of ESP. This opens many cans of worms:

Did Ueshiba have this intuitive ability and did he register subatomic fluctuations?

Did Ueshiba not have this ability but did see it in Onisaburo Deguchi and his teachings, and did he transplant them into his fledgling art of Aikido?

Did Ueshiba speak of ki in a way that would later be validated by quantum physics by his design, or was he merely propagating the same intuitive ideas of a binding energy pervasive in different forms of Oriental mysticism, such as Shingon Buddhism?

This is really a fascinating topic with all sorts of interesting details, perhaps the most being the reconciliation of Ueshiba's mystical symbology with cutting-edge scientific discoveries. Unfortunately most of the juicy stuff that could be discussed will probably be glossed over so that the parties involved can sit entrenched in their dogma and rattle their sabres at the guys over in the other trenches. This means that treasure-house of knowledge that is the scientific mind of Ward will be ignored.

Thank you Ward, you opened my mind a bit more.

Jim Vance

My 2 cents.

I've read the post but I find it generally lacking (yet interesting), just like science is often lacking in explaining experiences. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against science, it's a valuable tool, but that's all it is to me. I've been an electrical engineer for 5 years now, and I've studied quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetic wave theory, and all that jazz. What it made me realize, is that science is lacking. That a lot of things in science are taken on faith (excuse me axioms, and hypothesis), and that it is a secular religion.

I also don't agree with the point on explaining occult phenomenon using science. What people want is to have a "Ki Meter" on their wrist and see their Ki output during class. I personally don't feel this is going to happen. We have a tendency in this culture to use whatever modern theory exists to explain the occult. Whether it's Messmer and his Magnets, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory or Einstein's quantum mechanics we try to gain security and validity (from the intellectual community) for these phenomena by playing by their rules.

I don't think that Ki is an energy (KE= .5mv^2, PE= mgh) or a force (F=ma) or that aura's are truly magnetic or electric. These are metaphors. Just like explaining an electric circuit using a plumbing system as an analogy. There are certain correspondences and correlations because nature rules are redundant for the most part, but they are merely analogies.

Besides everyone knows that Ki is more closely link to the event of Consciousness/Mind (and yes a rock has consciousness), and that this Consciousness is independent of a brain or vessels for that part. The ether that occultist & scientist used to talk about is actually Mind/Consciousness permeating existence. You would be better off looking into Holographic memory, Jungian psychology; MRI/PET scans of people practicing Aikido with Ki and without Ki.

Remember the body is in the spirit; the spirit is not in the body.

Just my two cents.

Lost Ghost wrote: I've read the post but I find it generally lacking (yet interesting), just like science is often lacking in explaining experiences....

If this is a polite way to say that you think what you have read so far is stupid, I don't appreciate it. Please be more specific in your invalidations.

Ghost wrote: I've been an electrical engineer for 5 years now... a lot of things in science are taken on faith... it is a secular religion.

Does this mean you are a priest? Do you take what you do at your job on faith or can you identify and quantify it in a practical manner?

Ghosty then wrote: I also don't agree with the point on explaining occult phenomenon using science. What people want is to have a "Ki Meter" on their wrist and see their Ki output during class.

What the...!!??

That was the point of the original post, that Ki could possibly be identified with subatomic energy rather than a mystical force. No one on this entire thread has talked about occult phenomena, so who cares whether or not you agree with it! It's nice to have a forum where everyone can throw in their two cents, but please don't try to break your bank getting at it. If you want to talk about intelligent things, then talk intelligently, don't muddy the waters.

Ghost Fox wrote: Besides everyone knows that Ki is more closely link to the event of Consciousness/Mind (and yes a rock has consciousness), and that this Consciousness is independent of a brain or vessels for that part. The ether that occultist & scientist used to talk about is actually Mind/Consciousness permeating existence.

