The following is a really long and informative comment written by Jose de Freitas on TCM and qigong. I didn’t want it to stay in the comment section because I’ve closed those posts to any further comments, but I didn’t want to delete Jose’s contribution either. It took him a lot of effort to write this, and I appreciate that.
Just a warning: any comments made must stick to discussing the points that Jose brings up. He wrote this, so if you want to discuss it, then do him the courtesy of sticking to what he said. I’m not going to tolerate discussions that get way off the topic.
It never fails to astonish me when people seem to totally disregard the possibility of a physiological basis for the structures described in Chinese medicine, especially considering that there is A LOT of research done on it. There is also a lot of research done on the effects of Qigong, and that also gets dismissed out of hand by people who don’t want to look at it or aknowledge its existence or take the time and effort to go through it.
I’ll try to summarize some of the results and knowledge, and give some references. This should not be taken to mean that I accept the usefulness of Qi for fighting (nor should it be taken to mean I do not accept it). I am more focused on the Chinese medicine paradigm, because it has been proven to be very effective, and on the usefulness of Qigong as a light exercise more suitable for most of the population than the heavier, more intense exercises generally prescribed to day. On the other hand I tend to like the TCM view of the energetic body because it provides for a better “map” of the anatomical areas of the body when describing movement or the flow of attention when doing a form or Taiji than the more common western anatomical conventions (plus, it’s a lot cooler to use acupoints and meridians but that may be only IMHO).
It’s been known for quite awhile (at least since the late 30’s) that Meridians of TCM correspond to paths of lower resistance to electricity in the body. They have a sort of statistical and virtual existence. They represent the areas where resistance tends to zero, preferentially to other areas surrounding them. I say virtual because for most purposes there’s generally not enough current running in the body to make a difference. But there is a physiological difference in the cells along meridians, otherwise no difference in conductivity would occur. If you were to make a map of electrical conductivity in the human body, meridians would pretty much appear as the “valleys”, and acupoints as even less resistant “wells” or “holes” in the landscape. The fit between the meridians pathways and this conductivity map is very high, perhaps as much as 90% (there is some discussion here). In addition, it has become clear that not all points or meridian paths correspond to conductivity, but to other anatomical structures (see below).
Robert Becker did the first pioneering studeis of this subject (although he was not the original discoverer). He also came up with a pretty good answer to the existence of acupoints and to the reason for the existence of this electrical structure in the body. His original study was on regeneration and on the phenomenon of pain, which is pretty much unanswered in western physiology: we don’t know how pain is generated, how that information is conveyed to the brain and what all of its purposes really are. He postulated that the body’s DC system (direct current) existed to convey information re. pain and orders re. activating regeneration of the body. His original studies on salamanders showed extensive electrical activity in the blastoma (the area of scar tissue that surrounds a cut limb, for instance) where a leg or tail would regrow. He did the same studies in children (children up to a certain age maybe 3, 4 years, have the ability to totally regrow a finger if they lose one). He had to postulate a completely new “circulatory” system to convey this information, since no other structure in the body could account for it. He also discovered that acupoints were pretty much ideally placed in terms of distance to each other in a meridian to serve the function of relay boosters to boost up the strength of the electrical signal. The exact mechanism by which this is achieved is not known. He believes that some sort of information is transported through these electrical impulses in the DC system.
These discoveries are obviously at the root of a whole technology of TCM, such as point detection machines, etc… Ryodoraku, Voll, etc are systems of harnessing this knowledge to use it in clinical practice. Studies using these technologies have shown that there is a “relative” resistance ratio that accounts for TCMs Yin-Yang. Increased resistance (lower conductivity) is associated with Yin type diseases, and higher conductivity, or decreased resistance, associated with Yang type diseases. There has been extensive research done on this. Also, Qigong practice has been measured in these machines. People who had problems tended to come back to the average values after one or two sessions of Qigong (as opposed to regular exercise such as aerobics or weight lifting). Finally, modern imagery technologies have been capable of “seeing” meridians under spercific circumstances, much as a practitioner of Qigong is sometimes able to “feel” a meridian as a flash or wave in his body (something that also occurs during acupuncture treatments).
There is also some indications that cell structure along the path of meridians is different than other cells, and that under certain circumstances these cells have the capability to “dedifferentiate”, basically in lay terms, to become stem-cells, after electrical stimulation. This research was done by Becker again, and shows an additional “anatomical structure” which has an information structure. It also offers a clue to the ocasional extraordinary results claimed by Qigong or Acupuncture therapy. There also appears to be an effect of resonance of the DNA set up by acupuncture treatments under some circumstances, which might trigger specific healing effects, but this is not very well studied yet.
