QI ,yin and yang research

April 27, 2010

Dear All .

I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and Yang

,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not

find scientific research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help

me to the site or researches papers.

regards.

Fadaie

April 28, 2010

Mercurius,

is " orgone energy " the same thing as Qi, in your view?

K

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus <

magisterium_magnum wrote:

>

> Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich.

>

> -

> " majid fadaie " <majidfadaie51 <majidfadaie51%40>>

> To:

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

> >

> Cc: " p al " <pa-l <pa-l%40>>

> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 AM

> QI ,yin and yang research

>

> Dear All .

>

> I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and Yang

>

> ,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not find scientific

> research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help me to the

> site or researches papers.

>

> regards.

> Fadaie

>

April 28, 2010

Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich.

-

" majid fadaie " <majidfadaie51

Cc: " p al " <pa-l >

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 AM

QI ,yin and yang research

Dear All .

I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and Yang

,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not find scientific

research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help me to the

site or researches papers.

regards.

Fadaie

April 28, 2010

I wouldn't say they are " identical, " from an epistemological standpoint.

However, that would be a really interesting book to read, vis a vis this

topic. ( " Cosmic Superimposition. " )

From an ontological standpoint, one might be able to consider an equivalence

between the two. The problem is that " orgone " should be defined strictly in

terms of Reich's theories and " discoveries. " (Since scientific knowledge is

by definition not possible, I use the word " discoveries " somewhat loosely

here.) But basically, we should take " qi " as " that which is described as

the primary life energy in TCM. " Or something like that. And " orgone " as

" that which is described as the primary life energy in Orgonomy. " So, from

that strict theoretical standpoint, I would say they should not be

considered identical.

But from the standpoint of our first person subjective experience, both

perspectives are, imo helpful in leading us in the direction of the ultimate

phenomenon which is described by both theories.

Reich is great. He's part of what led me down the road to my present

course. I probably know more about Orgonomy than I do about TCM. LOL.

Although in fairness there's probably a heck of a lot more to know about

TCM.

-

" " <johnkokko

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:57 PM

Re: QI ,yin and yang research

> Mercurius,

> is " orgone energy " the same thing as Qi, in your view?

>

> K

>

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus <

> magisterium_magnum wrote:

>

>>

>> Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich.

>>

>> -

>> " majid fadaie " <majidfadaie51

>> <majidfadaie51%40>>

>> To:

>>

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

>> >

>> Cc: " p al " <pa-l <pa-l%40>>

>> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 AM

>> QI ,yin and yang research

>>

>> Dear All .

>>

>> I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and

>> Yang

>>

>> ,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not find

>> scientific

>> research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help me to the

>> site or researches papers.

>>

>> regards.

>> Fadaie

>>

April 28, 2010

By the way, the " Aether Theory " is hardly limited to Reich. It has a long

tradition in the west and has only relatively recently been abandoned by the

respectable establishment. (On false grounds, btw.)

The " Aether Drift " experiment ostensibly provided Michealson and Morley with

null data for aether drift, thus " disproving " the Aether Theory, in favor of

" Quantum Theory. " Which is really just a bunch of nonsense made up by

Einstein. (Quantum Theory and General Relativity are not even compatible

with each other.)

However, the TRUTH of the matter is that the Michealson Morley " Aether

Drift " experiment did NOT produce a null result. It produced a POSITIVE

result for Aether Drift. The problem was that it was not considered to be

statistically significant. Plans were made to follow up on this experiment

with a much more sensitive interferometer at a location high above sea

level, but the follow up never happened.

Until a student of Michealson and Morley named Dayton Miller built his own

interferometer at a location high above sea level. Guess what. 25 years of

statistically significant data in FAVOR of Aether Drift. However, in the

meantime, the establishment had seized upon Einsten and his theories. C'est

la vie.

People always tweak out on me on this topic, so I will save them the effort.

Yes, I know that interplanetary probes and satellites are directed using

quantum theory to calculate how to get them there. Yes, I know that quantum

theory is approximately accurate within certain parameters. (This is a

polite way of saying NOT accurate.) Neither quantum theory nor general

relativity have ever been claimed to be Unified Field Theories. In fact

they are not.

And no, I do not reject Einstein's theories out of anti-semitism. Reich was

jewish too, and I think he's awesome. Einstein had alot of positive things

to say, for instance that peace is good.

Quantum theory is based on the idea that " things " are primary, or more

primordial than energy. In physics, this theory contradicts itself,

inasmuch as all matter is energy. However, not all energy is matter.

It is plainly demonstrated that energy is " more primordial " than matter if

we view things from the standpoint of process physics, which is the opposite

of quantum physics. There are no " things " in the universe, only events.