Would you do us all a favor and tell us what you mean? Maybe just put a link or two to a website that will explain it. I am sorry if this is coming across as harsh, but goodness, it's like being told I am going to see the Cirque du Soleil and when I get there, it's a sad faced man with his pants around his ankles having his face sprayed with seltzer water from a monkey on a bike.

BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY!

Jim Vance

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: If this is a polite way to say that you think what you have read so far is stupid, I don't appreciate it. Please be more specific in your invalidations. Jim Vance

Hello Jim,

Are you okay? Nowhere did I call anyone stupid. I think all the post where very well written by people with very high credentials in the scientific community. I merely was saying that I don't believe science can explain everything. By science I mean the philosophy based upon the works of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Where science is used by people to give meaning and structure to their lives. In no way was I calling anyone stupid

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: Does this mean you are a priest? Do you take what you do at your job on faith or can you identify and quantify it in a practical manner?What the...!!?? Jim Vance

No, it does mean that I base my work on a science where I never saw an electron, or and electromagnetic wave where in reality several other explanation can be used to explain the same phenomenon but the only one prevailing paradigm is used.

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: That was the point of the original post, that Ki could possibly be identified with subatomic energy rather than a mystical force. No one on this entire thread has talked about occult phenomena, so who cares whether or not you agree with it! It's nice to have a forum where everyone can throw in their two cents, but please don't try to break your bank getting at it. If you want to talk about intelligent things, then talk intelligently, don't muddy the waters. Jim Vance

Sorry but ki is an occult phenomenon in the sense that it's covered or hidden from view, and most people in the scientific/medical community would see it that way. So, I guess the answer to your questions is no, I don't think ki could be identified with a subatomic particle. I never said Ki was mystical, just that it doesn't fall within the realm of segregative logic.

I'm sorry that you feel my opinion doesn't matter, but you seemed to be a little upset that no one was posting, so I gave you a response to why I wasn't. I didn't think I would be yelled at by a fellow Aikidoka, but then again I'm finding on this web that most people resort to verbal violence under the slightest provocation.

To me philosophy, psychology and occultism are very intelligent matters. If occult science wasn't important people like Pythagoras, Newton, Locke, Kant etc… wouldn't have studied so deeply into the occult sciences. Read Bardon's "Introduction to Hermetics" I think you would find it very interesting.

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: Maybe just put a link or two to a website that will explain it. Jim Vance

URL=www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html]www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html[/url]

www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

www.islandnet.com/~licht/synchronicity.htm

www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/04_02.html

cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/Phil255/Phil255.week9.html

moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/intro.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Descartes.html

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: I am sorry if this is coming across as harsh, Jim Vance

I don't worry about it. I don't mind the fact that my character an intellect was attacked and belittled because I voiced my opinions. I should have known who I was my fault. Have a great day Jim, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY!

Keep your voice down.

Hello Damion,

I don't know exactly which post(s) you were referring to originally, but perhaps you should reread mine, since you're reiterating points, in part, included therein. I urge you to think about it first, thoroughly and deeply. Of course you're free to believe whatever you wish. However, one of the points of my posts is that we have to look at our own way of thinking about anything very carefully and honestly, whether it's ‘scientific' or Zen - it is the introspective paradox of the human condition [and essential for any martial artist]. Simply making statements of belief without qualifying or substantiating them isn't productive.

Since you didn't illustrate it concisely, what exactly do you find 'lacking' in these posts? It is clear that you see science as a tool, but you don't seem to think that the scientific methodology is applicable in certain undefined categories of research. Why? How would you suggest investigating and verifying your statements? While it is true that an unqualified belief in the current scientific facts, and their inherent philosophies, may constitute a 'secular religion', it would be a fallacy to imply that the Scientific Method is - in application - a secular religion. For one, the term "secular religion" is an oxymoron; secularism is by definition not a religion in the first place - they form a dichotomy. Practitioners of either, on the other hand, can employ the Scientific Method.