As for the placebo effect, it has been shown that TCM is considerably more efficient than it, for most of its treatments, and less for others. This is EXACTLY the same as for western medicine. Most people are generally unaware that most of the drugs they use were discovered serendipitously, and that scientists rarely have any clue as to why they work. They are simply empirically tested and that’s that, and that’s the reason why some drugs that used to be prescribed for something are prescribed for something else after a new drug comes arouvd that does thew first job better (I believe up to 25% of drugs generally prescribed in the West fall under this category). The placebo effects has also been shown to be one of the major factors in the efficacy of western medicine and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it also plays a role in TCM. Although there is a lot of ambiguity in this type of research, about as many studies show that acupunccture is more efficient than placebo as there are studies showing that it is only as efficient as placebo. In any case, all this talk of placebo effect only makes me laugh, since so many western treatments are clearly inferior to the placebo effect. It only reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson (I believe it was him) who wanted to launch a new drug called “Placebo”, but he thought that the FDA might not appreciate the humour. But I have appended at least one article that includes clinical trials on mice, since they seem to be least prone to the placebo effect… But take a look at the article called “Placebos are not all created equal” and you’ll see that this isn’t as easy a quesion as most people think.
In any case, I am less interested in all of these science articles than on much more complex questions and issues: how the %$#$ did they discover these specific anatomical/physiological structures in the first place? Discounting the theory of ancient civilizations with high tech (I do not subscribe tho this), I have only one possible answer. The practice of Qigong or specific meditative methods was probably instrumental. Think about it: how the hell would you go about mapping electrical conductivity in the human body 2000 years ago? What about the deep trajectories of the meridians, which do not contact the skin? How the hell would you be able to sort out what cells were capable of dedifferentiating under electrical stimulation? These seem to me to be very compeling arguments about the tremendous efficiency of Qigong methods. We may argue about what it’s efficient FOR, but there isn’t much doubt in my mind that the Qi paradigm was at least useful and efficient to map these structures, which may yet turn out to be some of the most important ones for the body. No, I do not subscribe to the theory that Qi is just bioelectricity, nor that it is any kind of fascia related structure or whatever. although I believe that all of these structures are important to “Qi” whatever it is. I think in the long run information theory will be more important than actual physiology to this question.
And yes, of course I know that Chinese research protocols are not always up to Western standards, and that some of the articles quoted may have appeared in “questionable” publications, although they don’t seem any less empirical or scientific. If you are biased againts this model, it’s always possible to rationalize anything to avoid seeing the results. It should also not be a surprise to know that the world of peer-reviewed publications is not the perfect paradise of disinterested science that we were led to believe, so again take anything with a grain of salt. The disclaimer also should be that I am no biologist, physicist or whatever, although I am trained in TCM.
I’ll try to compile a similar set of articles and findings on Qigong over the next few days (I am on holidays and don’t have access to all my books).
Becker, RO. “The Body Electric”. This book summarizes his original research, and together with “Cross Currents” is a good start to read about this. Beware that Becker has engaged v a crusade against electro pollution and appears a little “ranty” at times.
Becker RO.
Exploring new horizons in electromedicine.
J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Feb;10(1):17-8. No abstract available.
PMID: 15025873
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Becker RO.
Induced dedifferentiation: a possible alternative to embryonic stem cell transplants.
NeuroRehabilitation. 2002;17(1):23-31.
PMID: 12016344
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Development of a system and improvement of the stimulus pattern to discriminate the acupuncture point and meridians Author(s): “Lee, Y. H., Jeong, D. M., Jeong, S. Y., and Lee, M. S.”
Pub. Date: 2005 Periodical: Int J Neurosci Vol.115 Issue 7 pp. 989-1002 URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16051545Differences in Electrical Conduction Properties Between Meridians and Non-meridians Author(s): “Lee, M. S., Jeong, S. Y., Lee, Y. H., Jeong, D. M., Eo, Y. G., and Ko, S. B.”
Pub. Date: 2005 Periodical: Am J Chin Med Vol.33 Issue 5 pp. 723-728 URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16265984The effect of qigong on therapeutic balancing measured by Electroacupuncture According to Voll (EAV): a preliminary study Author(s): “Sancier, K. M.”
Pub. Date: 1994 Periodical: Acupunct Electrother Res Vol.19 Issue 3-Feb pp. 119-127[Chronic infections and irritations and their relief with Voll’s electro-acupuncture method]. [German] Author(s): “Krost, W.”
Pub. Date: 1991 Periodical: Zahnarztl Prax Vol.42 Issue 11 pp. 436-438In-vivo visualisation of the anatomical structures related to the acupuncture points Dai mai and Shen mai by MRI: a single-case pilot study Author(s): “Moncayo, R., Rudisch, A., Diemling, M., and Kremser, C.”
Pub. Date: 2007 Periodical: BMC Med Imaging Vol.7 Issue pp. 4- URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17359521Li X, Zhang Y, Yan W, Kang J, Kang Y, Lie M.
Isolation of genes involved in the preventive effect of electroacupuncture at Fenglong acupoint (ST40) on hypercholesterolemia mice by suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) combined with negative subtraction chain (NSC) technology.
Acupunct Electrother Res. 2006;31(3-4):233-46.
PMID: 17608063 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Effects of trigger point acupuncture on chronic low back pain in elderly patients–a sham-controlled randomised trial Author(s): “Itoh, K., Katsumi, Y., Hirota, S., and Kitakoji, H.”
Pub. Date: 2006 Periodical: Acupunct Med Vol.24 Issue 1 pp. 5-12 URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16618043All Placebos Not Created Alike
In a Trial of Sham Acupuncture vs. Oral Placebo Pill, Patients Experienced Greater Pain Reduction From Sham Device Than Those Receiving Placebo Pill
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/2_1Katpchuk.html
18 responses so far ↓
Casey // August 10, 2007 at 12:10 pm |
Fascinating stuff. The idea about electrical conductivity seems especially compelling because if you consider two of the most important pathways, the ren and du meridian, the du corresponds to the largest collection of nerves in the body (spinal cord+brain), and nerves obviously operate by electrical impulse. The ren then corresponds to the viscera, which probably have the highest water content of any area in the body, accounting for their higher level of conductivity. This would also account for why the du meridian feels somewhat different from the ren. Also, when sinking to the dantian, I often hear stomach gurgling-type noises, which my teacher has said is a good sign. It definitely seems to add further credence to the conductivity theory.
Also, good point about the placebo effect. Though I don’t like to attack Western medicine or the scientific method as a means to try to back up qi, I do agree it’s important that people realize how similar and, imo, perfectly compatible they are. It’s always funny to me when you read Rx drug info. and as often as not it says “the exact mechanism by which drug x works is unkwown.”
I also agree that the people creating TCM must have had experience with Qigong. I feel like it’s the only way they could have mapped the meridians so accurately, as well as measuring their ebb and flow according to time of day, etc. I mean, I had no practical idea of what meridians meant until I’d been doing qigong for a year or two and now I have a much better idea. If you ask me to point out my lung meridian to you I can do so not because I’ve memorized the positions of the points, but because I can feel it. I’m sure someone with a higher level of qigong and more experience than me could do a far more accurate job than me as well.
Reading Chinese literature makes me feel like Qigong has been practiced for at least 2500 years, if not longer, based on such texts as Guan-zhong’s Neiye (“Internal Work”), one can tell they had already reached a pretty high level by that time. Though the association of qigong with martial arts may have come much, much later, I think it’s very reasonable to believe that the creators of Huangdi Neijing (Yellow Emperor’s Classic of the Internal) and such already had extensive qigong experience.
Q // August 10, 2007 at 3:10 pm |
Really nice! I’m not too interested in this stuff right now but I know eventually I will be. Read from some book that just a few years ago they discovered that the meridians are only functional when the subject is alive, which is why modern dissection tech wasn’t effective in understanding them.
Casey // August 10, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
Actually, the fact that the placebo effect exists is kind of proof of the validity of some of qigong’s claims–not because qigong’s benefits are only placebo-like, but because the fact that some people actually recover from cancer because they firmly believe they will shows just how powerful an effect the mind can have on the body and how it deals with disease and injury.
José de Freitas // August 10, 2007 at 6:40 pm |
OK, so there I was writing that we should quote some articles with animal trials because they eliminated the placebo effect, but I went back to Becker’s later book (“Cross Currents”) and was reading a section on various “healing” therapies and how they might work by activating what he calls the “body’s DC system” (which he refers to as a sort of electrical superstructure that carries information that otherwise is unexplainable – as yet) and, lo and behold! the placebo effect occurs in animals too! At least that’s how I interpret it.
