qi, lifeforce and molecular machines - subjective but not arbitrary

[Guest guest]

It is my opinion that Qi as the ancient Chinese really meant it

(again as you say not to invalidate the value of the Western

mistranslation/concept) is ultimately a wholly internal

and " subjective " phenomenon that a science that only recognises

objective exteriors will never quite nail down. There are important

exterior correlates (including all sorts of complex

chemical/biological activity, as well as probably the movement of

some form of physical " energy " ) to what the ancient Chinese meant by

Qi that we should continue to learn as much as we can about, but they

are ultimately correlates only, and to reduce Qi to the physical

world is to miss the point entirely.

 

Subjective knowledge has understandably been pretty much taboo in

western science, because western science really begun to flourish as

an antidote to arbitrary subjective pronouncements by an increasingly

corrupt Church power structure. It is my opinion that the true

Eastern sciences of interiors, such as meditation, qigong and yoga,

are also basically grounded in the subjective, but that that

subjective knowledge does not have to be arbitrary. The similarities

between the structures of the mind as described by Vajrayana

Buddhism, Vendantic Hinduism and Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga for

example clearly point towards a phenomology beyond mere individual

fancy.

 

Unfortunately because we are all apt to dellude ourselves and

subjective knowledge depends on interpretation, it is all too easy to

get vague and metaphysical when it comes to the spiritual and it is

much more difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That is why

spiritual lineages have had things like " Jedi Councils " of masters to

be able to determine as a community what is really going on (it is

probably the lack of this or a similarly functioning structure that

allowed acupuncture to shatter into so many competing schools in the

Ming Dynasty [for more info on this, copy and paste this address to

your browser: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2004-2.html#pre20th ]).

 

With this in mind, let me then rephrase Felix Mann's famous

pronouncement about acupuncture to something that makes more sense to

me - " Acupuncture works, Qi and the meridians do not exist in the

objective world, but they do exist as non-arbitrary constructs in the

subjective world " .

 

I think acupuncture is also badly served by vague metaphysical

concepts. It should either stick with neurobiological knowledge and

ground itself there, or go fully and thoroughly into the metaphysical

where it originated and use Qi to help to bring the subjective world

back into the realm of valid human enquiry where it belongs. Either

way, just as over time scientists eventually put a man on the moon,

or mystics of the past as a community evolved their own realisations

over time, these are the only options for having Acupuncture and Qi

theory move forwards. For it to move forwards to its maximum

potential, I think it has to do both. The trick is to do both

properly and not just do each half-assed.

 

 

This bit next bit may get a bit airy for some, my apologies in

advance for those that don't have a clue what I am on about...

 

 

I am beginning to work with the idea of Qi as being representative of

all Form (interior/mental AND exterior/physical objects), of which

only Emptiness/Self/the pure Witness/Enlightened mind can be

completely aware of. The more the Self becomes aware of Qi in all its

moving manifestations (incl. the body, thoughts. feelings, etc), the

more the Self detaches identification with these transient phenomena

and realises itself as being radically free and unchanging. Both the

Enlightened Mind and experiencing Qi are in fact everpresent in our

awareness, both sharing the quality of being so bleedingly obvious

and immediate that that is why we seem to miss them all of the time

when we are try too hard to look for them. Fortunately, deeper

understanding of one inevitably leads to the other - to quote my

favourite philosopher, good old Mr Wilber:

 

" Genuine knowledge, and its resulting liberation, arises from simply

observing the mind and body, and the energy [Qi] of which they are

composed, to identify the mirror condition [Enlightened Mind]

beneath. "

 

 

-Li

 

,

wrote:

> many in the field believe in a lifeforce and equate that with qi.

It

> is unclear whether the chinese felt this way themselves. The

> prepodnerance of the evidence suggests the answer is no. Since qi

has

> never been one thing, but rather a term used to describe a

multiplicity

> of functions in CM, I think westerners have introduced a nonchinese

> concept into the mix. so be it. this type of thinking clearly

fills

> an important cultural niche and would not have so dramatically

outpaced

> either a scholarly or scientific view of CM in the west if it did

not

> serve a need. We may have to come to terms that the failure of a

> scholarly or scientific form of CM predominating in the US is

because

> those who are drawn to such things typically pursue work in other

> fields. We attract mavericks (including myself) who are unhappy

with

> the status quo of many things. That and our desire to help relive

the

> sufferings of others is perhaps the sole bond all of us share.