You state your observation that science is 'lacking' something, then you list three classical equations as your basis for disbelief in what Ki may or may not be (a hypothetical form of energy or force), even though science - even since my last post - still doesn't know what energy is (yet all of science is based on this fundamental indefinable). That is circular reasoning...an inconsistent recursive statement - ah that Godel or is it the Anthropic Principle? Our knowledge of how energy manifests itself isn't complete, and therefore, may not be used as a conclusive basis for what constitutes a ‘force or energy'. This is what I implied in referring to Weakly Interacting Massive Particles & Halo's (an observable cosmological indicator constraining Dark Energy theories -- in theory anyway). We seem to be missing a lot of ‘It'.

In addition, even though some people refer to Ki metaphorically as an ‘energy or force', that does not make it so a priori or posteriori. Some people use those terms literally, and since Ki is still an open subject of inquiry, there isn't any empirical evidence or logical argument which suggests either of these statements are mutually exclusive.

What makes an unexplained or even hypothetical phenomenon 'occult'? There are many incidents in the history of "science", in which the accepted science of the era turned out to be "occult" rather than factual. This is a counterpoint to your assertion that occult phenomenon shouldn't be explained by science - who decides?

'Besides everyone knows Ki is...' - as a counter example, the differing posts within this thread suffice. Truth isn't democratic, please refer to the previous paragraph.

Please don't take any of this the wrong way Damion, this is how we grow -- throwing each other back and forth. I look forward to your responses on this matter, perhaps we'll have a little clarity yet.

Cheers,

Ward

Gosh Ward, you write really well. No, I mean that, I feel like a chump looking at how I responded to Damion and then seeing how you did. I wanted to say the same things you did, I guess I just didn't get the words right. I am still pretty young and hot-headed, so I think with my mouth a lot of times rather than "think about [the question] first, thoroughly and deeply" and then respond.

I apologize for the harsh tone earlier, I see now that I could have been more effective while maintaining a better "posture" in my response. No hard feelings Damion, I was not trying to attack you personally. It's important to me to keep a very clear line of thought in regard to this subject, since it resides at the borders of the known, and can fall prey to all sorts of odd beliefs. In my earlier posts, I was trying to understand the "specialized" definition of ki inherent in Aikido and how it related to the "mainstream" definition in Japan. Maybe from there we can bridge the gap into Western thought and onto the bleeding edge of scientific research, replete with its own odd beliefs.

Here's a question: If it could be, what is one way Ki could be identified through the scientific method? Is this the same ki that Ueshiba talked about, was passed on to Tohei, and now resides in the minds of Westerners practicing Aikido?

Jim Vance

Just thought I drop by... I haven't read most of the post but...

Although I do agree that it is not impossible to explain Ki scientifically, I personally don't see the need to. When I do explain to others about Ki, I do go explaining it to them from the physical and go into the mental and spiritual aspects of it when they are ready.

Everything is Ki, wether it is physical strength or something that goes beyond this relative world. Consider something like gravity, gravity is Ki. We were all taught that gravity is equal to something like 9.8 m/s^2, but that is not constant, it is relative to the location and/or situation, it is the "small g". Science has now defined a gravitational constant, which is the "big G", quite a small number and they are still calculating it.

When we are talking about the "big G", the gravitational pull between me and this remote control in front of me and the gravitational pull between me and the sun is actually the same. This "big G" is true for our relations in this earth and it is even true for our relation outside the solar system. It is one proof that we are all connected, even to a distant star.

What if there is a universal energy or force that is not relative to anything, like how gravity is with the "big G". Let's say this universal energy is called Ki and it exists in all things. And this Ki connects everything.

Ki, the ultimate element - indivisible. Even quarks are still divisible. But to "see" this is quite highly impropable. It's like keep dividing things in half, it won't reach zero, it will just go into infinity. I just contradicted myself there haven't I.

Science wants to see this "Ki". Isn't it enough just to feel it, know that it exists?