They did an experiment (quoted with references on the book) where they injected mice with cancer cells, and put them in cages where they gave electric shocks at random intervals (through the floor). But they had two cages: one in which the mice had no control on the outcome of their experience, and one where the mice could activate a lever that would interrupt the shocks for awhile. Basically the mice that had some sort of “hope” and “control over their condition” had a rate of discovery at least three times higher than the others. I am not sure this is exactly the same effect as the placebo effect, but it is a compelling argument in favouyr of the use of “vizualization” and “optimism” techniques in healing, and probavly is related to the mechanisms that are operating behind the phenomenon of Qigong.
José de Freitas // August 10, 2007 at 6:42 pm |
Casey, strangely, I have come across a lot of infoermation which might explain why perhaps Qigong techniques might be less powerful nowadays that they were a few centuries and millenia ago. In a nutshell: less oxygen in the atmosphere and electropollution of the electromagnetical spectrum (this one from the last century only). I’ll try to look up some references, but it’ll have to wait a few days (I am leaving for the week end). Best.
mo // August 10, 2007 at 7:34 pm |
if some cells have the ability to become stem-cells, shouldn’t amputees who undergo qigong treatment regrow their limbs? i’m not being snooty, that line just caught my eye and i’m genuinely curious. i truly believe that we have the ability to regrow any part of the body, we’re just missing the know how.
Iskendar // August 10, 2007 at 8:18 pm |
Very interesting post. Doesn’t quite explain the mechanical effects of the IMA (bio-electric field isn’t strong enough to move objects by a few orders of magnitude), though it could provide a non-neural triggering mechanism for chains of muscles. Could tie in with the fascia path theory too, given its embryological origins. Great stuff.
I have to admit I was a bit sceptical at first: such important results don’t just get abandoned for twenty years just like that, especially given the enormous interest in stem cells. And I’m not buying into any “narrow-minded medical science coverup” nonsense. But a quick google shows the idea hasn’t been abandoned at all, plenty of references to electrical stem cell triggering. Becker himself seems to have shifted the focus of his work from regrowth of tissue to electropollution health issues, and several other research groups continue looking into regeneration. Interesting times.
Robert A. Figler // August 10, 2007 at 9:01 pm |
Dave, I just want to add these in as sort of references and comment. In the first article they have dismissed the placebo effect but in the latest research there is a physiological foundation for it found in the brain. Although the placebo effect seems simplistic at first, it’s not. There is a very complex mind/brain/thought/physiological phenomenon going.
My limited understanding is that qi, qi gong et al, ultimately boil down to the mind. Perhaps, a 100 years from now, maybe scientists will find that the Chinese were going down the right path and all medicine involves the mind.
1st study
May 25, 2001
Study Finds Placebo Effect Is Fake
The placebo effect may have no scientific basis, according to a study published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine. Doctors have long known that about 35 percent of all patients given a placebo will get better, and they had assumed it was because the patients believed the dummy medication would help them. Many people have taken the idea a step further, believing that we can “think ourselves well” to some extent.
To find out, researchers from the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Cochrane Center, Rigshopitalet, in Denmark looked at the statistical results of 727 trials, focusing on 114 that tested pharmacological, physical and psychological placebos involving 7,500 patients. They reviewed a broad range of different studies, excluding any that had not tested the effectiveness of both a placebo and no treatment at all. Then they examined how test subjects receiving placebos fared in comparison to groups that had received no treatment.
It turned out that the results were similar. “We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects,” the authors write, suggesting that “outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.” They also found, however, that placebos had possible small benefits for studies with subjective outcomes and the treatment of pain. �
_________________________________________
Then I listen to NPR’s Ira Flatow Science program:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Aug/hour2_080307.html
February 20, 2004
Scientists See How Placebo Effect Eases Pain
The concept of a placebo effect, by which patients get better from the mere illusion of treatment, has intrigued scientists since it was first proposed in 1955. Since then debate has centered on whether it truly exists and, if it does, how it works. Findings published today in the journal Science offer fresh evidence in support of the existence of a placebo effect and suggest how a brain influenced by this effect changes its response to pain.
Tor D. Wager of the University of Michigan and his colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of volunteers who were exposed to harmless but painful stimuli such as small electric shocks or heat. In some cases, the researchers told participants that a pain-relieving cream had been applied to their skin. When these subjects were shocked, they reported less pain on average than did participants lacking the “anti-pain” cream. Subjects under the influence of the placebo effect also exhibited increased brain activity in an area known as the prefrontal cortex, and decreased activity in well-known pain-sensing regions such as the thalamus, the somatosensory cortex and parts of the cerebral cortex.