All phenomena occur in time, hence are not " objects, " but events, constantly

changing in " perpetual flux. " As Heraclitus said thousands of years ago,

" You can't step into the same river twice. "

Intro to Process Physics:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

" Modern Scientific Theories of the Ancient Aether. "

General index of papers:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index.htm

Basically, " process physics " is a new name for aether theory. Also, don't

get me started on the " Second Law of Thermodynamics. " LOL.

I'll spare all of you my diatribe. Check out the following video. It's a

presentation by a physics prof at the University of San Diego on the " 2nd

Law. " He shows about 32 different ways the second law of thermodynamics

(That of " entropy. " ) can be interpreted. Basically, what it boils down to

is that you can't go backward in time. A happens before B and you can't

undo that in linear time. So really it's just meaningless. However, he

does show how the theory of entropy does not accurately portray the physical

universe. That " order " can " spontaneously " arise out of disorder and that

this energy is harvestable using " anti-entropic " technology. MORE MATERIAL

FOR THE 24 SEMESTER DOCTORATE! LOL.

http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc8/index.html

-

" Mercurius Trismegistus " <magisterium_magnum

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:09 AM

Re: QI ,yin and yang research

>I wouldn't say they are " identical, " from an epistemological standpoint.

> However, that would be a really interesting book to read, vis a vis this

> topic. ( " Cosmic Superimposition. " )

> From an ontological standpoint, one might be able to consider an

> equivalence

> between the two. The problem is that " orgone " should be defined strictly

> in

> terms of Reich's theories and " discoveries. " (Since scientific knowledge

> is

> by definition not possible, I use the word " discoveries " somewhat loosely

> here.) But basically, we should take " qi " as " that which is described as

> the primary life energy in TCM. " Or something like that. And " orgone " as

> " that which is described as the primary life energy in Orgonomy. " So,

> from

> that strict theoretical standpoint, I would say they should not be

> considered identical.

> But from the standpoint of our first person subjective experience, both

> perspectives are, imo helpful in leading us in the direction of the

> ultimate

> phenomenon which is described by both theories.

> Reich is great. He's part of what led me down the road to my present

> course. I probably know more about Orgonomy than I do about TCM. LOL.

> Although in fairness there's probably a heck of a lot more to know about

> TCM.

>

> -

> " " <johnkokko

> <Chinese Medicine >

> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:57 PM

> Re: QI ,yin and yang research

>

>> Mercurius,

>> is " orgone energy " the same thing as Qi, in your view?

>>

>> K

>>

>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus <

>> magisterium_magnum wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich.

>>>

>>> -

>>> " majid fadaie " <majidfadaie51

>>> <majidfadaie51%40>>

>>> To:

>>>

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

>>> >

>>> Cc: " p al " <pa-l <pa-l%40>>

>>> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 AM

>>> QI ,yin and yang research

>>>

>>> Dear All .

>>>

>>> I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and

>>> Yang

>>>

>>> ,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not find

>>> scientific

>>> research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help me to

>>> the

>>> site or researches papers.

>>>

>>> regards.

>>> Fadaie

>>>

April 28, 2010

Mercurius wrote:

" ...in favor of Quantum Theory. Which is really just a bunch of nonsense

made up by

Einstein. (Quantum Theory and General Relativity are not even compatible

with each other.) "

if we're going to teach this kind of physics in TCM college,

we need to get the facts straight..

Einstein didn't discover Quantum theory, not in his own mind or in others'

minds,

but engaged in philosophical arguments and discussions with Max Planck

initially,

Niels Bohr and others who veered physics in a new path...

Einstein credits Max Planck who credits Niels Bohr etc.

http://www.topbits.com/who-discovered-quantum-and-particle-physics.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_discovered_quantum_mechanics

If we start teaching " Aether theory " , will this raise our standing in the

medical world?

K

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus <

magisterium_magnum wrote:

>

> By the way, the " Aether Theory " is hardly limited to Reich. It has a long

> tradition in the west and has only relatively recently been abandoned by

> the

> respectable establishment. (On false grounds, btw.)

> The " Aether Drift " experiment ostensibly provided Michealson and Morley

> with

> null data for aether drift, thus " disproving " the Aether Theory, in favor

> of

> " Quantum Theory. " Which is really just a bunch of nonsense made up by

> Einstein. (Quantum Theory and General Relativity are not even compatible

> with each other.)

> However, the TRUTH of the matter is that the Michealson Morley " Aether

> Drift " experiment did NOT produce a null result. It produced a POSITIVE

> result for Aether Drift. The problem was that it was not considered to be

> statistically significant. Plans were made to follow up on this experiment

> with a much more sensitive interferometer at a location high above sea

> level, but the follow up never happened.

> Until a student of Michealson and Morley named Dayton Miller built his own

> interferometer at a location high above sea level. Guess what. 25 years of

> statistically significant data in FAVOR of Aether Drift. However, in the

> meantime, the establishment had seized upon Einsten and his theories. C'est

>

> la vie.

> People always tweak out on me on this topic, so I will save them the

> effort.

> Yes, I know that interplanetary probes and satellites are directed using

> quantum theory to calculate how to get them there. Yes, I know that quantum

>

> theory is approximately accurate within certain parameters. (This is a

> polite way of saying NOT accurate.) Neither quantum theory nor general

> relativity have ever been claimed to be Unified Field Theories. In fact

> they are not.

> And no, I do not reject Einstein's theories out of anti-semitism. Reich was

>

> jewish too, and I think he's awesome. Einstein had alot of positive things

> to say, for instance that peace is good.

> Quantum theory is based on the idea that " things " are primary, or more

> primordial than energy. In physics, this theory contradicts itself,

> inasmuch as all matter is energy. However, not all energy is matter.

> It is plainly demonstrated that energy is " more primordial " than matter if

> we view things from the standpoint of process physics, which is the

> opposite

> of quantum physics. There are no " things " in the universe, only events.

> All phenomena occur in time, hence are not " objects, " but events,

> constantly

> changing in " perpetual flux. " As Heraclitus said thousands of years ago,

> " You can't step into the same river twice. "

> Intro to Process Physics:

> http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

> " Modern Scientific Theories of the Ancient Aether. "

> General index of papers:

> http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index.htm

>

> Basically, " process physics " is a new name for aether theory. Also, don't

> get me started on the " Second Law of Thermodynamics. " LOL.

> I'll spare all of you my diatribe. Check out the following video. It's a

> presentation by a physics prof at the University of San Diego on the " 2nd

> Law. " He shows about 32 different ways the second law of thermodynamics

> (That of " entropy. " ) can be interpreted. Basically, what it boils down to

> is that you can't go backward in time. A happens before B and you can't

> undo that in linear time. So really it's just meaningless. However, he

> does show how the theory of entropy does not accurately portray the

> physical

> universe. That " order " can " spontaneously " arise out of disorder and that

> this energy is harvestable using " anti-entropic " technology. MORE MATERIAL

> FOR THE 24 SEMESTER DOCTORATE! LOL.

> http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc8/index.html

>

> -

> " Mercurius Trismegistus "

<magisterium_magnum<magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net>

> >

> To:

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

> >

> Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:09 AM

> Re: QI ,yin and yang research

>

> >I wouldn't say they are " identical, " from an epistemological standpoint.

> > However, that would be a really interesting book to read, vis a vis this

> > topic. ( " Cosmic Superimposition. " )

> > From an ontological standpoint, one might be able to consider an

> > equivalence

> > between the two. The problem is that " orgone " should be defined strictly

> > in

> > terms of Reich's theories and " discoveries. " (Since scientific knowledge

> > is

> > by definition not possible, I use the word " discoveries " somewhat loosely

> > here.) But basically, we should take " qi " as " that which is described as

> > the primary life energy in TCM. " Or something like that. And " orgone " as

> > " that which is described as the primary life energy in Orgonomy. " So,

> > from

> > that strict theoretical standpoint, I would say they should not be

> > considered identical.

> > But from the standpoint of our first person subjective experience, both

> > perspectives are, imo helpful in leading us in the direction of the

> > ultimate

> > phenomenon which is described by both theories.

> > Reich is great. He's part of what led me down the road to my present

> > course. I probably know more about Orgonomy than I do about TCM. LOL.

> > Although in fairness there's probably a heck of a lot more to know about

> > TCM.

> >

> > -

> > " " <johnkokko <johnkokko%40gmail.com>>

> > To:

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

> >

> > Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:57 PM

> > Re: QI ,yin and yang research

> >

> >> Mercurius,

> >> is " orgone energy " the same thing as Qi, in your view?

> >>

> >> K

> >>

> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Mercurius Trismegistus <

> >> magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net>>

> wrote:

> >>

> >>>

> >>> Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich.

> >>>

> >>> -

> >>> " majid fadaie " <majidfadaie51<majidfadaie51%40>

> >>> <majidfadaie51%40>>

> >>> To:

> >>>

<Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yah\

oogroups.com>

> <Chinese Medicine%40>

> >>> >

> >>> Cc: " p al " <pa-l <pa-l%40> <pa-l%

> 40>>

> >>> Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:02 AM

> >>> QI ,yin and yang research

> >>>

> >>> Dear All .

> >>>

> >>> I have a scientific and Traditional seminar to present on QI , YIN and

> >>> Yang

> >>>

> >>> ,there are a lot of Traditional references but I could not find

> >>> scientific

> >>> research on these fields ,I would be thankful if you could help me to

> >>> the

> >>> site or researches papers.

> >>>

> >>> regards.

> >>> Fadaie

> >>>

April 28, 2010

What do we do when we find similar theories? How do we deal with this in our

minds (deny, accept, ignore)?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

magisterium_magnum

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:09:40 -0700