leth

According to Paulie Zink 'Yin Yoga' has it roots in Daoist practices. And it's likely that his description of it coming form his martial arts teacher is accurate, it has the characteristics of a chinese art, whether it is a daoist art or not is a bit less clear. There is ofcourse a lot of influence from "Yoga" primarily thought Paulie Zinks senior students. But none the less, what is the difference in the end.

This is true for most swords in most parts of the world. Or atleast the idea that you keep a sword sharp towards the tip, and keep it dull towards the hilt, the degree of this varies.

For anyone interested in good translations of real historical manuals I recommend: http://www.chineselongsword.com/

Unfortunatly i'm not at the same location as my sword books, so I can't give you mych of an extensive listing, but of the top of my head here are some of the better books available in english: The Major Methods of Wudang Sword – Huang Yuan Xiou The Art of Chinese Swordsmanship: Manual of Taiji Jian – Yun Zhang Chinese Swordsmanship The Yang Family Taiji Jian Tradition – Scott M. Rodell (Author) Taiji Sword – Chen Wei-Ming There is also more academic book about chinese swords, from an archeological perspective, which might be interesting if you're into that thing, but its clearly writen by an academian with no knowledge in swordsmanship. Either way it might be an interesting book to understand the history of chinese swords (it's very academic dry and dull, but personaly i don't mind that): Chinese Swords: The Evolution and Use of the Jian and Dao – Martina Sprague In general swords were not drawn from the back, not anywhere in the world, It's generaly not very practicall, most swords are simply too long to make this convinient. But there are exceptions. Can't say I know of a known historical source of this in china. Swords have been worn on the back, but that is mostly for transport, and they were not really ready to be drawn in such a state. The Jian has also been a status symbol, and for many who had a jian, ever drawing it and using it was not expected. The Dao was however more of a military weapon more often used in combat. (Though it should be said that the jian was also used on the battlefield, it was just rare) As for secrets, there has been a long tradition of keeping secrets in chinese martial arts in general, mostly from outsiders of the family, but also from ones own students. Sometimes there is a difference of what is show to outsiders and what is show to the "in door" students. Sometimes knowledge was lost. As for moves that were dangerous, perhaps not, but it could happen, in general there are no such techniques. Though what probably happend was master not teaching everything for fear of their students outperforming them, this still happens today. EDIT: Added part about drawing from the back EDIT2: Added parts about secrets.

Qi is many things, but it seems we are discussing the Qi that flows through the meridians. Even so many types of Qi flows through the meridians, and the physiological explanation for the different types might differ. But to be clear, we don't really know any of these for certain yet, there are some theories to a more physiological explanation of the meridians, Andrei posted one of the more popular ones, but we really haven't found enough scientific evidence for it, so we don't really know for certain from a scientific viewpoint.

To go further into the analysis of the ontological and logical of this and that, we have to realise that we think using mental constructs that are dependent on eachother in a sort of self refering system that we could call the language of the mind. This language of the mind that is mad eup of concepts is not perfect, but formed as our mind tries to interprete reality. But reality is not that easy to graps and the language of the mind can't possible fully describe reality as it is. And as with the fish that is happy, the language of the mind works and does well for us to interpret reality as we understand it. We must of course realise that it is fallible and be aware of the empty nature of the concepts, yet we still know what we know, as we can tell that the fish is happy.

The text has been known throughout the ages and transcribed over and over again, most well known is the so called Wang Bi version which seems to have been the basis for most of the more recent transcribations. Though the difference between the Wang Bi version and the version found in Mawangdui is rather small. The Mawangdui was just the oldest known source at that moment. However, several parts of the text was found in another older source more recently, though not all chapters that we know from the Wang Bi or the Mawangdui versions are part of that recent find. P.S. The newer source is the Goudian version. Might be worth adding.

The prove it. Actually Tarskis undefinability theoreme states that any logical truth cannot be defined using the logic in question. Which indeed means that any logical system cannot prove itself logical. From this we can say that logical systems are in themselves can not be said to be logical under it's own logic, in fact they must be illogical because they can not consistently prove themselves. Which can be expressed as logic is illogical in natural language. I didn't say they were invalid. And yes formal systems of logic are only usable for truths within that system, and mostly we concern ourselves with truths of reality or our own mind neither of which is part of any known formal system of logic. But not all logic is formal, which sadly most people tend to forget these days.

If I may be frank, this combination may very well be the very pinnacle of ignorance. No offense, as I trust you understand. But perhaps something to ponder upon if you value ignorance in any way.

No, I answered your question. The answer refered to the argument, but wasn't really a repetition of the argument since the argument was not a reference to itself.