The results support the hypothesis that the placebo effect does not interfere with the body¿s ability to sense pain but instead affects how the brain modulates its interpretation of the body¿s signals. Paradoxically, the placebo findings could aid the development of novel therapeutic treatments for pain. Remarks Casey: “One could imagine compounds that would activate these control systems specifically.”�
Placebo
Show #301
Friday, May 18, 2007
Could the best medicine be no medicine at all? With new research demonstrating the startling power of the placebo effect, Radio Lab examines the chemical consequences of belief and imagination…from the symbolic power of the doctor coat to the very real stash of opium in your mind.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/05/18
renli // August 10, 2007 at 9:53 pm |
A few comments from my experience and ideas:
“It’s been known for quite awhile (at least since the late 30’s) that Meridians of TCM correspond to paths of lower resistance to electricity in the body.”
This thought-train is not productive for the martial arts tradition. In my opinion we should be more focused on feeling qi and then trying to understand how to use it.
“Robert Becker did the first pioneering studeis of this subject”
This is an example of why I feel this kind of scientific exploration is only interesting as a curiosity. It seems to desire to somehow prove the physical reality of qi – it does not. This is a kind of tangent I’d prefer to avoid.
“In any case, I am less interested in all of these science articles than on much more complex questions and issues: how the %$#$ did they discover these specific anatomical/physiological structures in the first place?”
“The practice of Qigong or specific meditative methods was probably instrumental.”
This is, it seems, as close as we get to a question into the usability of the stuff. But he seems to think it was about mapping electrical conductivity. In other words he doesn’t get the point. He’s an outsider. He has an open mind but I feel like he’s unqualified to study this material. I could say that opening a meridian is like opening a door. If the door was closed it might as well not be there. But when it’s open, then obviously there is a door there. So if you’re faced with a wall and you want to go through, what’s the first thing you need to do? That’s what qigong is for.. right?
How can science detect a meridian or qi or anything? I actually have real problems with this kind of article because I feel it misses the entire point of qi and how it’s supposed to be used. Anyways, it is from a purely TCM standpoint so I guess opinions are bound to differ slightly.
Casey // August 10, 2007 at 11:06 pm |
Actually, Mo, I was going to say that I recalled my Shifu mentioning that he had heard of cases in which people paralyzed from the waist down were able to regain a bit of functionality through qigong. It’s not like they regained the ability to walk or anything, but more minor things like better circulation, more sensation, better bladder control, etc. I think they have achieved.
Of course, I’m sure even qigong has its limits, but I don’t think we’re even close to reaching them yet. I think understanding the mechanism of qigong would be a huge boon to medical science.
José de Freitas // August 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm |
Casey, Renli: I do not think that the Qi paradigm is directly useful for IMA, rather I think it is important from an indirect point of view, through the ability to develop sensitivity and optimization of body functions. I am willing to admit, as an in principle, maybe kind of thing, 0,0001% chance, that there might be a possibility that Qi could be used to affect someone at a distance, and perhaps, maybe somewhat more plausible, at touch. I just have never felt it and I am somewhat skeptical that I will ever feel it. I have felt vague sensations at a distance but seriously doubt they could be useful for fighting.
Having said this, I think that the Qi paradigm is probably useful for martial artists especially if they are into the health issues.
I’ll try to compile a summary of Qigong research in the same vein I did the TCM perspective. Best.
Iskendar // August 11, 2007 at 12:40 am |
renli:
Because understanding things is somehow… bad? Ignorance is bliss?
Because science is the study of what is. If qi is, it will be detected. If it isn’t, it won’t. LOL, really, you haven’t changed a bit since the old RMA days, haven’t you?
renli // August 11, 2007 at 7:00 pm |
Iskender;
How is “focused on feeling qi and then trying to understand…” saying that understanding is bad? I *just said* we should try to understand it.
Leave this kind of baggage/garbage on r.m-a, seriously. People can read.
As to “If qi is, it will be detected”. Let me ask you a question. Where is the moon, is it in the finger which is pointing to it? Yes, science will detect what is. But if you do not know where to look, you will not find it.
If you look for qi (or meridians) by looking, for example, for reduced electrical resistance, I feel you’ve missed the point. I don’t think it’s so simple. Read the article:
“The fit between the meridians pathways and this conductivity map is very high, perhaps as much as 90% (there is some discussion here).”
