Leaderboard

Its good this was explained. Before it escalated into some CAT astrophe.

I also miss Brian. Joeblast too, some of his more exotic beliefs notwithstanding. Hard to believe, but this little forum once enjoyed a golden age of Science, not that I understood it.

at least cats continue to land correctly when or if falling or jumping.

I practice Wu style Taiji from a Wu Tu Nan lineage as well as Yu Xian Pai Neidan and between that and Zhan Zhuang… some days it’s hard to do both. I have also noticed I have to space out the Taiji Qigong(from Wu Tu Nan) with some of the Neidan methods by several hours. And the Taiji I also have to watch out for certain hours of the day because it’s much more activating. So I would say it depends on the systems you are practicing. Some methods mesh well together and can get a boost from other methods. While some other methods would directly conflict with each other and could cause you to go out of balance(into deviation). You’re better off gaining the experience with one system so you can manage your own state and Yin/Yang balance before incorporating other systems/methods.

And biophysics, and... One of my favorite quotes ever, by an evolutionary biologist Haldane (I think), in response to the question -- --You have studied creation all your life, what have you learned about the Creator? --That God has an inordinate fondness for beetles. Not sure anthropology covers "all" the territory worth covering... in fact, it chiefly concerns itself with the antics of the species Plato called "the featherless biped" (based on the fact that we walk on two legs like birds but unlike birds are, well, featherless). And what about cats? To say nothing of beetles? So... I actually meant taoist sciences which meet the requirement I consider a sine qua non -- a unified theory underlying all of them. But today they are not viewed as science by the popes of the church of modern western science -- and are woefully lumped together, by assorted quacks, with assorted woo-woo... just like quantum mechanics. Unified theory... That physics woman in the video (I may have been too harsh in my assessment, but am too lazy to list all the reasons why) mentioned superstrings (something she apparently doesn't like) in the context of "it was mostly an American thing, not a European one." That's what we have for a unified theory... an American physics and a European physics. Or is it anthropology, sans physics?..

It depends on who those "us" are. Real science, if it existed*, would be based on a unified theory and nothing in the universe would be left out in the cold (however cold) or crash and burn encountering that phenomenon (however hot). I don't just mean a unified theory physicists are pining for (those who care about physics among them, that is, rather than grants and tenures and publications). I mean science as a whole -- where physicists and geologists, biologists and chemists, astronomers and linguists would have an underlying common ground, a common base whence to have a meaningful dialog, a meaningful set of shared fundamentals so they could actually communicate and -- unbelievable as it presently seems -- understand what it's about. Understand it on the level of that unified view, unified theoretical premise they would all share. A science that would have that would be self-consistent across the spectrum of all human endeavors -- not self-contradictory, not weaponized against itself by having skipped that crucial initial step of harmonizing its countless branches by tracing them to a common root. Funny thing is, technology would never be as all-powerful if this kind of science existed. There would be deterrents built in... *It does. It just takes a much longer, much more dedicated study, is not part of any current institution's curriculum, and has empirical outcomes not readily caught by currently accepted/available methods and models. Its time will either come or we're toast. I miss him too.

Yes, there's this tough guy (occasionally gal) type who's in it for a chance to hurt someone, but luckily I was spared those encounters with my TKD peers. I loved taekwondo but didn't get far -- had to quit due to family circumstances. My master was the product of the Korean army and handled training his students the way he was taught himself -- mercilessly. But my mood at the time was something like, "let's challenge this lazy cat, i.e. me, who'd rather spend her life on the sofa with a book," so I didn't mind. And later, when the great tao sent my taiji teacher, the first thing he said to me was, without me disclosing it, "ohhh... I can see you did taekwondo... that's OK, I'll get it out of your system." And did, in no time.

Taomeow, you sure have been around the block a few times or should I say the mats... I quit Taekwondo when the black belt kept saying, "one kick one kill" which is not a measured reaction to me that could have different or better out comes. (although for an all out war or battle situation like in the Korean war of the 50's where a commander developed it (or in similar situations) such a saying would be more applicable)

This is also what we use in Chen style taiji, the corkscrew motion in the spine with upper and lower parts going in the opposite directions, which is part of what you do to generate a specific kind of power we call peng. I also remember in TKD it was used to teach us to fall on all fours in a hypothetical situation where, e.g., the opponent throws you face down onto an obstacle, a boulder or curb or a glass coffee table: when landing on all fours you twist the upper body sideways to at least save your face. Master Ho had us fall like that onto a pile of soft mats, but it was still scary physics.

In theoretical physics.

Yes, we can only cultivate/practice/develop how the body utilize those subststances, if we are looking at it from a physiolgical ppint of view. My real question was answered though, that the discussion so far was on the level of the preliminary practice.

Those that dont care because ...... '' I got an electric scooter ! '' (not only that , its shaped like a ball ! ) So not just 'fitting ''G' in '' ? You know .... anthropology 'fits' all that in ..... except for physics ( without stretching things too far ) . I can imagine if that 'science' existed and it was anthropology, the deterrent would be ; ' does this help humans to thrive healthily and holistically ? .... as a real anthropology would conclude things 'overall', not just the current , 'all ruling' , econo-rationalist , developmental expansionist bullshit, viewpoint . I think the toaster might be turned on now . .... he was not 'just a naughty boy '

Thanks for clarifying. Looks like in physics "the argument from naturalness" also had (and we can only hope will have again) its champions who hardly meet the criteria for "a clear example of pseudoscience." E.g., Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist regarded as one of the great ones, expressed this sentiment in a 1960s article titled "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature": "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data. God is a mathematician of a very high order..." He often reiterated it in his lectures as, ""If a theory is not beautiful, it is probably wrong."

There is a big problem in Theoretical Physics which is the heart of science's examination of the nature of reality. When the heart dies so too does the head. This lady seems to understand: