Chi?

Gisteron wrote:

Tarran wrote: But as far as the creationary energy aspects of physical bodies, yes, there is a Yin and a Yang involved. The procreational equipment is different for each, and so are the creational/generative energies. It's how the Universe works, ...

Please, elaborate:

What are creational/generative energies, and what about them is different for each between the "Yin" and the "Yang" varieties?

If (and only if) by the capital-U Universe you mean the universe we happen to share between us, what about said universe is it that works in this way, and what is this way that it works, anyway?

I'm not entirely certain that I fully understand the question (my sincere apologies... I'm generally about as sharp as a bag of wet mice, truly, so do please forgive it ), but I'll give answering it a try...

The difference, speaking of these energies, is in their "Yin-ness" and their "Yang-ness"... some may often make the mistake to think that these are "positive" and "negative", but it isn't that way. It's more of a direction of flow. For example, in the posts further up in this thread, I'd mentioned how the bio-electromagnetic field is the template of what the flow of the bio-electromotive force courses along - and that there are two main polar directions of flow.

I hope this answers this

It does not, though this may be in part because the question itself was not specific enough. Thank you for your attempt at addressing it, though, and, if you'll indulge me, we can try and go deeper from here. I purposely didn't comment on the posts from five years ago, precisely because of their age and - possibly - relevance. Certainly far from everything I might have said five years ago I'd double down on now, but I'll happily hear any challenge to what ever I do reiterate - or say newly altogether - now.


And since you are referencing them, let's talk about your magnetism analogy, shall we...

The difference between a magnetic field in one direction and a field in the opposite direction is not so much in what colour we paint them or what labels we give them, but in the way they influence the motion of charged particles. If you know the mass-to-charge ratio and momentum of a particle flying into a zone with a magnetic field, you can predict how the particle's momentum will change at any one instant, even what points inside the zone it will explore and when and where it will leave the zone again, if ever. One of the simplest applications is, for instance, analyzing the composition of gases using mass spectrometry. This can be used to warn people in closed environments, when the air they are breathing is becoming toxic to them, though, admittedly, there are more efficient ways of doing that. Another application some of our older users might remember are the cathode ray tubes that were a very common method of delivering images to computer and television screens just a few decades ago.

My point is that having an understanding of electromagnetism can and does have enormous use to us as a civilization. Knowing the "polarity" of charges and magnetic fields we can make testable predictions about observable events. If you ask me what the difference is between a magnetic field pointing east and one pointing west, I can tell you exactly what the practical implications are, I can even give you mathematical expressions fit to predict the behaviours described to a higher accuracy than would leave you worried about errors. So if Chi is anything like electromagnetism - biological or otherwise - it stands to reason that there would be some practical, observable difference between "Yin-ness" and "Yang-ness", does it not?

Now, of course, maybe our study of Chi hasn't progressed quite as far as to produce a theory as robust as classical electrodynamics (imperfect though it, too, is). And even then I mustn't expect any one individual to have all the answers just any more than I'd expect them to know Maxwell's theory. Surely, though, if we are going to draw a distinction between the "Yin-like" and "Yang-like" variety of these "creational/generative energies" (what ever they are), this distinction had better be based on at least some actual difference we can point at, right? Else it'd be literally a distinction without a difference.
:silly:

WOW!! LOL

Yeah, that sure was a mouthful, thanks!

But yeah, the magnet/paper/iron filings analogy was just that, an analogy - to Qi itself, the *field*... the "Yin-ness" and "Yang-ness" was pertaining to Jing, the motive force, which runs along the field, but is not the field itself. The Qi field is the conduit for Jing. Polarity of essence, and direction of flow, was pertaining to Jing.

Beyond that, whatever work I've personally done in these things, I'm certain I lack the vocabulary and am ill-equipped to explain much further on this... however, if it's within you to research more on this (assuming your interest here is out of wanting to learn more), you might try one of the online virtual kwoon sites, such as wong kiew kit (dot com) for example, or other Shaolin forums that deal with internal form T'ai Qi Quan. I hope this helps!

Another fun way to think about it is as sleepy (Yin) and (Yang) roused.

Adder wrote: Another fun way to think about it is as sleepy (Yin) and (Yang) roused.

OMG, YES!! Excellent analogy!!

One's more sluggish and muddy, and the other is more zingy and clear lol

It's quite alright, I think if there was a practical application of this distinction you knew about, you'd have mentioned it. If I wanted reliable information about electromagnetism, spiritualist fora would also not be the place to look, but rather research publications, and (at this point also) text books. And one could also reproduce more or less all (bar available resources, that is) of the experiments described and referenced to back up individual assertions, at the end of the day. After all, the assertions are about something real that can actually be practically useful, so of course they are testable, and the results can be subsequently presented for future reference and review. I suspect that if the Chi you believe in is anything at all like that, you could point me to the actual natural observation "Yin-like creational/generative energy" would appear distinct in from "Yang-like creational/generative energy", rather than direct me to what someone else somewhere else says about it. Thus, the options left to conclude for me are - with all due respect - either that this is nonsense in general, or that you don't know what you are talking about in particular, or both. For now, at any rate, I'm comfortable speaking to people who are here about what they think they understand about this, rather than someone else somewhere else. If people from elsewhere wish to contribute something to this discussion, they are welcome to register and speak their mind, of course, but I generally wouldn't consider them authoritative sources on your beliefs.

Gisteron wrote: It's quite alright, I think if there was a practical application of this distinction you knew about, you'd have mentioned it.

Not necessarily, no. I suppose it would depend on your definition of "practical".

Gisteron wrote: If I wanted reliable information about electromagnetism, spiritualist fora would also not be the place to look, but rather research publications, and (at this point also) text books.

Strictly speaking, the science surrounding electromagnetism and the science surrounding Qigong/Jing-Qi-Shen etc., are as "apples and oranges" - perhaps even so far as "bananas and carburators" lol

But, should you be interested in a textbook on the subject of Qi/Jing, etc., this one would perhaps be best...

"T'ai Chi Classics (Shambhala Classics)" by Waysun Liao
ISBN-10: 1570627495
ISBN-13: 978-1570627491

Gisteron wrote: And one could also reproduce more or less all (bar available resources, that is) of the experiments described and referenced to back up individual assertions, at the end of the day. After all, the assertions are about something real that can actually be practically useful, so of course they are testable, and the results can be subsequently presented for future reference and review.

It's all out there, if the desire to research it is truly within you. Again, the above-mentioned text would be an excellent start.

Gisteron wrote: I suspect that if the Chi you believe in is anything at all like that, you could point me to the actual natural observation "Yin-like creational/generative energy" would appear distinct in from "Yang-like creational/generative energy", rather than direct me to what someone else somewhere else says about it.

As for my "belief", it is not a belief within me, but my experience with facts - here in the far east, such things have been known as actual fact for over five thousand years. My not providing "proof", as it seems you require (perhaps I may be mistaken here), is due to the fact that I, no matter my experiences, am certainly no Master, no authority, nor expert - and my input here is only for offering more ways for anyone here interested to continue learning further, on these things. So yes, of course, I would point out other resources of those who know far, far more than I, on such things. This thread, after all, is but a discussion - not a school.

Gisteron wrote: Thus, the options left to conclude for me are - with all due respect - either that this is nonsense in general, or that you don't know what you are talking about in particular, or both.

I see... it seems your intentions in correspondence with me in this thread is not to find more resources to learn from - but rather to quash, through banter (however seemingly light-hearted), the entire concept of this as false, fake, or in some way a "misguided pseudo science". I hear you. That's fine. However, I'm not interested in trying to win any such arguments. There is nothing to win here. I sincerely hope our conversation here has not resulted in any animosity between you and I, to whatever degree. I never meant to breed disrespect.

Gisteron wrote: For now, at any rate, I'm comfortable speaking to people who are here about what they think they understand about this, rather than someone else somewhere else.

Sorry - I only thought that if I was ill-equipped to further explain, I ought to point the way to my betters. I had originally hoped you were asking these things in order to learn further, and so I did so. I see now that I was mistaken, and will not offer anything further.

Gisteron wrote: If people from elsewhere wish to contribute something to this discussion, they are welcome to register and speak their mind, of course, but I generally wouldn't consider them authoritative sources on your beliefs.

You seem rather upset... I did not mean to evoke such in you. Your stresses in text, italicization in ""your" beliefs"... I'm sorry if you're dissatisfied with my replies to your inquiries, but of course, I really can't take responsibility for that - after all, it's plain that your intents were not to learn more on this, but rather to position me into a "proven wrong" end of an argument.

Don't get me wrong here. That's fine, and not anything that makes anyone a bad person... it's a perfectly acceptable course of discussion. The mistake in not realizing such at first was mine. I wish I had put my words in some other way that didn't offend you, or place me in your view as a sort of argumental adversary. I truly am not. But what is done is done.

My initial input in this thread was only out of wanting to help - and for some, it had fulfilled its purpose.

If anyone (yourself included) truly wishes to learn more, the information to further seek more information to add to one's learning on this topic is above, as well as further up in this thread.

Sincere peace to you, Good Sibling... and may the Force be with you, always

Tarran wrote:

Gisteron wrote: It's quite alright, I think if there was a practical application of this distinction you knew about, you'd have mentioned it.

Not necessarily, no. I suppose it would depend on your definition of "practical".

It really wouldn't. To recap, Carlos asked about whether there was some gender-like distinction between... for lack of a better word (I am, after all, admittedly uneducated in this subject, so do bear with me, please) "type" of Chi, and you said yes. Then I asked what "creational/generative energies" are and what that difference between the Yin and Yang varieties was, and clarified that I meant a difference that one can actually point at or observe, since if it is anything at all like the distinction between charges or the directions of a magnetic field, that's what one would come back with. Yet...

Strictly speaking, the science surrounding electromagnetism and the science surrounding Qigong/Jing-Qi-Shen etc., are as "apples and oranges" - perhaps even so far as "bananas and carburators" lol

As it seems, I was mistaken in assuming that a fair comparison between electromagnetism and Chi could be made. So when you said and repeated that they were "kinda like" or "analogous in a way" to each other, what you really meant was that they are "a really poor comparison one might well be better off entirely avoiding".

It's all out there, if the desire to research it is truly within you. Again, the above-mentioned text would be an excellent start.

An excellent start would have been to say something like "Creational/generative energies are quantities that describe [insert observable phenomenon here]. The Yin variety makes it so [insert specific observation], while the Yang variety makes it so [insert other specific observation]." Another excellent start would have been to say "Truth be told, I have only heard that there were these two varieties, but I really don't know what the difference is. However, there is a chapter about it in [insert book reference here], perhaps that might be of help to you.". Perhaps this is how you meant it, and in that case fair enough.

Recently I actually had to read up on bio-electromagnetism. If memory serves, it was a thread here about a short independent science fiction film about a human society with a telepathic majority, derailed at the time to be about how real or realistic telepathy of the depicted scope was in the actual world. While my overall point I made before reading up on the things I might have forgotten since the days I took an introduction to neurobiology stood when I came back, I had to retract some of the arguments I would have made in support of my position, because my estimation of the orders of magnitude was incorrect. Of course I could have name dropped the chapters from Campbell's Biology text book and perhaps another reference for a basic introduction to radio-electrics and optics, said "If you really care about my position, educate yourselves.", and left it at that. I just don't think it would have been as productive towards progressing the discussion, as helpful or informative to my interlocutors and other readers, or as educational to myself. Perhaps as much as you question the sincerity with which I query you about this subject, I too can with some fairness question your curiosity about it...

As for my "belief", it is not a belief within me, but my experience with facts - here in the far east, such things have been known as actual fact for over five thousand years.

Perhaps they have been. And yet, when I ask what the fact even is (or what fact there even is, for that matter), I am directed to ask someone else, someone, I presume, who is either in possession of such knowledge, or merely more willing to share it, be that out of a sense of charity or moral duty, than the one directly asked.