Don’t you see? The science here is approximating what is going on. I have a very strong feeling that there is overlap between two completely different things here. I think what the article is discussing is not, actually, qi or meridians. If that was true then why isn’t the overlap 100%? Initially you might theorize because Qi is not real, and it isn’t as precise as science; but actually it is the reverse. What is being looked at by science actually is not the qi or the meridians at all, but very very likely something else.
Iskender. The studies themselves say that it is not a 100% correlation. Therefore we’re not going to get a 100% understanding from these kinds of studies. As martial artists we should focus on feeling the qi and then understanding it for what it is. Academic studies which do not correlate are not as useful as you might think. If you want to understand – then do so.
José de Freitas // August 13, 2007 at 3:11 am |
Renli, I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, I feel you’re 100% right: no study of any “one thing” will determine what Qi is exactly, but in some way, you have to start somewhere.
Think on it this way: if someone were describing all the physiological things that happen due to receiving a wound, or being burned, from electrical stuff, to nerves discharging, cells doing whatever (don’t have an accurate descrpition here), without mentioning the all important fact of the “pain sensation”, we might have a difficult time conceptualizing how all the bits are pieced together in the brain as “pain”. We might be tempted to say “it’s all in the mind”, because it is true, pain happens in the brain, not wherever it was trigered initially. The phenomenon of feeling sensations on the body when the brain area that controls it is stimulated (and no stimulus is done of the area itself) is also well known and leads to observations of this type.
Who is to say that Qi is not something like that, some sort of feeling that happens in the brain, under a complex set of stimuli in the body, and creates the “sensation” of energy circulating in the body, a kinetic feeling of energy and pathways? Is pain any less real for happening (on a feeling level) only in the brain? Even if you know on a rational level that the pain is not “in the wound” but only in the brain? (otherwise anaesthesia wouldn’t happen).
The reason why I said that information theory and cybernetics will probably be more germane to understanding Qi is due to this. But the fact that Becker discovered an additional “nervous system”, the direct current system, which conveys critical info on pain and regeneration (and probably more stuff, he postulates it as the interface with the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation), and the fact that it has a strong correlation with TCM energetic physiology, is a critical piece of our path on the understanding of Qi.
As I said, I don’t think the Qi paradigm is really important for MAs, certainly not at a low or intermediate level of mastery. I am skeptical of its applicability (directly) to fighting, although I remain open to the fact it might occur. Who knows. I do believe some sort of action at a distance is possible between human beings (I’ll write up the Qigong research), but think it occurs on a time frame and on a energetic scale that doesn’t matter in a fight. It’s probably important for healing and sixth sense, etc…
Qi is like hypnosis. I believe it exists, and I accept that it may apply indirectly to fighting (as self hypnosis, better training, etc…) but I don’t believe you can hypnotize someone during a fight (although I think prhaps at some high level of mastery para-hypnotic skills may enter the picture). Still, if it can be harnessed for development it remains a legitimate way to train, much like the Qi paradigm. When Joanna says that both people who use the Qi paradigm and people who reject it have achieved high levels of MA skill, it doesn’t mean that they have achieved the HIGHEST level. It may be that to achieve thes some sort of Qi paradigm is necessary. I don’t know, but it is possible.
Joanna // August 14, 2007 at 5:32 am |
Jose said:
“When Joanna says that both people who use the Qi paradigm and people who reject it have achieved high levels of MA skill, it doesn’t mean that they have achieved the HIGHEST level. It may be that to achieve thes some sort of Qi paradigm is necessary. I don’t know, but it is possible.”
The problem I have with this is that it is entirely speculative – there is no evidence to support it. I could just as easily argue that qi believers are missing the point and that the highest level is only attainable when the mind is free from the shackles of belief in it.
Jose de Freitas // August 16, 2007 at 8:14 pm |
You are right. On the other hand, it can be argued that many of those who’ve reached the highest level do subscribe to the paradigm (ie. Wang Pei Sheng, Cheng Man Ching etc…). Wether there are more of these than of those you point to is unknown. There is no method to test “highest level”, no studies done, so we simply cannot no if one paradigm is better than the other.
s. alleyne // October 26, 2007 at 3:16 am |
There is always a physiological basic for recovery but there are also times when ‘miracles’ happen that bypasses what is considered impossible to cure/heal.
A positive mental sphere (intent) is always a good thing so if we can take advantage of that gate of positive vibes, we can access ‘infinity’ and ‘nothingness’ to help us be better persons and/or cure us of disease.
Disease begins in the mind!
Anton // June 4, 2009 at 10:23 am |
Cool!