A mathematical equation is hardly in any way empirical. While I agree that logic and argumentation is important and should be taught, I really oppose that they are misrepresented or taught using incorrect terms or misconceptions. This only leads to misunderstanding. Secondly logic should not be taught by representing it as a some sort of dogmatic epistmological method, but rather using metalogic. With these opinions in mind it should be obvious that I find the image of the original post rather problematic.

The arguments of the very post you quoted.

Intutition is by definition irrational and illogical, but what does that say about logic and rationality? How do you judge your logic and rational thought? And if your logic and rational thought is further from the truth than your intuition, then how can you regard it as proper logic and rational thought?

First of all you're arguing against a point that was not made. Secondly it's not really a stolen fallacy to use logic to say that logic is illogical, or that rationality is irrational. It is infact a rather common metalogical position. This is more or less the theoreme Tarski made as a follow up on Gödels incompletenes theoremes.

Given any common definition of logic or even the one you gave from Rand, it doesn't really follow that logic is a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality. And sure it can be said to be a logical process to identify fallacies, but that sort of proves the point that they are not really fundamental commandments of logic themselves considering they are dependant on logical process rather than being an essential part of the logical process itself. Logical processes leads to the discovery of fallacies, but they are not really an integral part of logical process, but rather the effect of the lack thereof. Therefore I would say that avoiding fallacies is a rather backwards way of looking at a logical process, a proper logical process is commanded by laws of though rather than avoiding the effect of the lack of laws of thought. It follows that seeing analysing fallacies as a fundamental part of the process of logic makes logic a self-iterating process that cannot complete. We should really regard any "commandments" of logic an essential part of the process of logic, rather than something that requires a logical process. Explained this way it is clear that the argument that fallacies are the "commandments" of logic is indeed a fallacy itself.

Ok time to critique the actulla texts in the image under the pretence of them being fallacies and not at all any sort of commandments of logic: 3. Sometimes the whole is small numbers, this is badly phrased. 4. The way this is phrased is actually a reasonable technique in arguing certain premises, and a usefull technique in proving certain points and does not really have to be a fallacy. And the way it's phrased is not a good description of the form of circular reasoning that is often refered to as begging the question 6. Not all dichotomies are false dichotomies. (Nor is the fallacy itself limited to the limitation down to two options, but rather to too few options. Though the name can then either be changed or just used in a less litteral but more general sense.) 8. The burden of proof is not this easy, it generally lies on the person which makes a controversial claim and not on the person who first asks for proof. But even so it is not really as easy as that.

Well if taken out of the context, thats not what i wrote but considering the context of which i wrote my statements that is what i wrote. But i wouldn't agree on fallacies being principles or rules applied to rational though, they are common pitfalls of thought and not principles to follow. The princinples should be the rules of thought, and fallacies should be regarded as effects of failing to abide to the rules of thought. The should also be a way to detect bad arguments or bad reasoning. They are important in analysis of logic but not in logic itself.

Sure they are fallacies and in a sense therefore has some sort of relation to logic, in the sense that they are all derived from logical reasoning and expresses the validity of reason, but they are not in any way commandments of logic. Fallacies are common mistakes that are easily proven illogical, but in no way are they any form of commandments of logic. A better representation of that would be the laws of thought, but with them the problem lies in that different systems of logic has different axioms.

Those are not really related to logic but to argumentation.

Cosmogeny, that is the the origin or creation of existance is to be regarded as a mystery. We know very little of the beginning of existance itself, and the big bang is inevetably unexplainable in terms of what triggered it or how it came to be, we simply do not know. with any certainty. Furthermore from a purely logical standpoint, all forms of ontological emergency are paradoxial in nature, and it seems as if our current logic is inherently incapable of asserting the truth of cosmological emergency. (EDIT:) Or we have yet to come up with a theory that is logically consistent.

Yes science is based on these ideas of what we can consider to be true, and how to reliable determine something to be plausible, which is why it is such a great tool. The question of why, inevetably leads to further quesitons of why both in terms of why precursory explanation is precursory but also why it is so in itself. This eventuall leads to the big question of why existance, or why everything. And science can in itself not really deal with any question of why, but instead is a tool to explore the question of how.

In terms of the origin of mankind, what are things we can observe, how can we test our belives around the origin of mankind and what sort of personal experiences can help us understand the truth about the origin of mankind?

How can we know things? How can we determine if some idea that we have is likely to be true or not? And how do we determine the truth for that which is in the past?

These are all good suggestions, and I feel that between this post, my suggestions and Marbleheads suggestions we have found a good core of works that should all be part of a colleciton of translations.

While I agree that there is a point in having many different translations i just have to say that this collection is horrible and very outdated in terms of our understanding of the text.