From

> there, we split into our camps. but back to the lifeforce.

>

> So the chinese didn't really believe in a transcendent lifeforce.

Some

> chinese believed in transcendance of ego and normal rules of life

and

> death, but the most striking thing many have remarked about chinese

> culture is the virtual absence of a predominantly religious

worldview,

> even in ancient times. Yet some of us do. The hindu concept of

prana

> is conceived in this way by some hindus, but then India is one of

the

> most religiously dominated cultures in history. Also, the

homeopathic

> view of the lifeforce has largely been colored by christian mystics

> like Swedenborg and and his followers such as Kent. but hahnemann

> himself never wrote in such terms. While he did indeed use the

term

> vital force, it seems that he meant it to mean the mysterious

unknown,

> but natural workings of the human body. Nothing supernatural.

This is

> still a form of vitalism, but not a mystical take.

>

> Modernists have completely rejected vitalism. While there are

small

> group of modern vitalists, they hold no currency in the field and

their

> arguments are as vacuous as those of creationists. There is no

> experiment in biology than cannot now be explained by the function

of

> what are called molecular machines or cellular organelles. This

may

> have not been the case when you studied bio 20 or 30 years ago.

If

> so, you have some catching up to do. similar to claims regarding

> creationism, there really is no credible evidence for vitalism.

The

> one argument I have over and over again is that the difference

between

> the living and dead body must be some vital force. Because the

live

> body is chemically the same immediately after death as it was right

> before death, yet life no longer exists. This observation thus

proves

> something ineffable has taken leave. Or does it? When a molecular

> machine (say a ribosome) can no longer perform it actions because

it's

> cell has worn out, accumulated waste and the software to produce

new

> perfect copies (DNA) has been damaged with age, the body fails and

then

> it dies.

>

> If essence is basically genes, then the chinese idea that the

decline

> of jing past a point leads to death is perfectly in sync with the

> modern idea (if you allow that it is the quality of jing that

declines

> rather than the quantity per se). And nothing about the decline of

> jing really suggests anything about a vital force once there and

now

> not. Sure, there is no more qi, if there is no more jing. But

jing

> comes from earth, not heaven and it is the most substantial of the

> three treasures (jing, shen, qi). There is absolutely nothing

> spiritual about jing and this decidedly physical substance is the

> source of qi. Shen is not the source of qi and most chinese docs

seems

> to regard shen (when considered in the normal sense as mind) to be

a

> property that emerges from jing plus life experiences, not a direct

> emanation from the dao into the human. The fact that shen is what

> allows us to look beyond the earth into our minds and thus develop

> science and medicine is what aligns it with heaven in chinese

metaphor,

> not because it issued from there. So the end of life in CM and WM

> seems to be nothing more than a running down of physical

functioning

> until organ activity can no longer be maintained.

>

> The concept of qi as vital force seems to be an addition to CM that

> brings solace to those who are spiritually inclined to begin with,

but

> it seems clearly a western idea. As I said, it may be that this

latter

> approach is the role our profession is destined to play, but a

faithful

> version of CM usually resonates quite well with modern science and

thus

> encourages supporting advances in that domain. Especially if our

> profession has chosen a decidedly different, yet still worthy,

path.

> Perhaps even more worthy because the most worthy form of product of

the

> mind is that which fills a necessary niche. It thus no surprise

that

> " holistic medicine " arose simultaneously with a resurgence of

> fundamentalism. Just two different approaches to dealing with

> modernity. In both cases, we often hear that modernity has changed

too

> fast and mostly for the worse. It seems at times that there are

only a

> scant few of us left in America who have looked at the

preponderance of

> the evidence and thus have a much more optimistic view of the

future.

> Perhaps we can all live side by side. Personally, I couldn't care

less

> if the country became dominated by fundamentalists who make

draconian

> rules in their local communities as long as they have no power to

> affect public policy on a greater scale.

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ever heard of tachyons?