Scientific progress can be measured by the fall of occult pillers. A few wrong turns here and there (it is exploration after all) but every scientific premiss that has stood the test of time is one thing - reproducable. I don't have to see an electron but I can reproduce the experiments that led to the observations.

Frankly speaking the three Greek kings of philosophy were not scientists and neither was Newton - affectionately referred to as the last of the alchemists. At the time each was alive western medicine revolved around the humors of the body - one of which was basically equivilent to Ki. These pre-scientists were into observation but the idea of testable hypothesis was in its infancy during Newton's time. Once developed though, the power of progress was unstopable.

Question for the believers of Ki - do you also beleive in http://www.sheridanhill.com/humors.html

Careful how you answer - old Marco Polo wasn't the first cross-cultural traveller.

A further note as I digest my Ramen.

When I say believe in Ki I don't mean it's use as analogy of either physical or mental processes Its a potentially powerful tool in this respect although I prefer a more pragmatic approach. What I do mean is Ki as a concept which is un-explainable through the scientific process - the mystical Ki.

Like all mystism - what qualified became more and more narrow as our scientific understanding of nature increased. 150 years ago freak weather was an act of God now its El nino.

Frankly speaking the three Greek kings of philosophy were not scientists and neither was Newton - affectionately referred to as the last of the alchemists. At the time each was alive western medicine revolved around the humors of the body - one of which was basically equivilent to Ki. These pre-scientists were into observation but the idea of testable hypothesis was in its infancy during Newton's time. Once developed though, the power of progress was unstopable

Peter--Newton wasn't a physician, nor did he aspire to be as far as I know, so the "humors of the body" weren't exactly his thing. You're not quite correct regarding testable hypotheses in his time. Newton produced his 3 laws of motion, the easiest to write is his second, f=ma, but there are equations for all of them. They're not only testable, they work for all but quantum phenomena and those that take place at large fractions of the speed of light. Newton, by the way, while uninterested in humours, also invented calculus which still works quite well.

Everything is Ki, wether it is physical strength or something that goes beyond this relative world. Consider something like gravity, gravity is Ki. We were all taught that gravity is equal to something like 9.8 m/s^2, but that is not constant, it is relative to the location and/or situation, it is the "small g". Science has now defined a gravitational constant, which is the "big G", quite a small number and they are still calculating it.

Thalib--the "big G" is simply the gravitational constant, one of the several terms in the gravity equation, which gives the force of the gravitational attraction between two masses m1 and m2 as:

F=Gm1m2/r^2, where r is the distance between the centers of the two masses.

You only get an really significant value for the Force of gravity if at least one of the masses is very large, like a planet or a moon, because the value of G is so small. Gravity is a very weak force, comparatively speaking.

Newton also "discovered" this formula, along with "big G". To say that "science has NOW defined a gravitational constant . . ." might give the mis-impression that this constant has been only recently defined/discovered, which is not the case.

"Little g" is commonly used to denote the acceleration of EARTH gravity at the earth's surface, and it is calculated as

g=Gm(earth)/d^2(earth)=9.8 m/sec^2=32.2 ft/sec^2.

The acceleration does vary as you get further away from the center of the earth, but that isn't because of a lack of precision in the science or the value of G--it's a fixed relationship that Newton wrote in 1686, and which is still adequate to predict the motion of all the heavenly bodies we observe. Ki was not discussed.

I'd also point out that if Ki is a separate force as pervasive as gravity, it must be vanishingly weak, since gravity itself is extremely weak and yet it alone quite accurately accounts for all motion of large massive bodies. For Ki to also be in play but not observable indicates it must be weaker still by several orders of magnitude.

I'd think we all hoped Ki would be somewhat more noticeable, so perhaps something besides Newtonian or Quantum physics would be more useful for defining it. This math doesn't get you the answer you expect.