My not providing "proof", as it seems you require (perhaps I may be mistaken here), is due to the fact that I, no matter my experiences, am certainly no Master, no authority, nor expert - and my input here is only for offering more ways for anyone here interested to continue learning further, on these things. So yes, of course, I would point out other resources of those who know far, far more than I, on such things. (emphasis added)

Sure, I can appreciate that. If anything, this is something I should get into more of a habit doing myself. Often times I elect instead to present the information I found, rather than wait for my discussion partners to perform the same search I did, relying on them even bothering, but at least citing my sources is something I might do well doing more often. Hats off to you for doing so. What I find missing - and this may be a matter of taste, admittedly - is... well, the point the source is cited for. Like where I come from one would normally say something, and then use the reference to direct people who want to find out more about what was being said. As you say yourself, for those interested to continue learning further. What I struggle then to understand is what "further" means, if no attempt at delivering even an abridged or simplified message has been made. Like I have nothing here that anchors my interest in the book. I'm sure it says some things, maybe even interesting ones, but since you say nothing about the "creational/generative energies" and their "Yin-ness" and "Yang-ness" at all, I don't know what the book is even supposed to back up or further expand on. "Further" than what?

it seems your intentions in correspondence with me in this thread is not to find more resources to learn from - but rather to quash, through banter (however seemingly light-hearted), the entire concept of this as false, fake, or in some way a "misguided pseudo science".

I'd be lying if I said that this is not what I think of it based on everything I have ever heard or read anyone say about Chi, so I shan't try and deny it. However, to point this out was not strictly my intention. My question was sincere, and I granted genuinely that it was phrased too imprecisely at first. Your response after the clarification begun and ended with introducing further jargon, presumably one to replace the earlier still unclarified label of "creational/generative energies" with "Jing", but without an actual answer to the question what that was, or what difference there was between the Yin-like and the Yang-like variety. It was not until after you clearly understood the questions and elected to make no attempt at responding to either, that my suspicion rose that what ever substance - actual or even just in the philosophical traditions - there might have been to what you were saying, you yourself might not have much of a clue of it. And you admitted as much, too, right after, so I see nothing to get offended by here. It wasn't until after you did so that I expressed a suspicion of this sort.

I sincerely hope our conversation here has not resulted in any animosity between you and I, to whatever degree.

Not at all!
I can be rough around the edges but I seldom hold grudges, or mean ill. Even when we might find ourselves on opposide sides of an issue, you will always at most be an opponent to me, never an enemy.

Sorry - I only thought that if I was ill-equipped to further explain, I ought to point the way to my betters. I had originally hoped you were asking these things in order to learn further, and so I did so. I see now that I was mistaken, and will not offer anything further.

Well, before I can go on and learn "further", I'd like first to have something more than nothing at all to start with. To know, as it were, what it is that I am even looking for, what we are talking about. What observation pertaining to creational/generative energies can I make that would make me identify with a greater reliability than chance, that it was a manifestation of the "Yin-like" and not the "Yang-like" variety that time, or vice versa? I'm not asking for the whole theory, that would be part of the "further" research. As I said in an earlier post, I don't expect that the knowledge we have about these things is particularly robust, or that you individually have a comprehensive understanding of it, but if you can give me at least something that doesn't sound like you are making it up on the fly the way "it is kind of like electromagnetism but also nothing like electromagnetism" does, maybe I'll have something to explore - or indeed to chat with you about. It is, after all, as you say, a discussion forum - not a library.

I think there might be a relationship between Qi and electromagnetism. I had a device which seemed to be able to find acupoints. The thing seemed to work 98% of the time.
You'd have to have a circuit by holding it a certain way and touching the patient, while moving the device around where the acupoint should be, until it found the point. It didn't appear to be random or any other fake mechanism, and could find complex acupoint locations like ones that lay close to each other etc.
I still have it but its seen better days and I haven't gotten around to fixing it..... so I can't test it. You can probably get one yourself, its called the Acuhealth Professional.
It would be pretty funny if it were a fraud, considering how effective it seemed to be in point location. As to its effectiveness in treatment, that I cannot comment on...

So a quick viewing of the acuhealth professional shows that all it does is provide a tiny amount of current out of two probes. It's like those muscle stimulation pads. There is 0 magnetism involved.