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <lionel.chan

>

>

> Re: qi, lifeforce and molecular machines - subjective but

>not arbitrary

>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:25:52 -0000

>

>

>It is my opinion that Qi as the ancient Chinese really meant it

>(again as you say not to invalidate the value of the Western

>mistranslation/concept) is ultimately a wholly internal

>and " subjective " phenomenon that a science that only recognises

>objective exteriors will never quite nail down. There are important

>exterior correlates (including all sorts of complex

>chemical/biological activity, as well as probably the movement of

>some form of physical " energy " ) to what the ancient Chinese meant by

>Qi that we should continue to learn as much as we can about, but they

>are ultimately correlates only, and to reduce Qi to the physical

>world is to miss the point entirely.

>

>Subjective knowledge has understandably been pretty much taboo in

>western science, because western science really begun to flourish as

>an antidote to arbitrary subjective pronouncements by an increasingly

>corrupt Church power structure. It is my opinion that the true

>Eastern sciences of interiors, such as meditation, qigong and yoga,

>are also basically grounded in the subjective, but that that

>subjective knowledge does not have to be arbitrary. The similarities

>between the structures of the mind as described by Vajrayana

>Buddhism, Vendantic Hinduism and Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga for

>example clearly point towards a phenomology beyond mere individual

>fancy.

>

>Unfortunately because we are all apt to dellude ourselves and

>subjective knowledge depends on interpretation, it is all too easy to

>get vague and metaphysical when it comes to the spiritual and it is

>much more difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That is why

>spiritual lineages have had things like " Jedi Councils " of masters to

>be able to determine as a community what is really going on (it is

>probably the lack of this or a similarly functioning structure that

>allowed acupuncture to shatter into so many competing schools in the

>Ming Dynasty [for more info on this, copy and paste this address to

>your browser: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2004-2.html#pre20th ]).

>

>With this in mind, let me then rephrase Felix Mann's famous

>pronouncement about acupuncture to something that makes more sense to

>me - " Acupuncture works, Qi and the meridians do not exist in the

>objective world, but they do exist as non-arbitrary constructs in the

>subjective world " .

>

>I think acupuncture is also badly served by vague metaphysical

>concepts. It should either stick with neurobiological knowledge and

>ground itself there, or go fully and thoroughly into the metaphysical

>where it originated and use Qi to help to bring the subjective world

>back into the realm of valid human enquiry where it belongs. Either

>way, just as over time scientists eventually put a man on the moon,

>or mystics of the past as a community evolved their own realisations

>over time, these are the only options for having Acupuncture and Qi

>theory move forwards. For it to move forwards to its maximum

>potential, I think it has to do both. The trick is to do both

>properly and not just do each half-assed.

>

>

>This bit next bit may get a bit airy for some, my apologies in

>advance for those that don't have a clue what I am on about...

>

>

>I am beginning to work with the idea of Qi as being representative of

>all Form (interior/mental AND exterior/physical objects), of which

>only Emptiness/Self/the pure Witness/Enlightened mind can be

>completely aware of. The more the Self becomes aware of Qi in all its

>moving manifestations (incl. the body, thoughts. feelings, etc), the

>more the Self detaches identification with these transient phenomena

>and realises itself as being radically free and unchanging. Both the

>Enlightened Mind and experiencing Qi are in fact everpresent in our

>awareness, both sharing the quality of being so bleedingly obvious

>and immediate that that is why we seem to miss them all of the time

>when we are try too hard to look for them. Fortunately, deeper

>understanding of one inevitably leads to the other - to quote my

>favourite philosopher, good old Mr Wilber:

>

> " Genuine knowledge, and its resulting liberation, arises from simply

>observing the mind and body, and the energy [Qi] of which they are

>composed, to identify the mirror condition [Enlightened Mind]

>beneath. "

>

>

>-Li

>

> ,

>wrote:

> > many in the field believe in a lifeforce and equate that with qi.

>It

> > is unclear whether the chinese felt this way themselves. The

> > prepodnerance of the evidence suggests the answer is no. Since qi

>has

> > never been one thing, but rather a term used to describe a

>multiplicity

> > of functions in CM, I think westerners have introduced a nonchinese

> > concept into the mix. so be it. this type of thinking clearly

>fills

> > an important cultural niche and would not have so dramatically

>outpaced

> > either a scholarly or scientific view of CM in the west if it did

>not

> > serve a need. We may have to come to terms that the failure of a

> > scholarly or scientific form of CM predominating in the US is

>because

> > those who are drawn to such things typically pursue work in other

> > fields. We attract mavericks (including myself) who are unhappy

>with

> > the status quo of many things. That and our desire to help relive

>the

> > sufferings of others is perhaps the sole bond all of us share.