Paul

Never said he did - I've actually read quite a bit of his work including some first edition texts. If you read my post I carefully said "at the time he was alive". The scientific method was in it's infancy - in fact I have no argument with the statement that "he was one of the founders".

Newton was into a lot of things besides apples. His list of interests include alchemy, numerology, religion, astronomy, astrology. Link for those interested.

http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

Paul Clark wrote: Peter--Newton wasn't a physician, nor did he aspire to be as far as I know, so the "humors of the body" weren't exactly his thing. You're not quite correct regarding testable hypotheses in his time. Newton produced his 3 laws of motion, the easiest to write is his second, f=ma, but there are equations for all of them. They're not only testable, they work for all but quantum phenomena and those that take place at large fractions of the speed of light. Newton, by the way, while uninterested in humours, also invented calculus which still works quite well.

Sorry, intended to clarify, wasn't pointing fingers. All in the name of education. . .

speaking of which, how do you guys make those little boxes that are titled "Paul Clark wrote"??

Paul

Jim Vance (jimvance) wrote: Here's a question: If it could be, what is one way Ki could be identified through the scientific method? Is this the same ki that Ueshiba talked about, was passed on to Tohei, and now resides in the minds of Westerners practicing Aikido? Jim Vance

Like I said before, I personally thing ki has more to do with a mental state then with a kind of energy (of course I can be wrong).

In order to prove my hypothesis I suggest measuring the brain waves and brain activity of highly proficient Aikidoka (both uke and nage) before and after they practice.

We could see if during practice they enter an Alpha or Delta state of consciousness. Also we can see what areas of the brain become most stimulated during the practice of aikido. As well as if there is any brain synchroniztion between uke and nage.

It would also be interested to use SQUIDS to measure quantum fluctuations like you mentioned before.

What will it prove, maybe nothing. But that's what research is all about.



P.S. No worries about the previous incident.

Peace and Blessings.

So what is Ki? Is it consciousness or is it a quantifiable phenomena? Damion, you did say that Ki resides in consciousness, but in post #28 on this thread, you also describe it as a type of energy.

My interest doesn't really focus on the ki as energy model (personally), because I already use a more Western, "scientific" symbology. I am not saying using the Eastern terminology is better or worse, just different. I think this is where the argument in this thread rests (when we are not expounding on Newton or other proponents of the scientific method).

How was the concept of "ki" perceived in the lands of its birth, how did it change when Ueshiba (under the influence of Deguchi) invented Aikido, and how did Tohei envision it when he was the primary ambassador of Aikido to the United States? This has more to do with Ward's Anthropic Principle and how to bridge the cultural gap between East and West rather than spout flowery, dogmatic, and/or intuitive realizations of what each forum member has been taught about ki.

If we are going to do experiments using brain wave patterns of Aikidoists, then what is it we are looking for? How does that compare with what Western science has already told us?

Oh yeah, what the heck is SQUIDS?

Jim Vance

Paul Clark wrote: Sorry, intended to clarify, wasn't pointing fingers. All in the name of education. . .

No problem if you did - nature of the forums.

speaking of which, how do you guys make those little boxes that are titled "Paul Clark wrote"??

In the upper right corner of the message you want to quote there is a reply with quote icon. Press that and then cutting and pasting the quote end quote commands allows you to quote comment quote comment. Makes things much clearer. Of course the first few times Preview the reply before sending.

Peter Rehse (PeterR) wrote: No problem if you did - nature of the forums. In the upper right corner of the message you want to quote there is a reply with quote icon. Press that and then cutting and pasting the quote end quote commands allows you to quote comment quote comment. Makes things much clearer. Of course the first few times Preview the reply before sending.

aha, figured it had to be something obvious!

Jim Vance wrote: I think this is where the argument in this thread rests (when we are not expounding on Newton or other proponents of the scientific method).

Just testing the newly-illuminated tao of posting with quotes. No Newton this time, Einstein either.

Thanks

Paul