>From

> > there, we split into our camps. but back to the lifeforce.

> >

> > So the chinese didn't really believe in a transcendent lifeforce.

>Some

> > chinese believed in transcendance of ego and normal rules of life

>and

> > death, but the most striking thing many have remarked about chinese

> > culture is the virtual absence of a predominantly religious

>worldview,

> > even in ancient times. Yet some of us do. The hindu concept of

>prana

> > is conceived in this way by some hindus, but then India is one of

>the

> > most religiously dominated cultures in history. Also, the

>homeopathic

> > view of the lifeforce has largely been colored by christian mystics

> > like Swedenborg and and his followers such as Kent. but hahnemann

> > himself never wrote in such terms. While he did indeed use the

>term

> > vital force, it seems that he meant it to mean the mysterious

>unknown,

> > but natural workings of the human body. Nothing supernatural.

>This is

> > still a form of vitalism, but not a mystical take.

> >

> > Modernists have completely rejected vitalism. While there are

>small

> > group of modern vitalists, they hold no currency in the field and

>their

> > arguments are as vacuous as those of creationists. There is no

> > experiment in biology than cannot now be explained by the function

>of

> > what are called molecular machines or cellular organelles. This

>may

> > have not been the case when you studied bio 20 or 30 years ago.

>If

> > so, you have some catching up to do. similar to claims regarding

> > creationism, there really is no credible evidence for vitalism.

>The

> > one argument I have over and over again is that the difference

>between

> > the living and dead body must be some vital force. Because the

>live

> > body is chemically the same immediately after death as it was right

> > before death, yet life no longer exists. This observation thus

>proves

> > something ineffable has taken leave. Or does it? When a molecular

> > machine (say a ribosome) can no longer perform it actions because

>it's

> > cell has worn out, accumulated waste and the software to produce

>new

> > perfect copies (DNA) has been damaged with age, the body fails and

>then

> > it dies.

> >

> > If essence is basically genes, then the chinese idea that the

>decline

> > of jing past a point leads to death is perfectly in sync with the

> > modern idea (if you allow that it is the quality of jing that

>declines

> > rather than the quantity per se). And nothing about the decline of

> > jing really suggests anything about a vital force once there and

>now

> > not. Sure, there is no more qi, if there is no more jing. But

>jing

> > comes from earth, not heaven and it is the most substantial of the

> > three treasures (jing, shen, qi). There is absolutely nothing

> > spiritual about jing and this decidedly physical substance is the

> > source of qi. Shen is not the source of qi and most chinese docs

>seems

> > to regard shen (when considered in the normal sense as mind) to be

>a

> > property that emerges from jing plus life experiences, not a direct

> > emanation from the dao into the human. The fact that shen is what

> > allows us to look beyond the earth into our minds and thus develop

> > science and medicine is what aligns it with heaven in chinese

>metaphor,

> > not because it issued from there. So the end of life in CM and WM

> > seems to be nothing more than a running down of physical

>functioning

> > until organ activity can no longer be maintained.

> >

> > The concept of qi as vital force seems to be an addition to CM that

> > brings solace to those who are spiritually inclined to begin with,

>but

> > it seems clearly a western idea. As I said, it may be that this

>latter

> > approach is the role our profession is destined to play, but a

>faithful

> > version of CM usually resonates quite well with modern science and

>thus

> > encourages supporting advances in that domain. Especially if our

> > profession has chosen a decidedly different, yet still worthy,

>path.

> > Perhaps even more worthy because the most worthy form of product of

>the

> > mind is that which fills a necessary niche. It thus no surprise

>that

> > " holistic medicine " arose simultaneously with a resurgence of

> > fundamentalism. Just two different approaches to dealing with

> > modernity. In both cases, we often hear that modernity has changed

>too

> > fast and mostly for the worse. It seems at times that there are

>only a

> > scant few of us left in America who have looked at the

>preponderance of

> > the evidence and thus have a much more optimistic view of the

>future.

> > Perhaps we can all live side by side. Personally, I couldn't care

>less

> > if the country became dominated by fundamentalists who make

>draconian

> > rules in their local communities as long as they have no power to

> > affect public policy on a greater scale.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Herbs

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>