Cobie Posted 14 hours ago (edited) 15 minutes ago, liminal_luke said: ... What's next -- quantum cinnamon buns? quantum lip gloss? there are DDJ ‘translations’ around with chapters called “quantum” this or that; totally bizarre imo. Trying to find an example, I saw Laozi inspired Bohr. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321280738_Bohr_Quantum_Physics_and_the_Laozi Edited 14 hours ago by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 14 hours ago 7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said: Yeah, that sums up my first impression too. Definitely eyeroll-worthy. What's next -- quantum cinnamon buns? quantum lip gloss? One of the first arguments I ever had on here ( probably in 2007) was with someone who said they were channeling black hole energy. Go figure. 1 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 14 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Cobie said: quantum Laozi https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321280738_Bohr_Quantum_Physics_and_the_Laozi It had to be you @Cobie - the idea that a scientist can draw from Daoist ideas is a completely different point. If you don’t get the difference then you are truly captured by modernism (modernity). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted 13 hours ago (edited) 3 hours ago, liminal_luke said: … Which isn´t to say that she didn´t believe in chi or the meridian channels because she did. … indeed, it’s a “belief” system Edited 13 hours ago by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted 13 hours ago 1 hour ago, Apech said: I meant modernism but not the art movement. Maybe it’s a Brit English thing I don’t know. According to Grok, it's a white cat thing. Q: Briefly: difference in meaning between American and British English for the word "modernism" A: In American and British English, "modernism" generally refers to a cultural, artistic, and literary movement from the late 19th to mid-20th century, emphasizing innovation, experimentation, and a break from traditional forms. The meaning is largely the same in both contexts, with no significant regional difference. Both associate it with movements in art, literature, and architecture (e.g., Joyce, Woolf, or Bauhaus). Any subtle distinctions might arise in academic or contextual usage, but these are minor and not systematically regional. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted 13 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, Apech said: I meant modernism but not the art movement. Maybe it’s a Brit English thing I don’t know. Yes it’s U.K. English https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/modernism Edited 13 hours ago by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liminal_luke Posted 13 hours ago 33 minutes ago, Cobie said: indeed, it’s a “belief” system Yes, I suppose it is. "Belief" is one of those words that comes freighted with connotations in some spiritual corners. Anyway, it feels like you´re trying to make a point but I haven´t quite understood it yet. Not sure if you want to try again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted 13 hours ago @liminal_luke The OP asked “Is the MCO real?” 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liminal_luke Posted 13 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Cobie said: @liminal_luke The OP asked “Is the MCO real?” Ah, OK. And you´re saying that the MCO isn´t actually real but rather a belief system? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted 12 hours ago 12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said: Ah, OK. And you´re saying that the MCO isn´t actually real but rather a belief system? Yes. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 12 hours ago 36 minutes ago, Taomeow said: According to Grok, it's a white cat thing. Q: Briefly: difference in meaning between American and British English for the word "modernism" A: In American and British English, "modernism" generally refers to a cultural, artistic, and literary movement from the late 19th to mid-20th century, emphasizing innovation, experimentation, and a break from traditional forms. The meaning is largely the same in both contexts, with no significant regional difference. Both associate it with movements in art, literature, and architecture (e.g., Joyce, Woolf, or Bauhaus). Any subtle distinctions might arise in academic or contextual usage, but these are minor and not systematically regional. I use Grok but you can’t trust it I’m afraid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 12 hours ago 32 minutes ago, Cobie said: Yes. can you explain why you think the MCO is a belief? Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted 11 hours ago 1 hour ago, Apech said: I use Grok but you can’t trust it I’m afraid. None of them are reliable. I trust your British version but I don't hear it in the US. Neither does Grok, apparently. This summer I was flying somewhere with a stopover in London, where random strangers called me "love" on three separate occasions when all I did was ask a question about getting from point A to point B or procuring a cup of espresso. Here I have never heard "love" used as a vocative toward a stranger. We might say "dear" or "honey" or some such. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted 11 hours ago 2 hours ago, Apech said: One of the first arguments I ever had on here ( probably in 2007) was with someone who said they were channeling black hole energy. Go figure. Easy peasy. I even know the mantra for this: Black hole sun, won't you come, won't you come... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted 10 hours ago 12 hours ago, Apech said: ok? Just ok? is that a no ok or a yes ok? or an ok ok? or a perhaps ok? Just Ok, I don’t have much energy to debate or discuss at the moment. Some tough personal stuff happening right now. ✌🏽 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted 8 hours ago @steve Here's a hug. If you think sharing might help, drop a line. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bindi Posted 7 hours ago 17 hours ago, Apech said: Yes what if? Prana and citta come back into the frame with Tantra. So … what are we to make of this? Maybe what Tantra reveals is that the Buddha’s conclusions weren’t the whole picture, just one phase. Once the central channel activates, the actual mechanics of ‘higher’ consciousness (shiva/shakti, prana and citta) come online whether a philosophy accounts for them or not. Maybe Buddhism maps the ‘mind field’, while systems like Tantra, neidan, and Saivism address subtle infrastructure. So it’s not about belief, but about which circuitry is active and which field one is engaging. The Buddha would have known about the tantric culture of his time, but he rejected it, and honestly I can’t blame him, as much as I’m interested in ‘tantra’ I’m not remotely interested in being taught tantra. But in the end I suspect he bypassed all subtle infrastructure and found an explanation that works philosophically but energetically leaves subtle mechanics unengaged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanity Check Posted 6 hours ago 6 hours ago, Apech said: One of the first arguments I ever had on here ( probably in 2007) was with someone who said they were channeling black hole energy. Go figure. Zero point energy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy There is an entire field of pseudoscience devoted to it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted 5 hours ago 6 hours ago, Apech said: can you explain why you think the MCO is a belief? Thanks. It is because it works without proof. Besides, the Qigong and TCM are only beliefs also. All the Meridians lies on all the nerves, but the TCM practitioners do not think so. Thus they had only made that as beliefs. If one follows all the acupuncture points, one will see they are on all the nerves in the body. Even in the book that they use as Bible say so. The title of the book is Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. I have both Chinese and English versions on my bookshelf. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master Logray Posted 4 hours ago 11 hours ago, Taomeow said: When I asserted -- as I have for the past 25+ years -- that qi is the medium and message of meaningful change, I didn't say it lightly. A somewhat (but not quite) similar dual understanding which some phenomena merit causes physicists to refer to elementary particles as both particles and waves. It's not something an everyday mind steeped in "either/or" dualities of observable macro phenomena wraps itself around with ease. Could it be that your shiatsu teacher may have focused on the "message" part of what qi "is and does" but either overlooked or decided to ignore the "medium" part. Qi is both, and it is neither by itself. It's a medium/message of change, simultaneously. A bit like coffee from that old maxim: when you boil an egg in water it gets hard, when you boil a carrot in water it gets soft, but when you boil ground coffee in water it changes the water. Qi changes the medium it operates in while changing itself. Qi does travel though meridians not unlike that -- except it doesn't have to be a substance in order to both undergo and engender change... it's the pattern that travels -- and substances encountered on the way align (or resist aligning) with the pattern. Patterns underlie both matter and energy. Some say Chi is information. When the information hits at a certain point, the point and the surrounding area light up. It is why people feel the warmth, tingling, itchiness, pressurize, see light..... once the appropriate area is activated with information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 4 hours ago 6 hours ago, steve said: Just Ok, I don’t have much energy to debate or discuss at the moment. Some tough personal stuff happening right now. ✌🏽 Sorry to hear that Steve, Best wishes to you and yours. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 3 hours ago 3 hours ago, Bindi said: Maybe what Tantra reveals is that the Buddha’s conclusions weren’t the whole picture, just one phase. Once the central channel activates, the actual mechanics of ‘higher’ consciousness (shiva/shakti, prana and citta) come online whether a philosophy accounts for them or not. Maybe Buddhism maps the ‘mind field’, while systems like Tantra, neidan, and Saivism address subtle infrastructure. So it’s not about belief, but about which circuitry is active and which field one is engaging. The Buddha would have known about the tantric culture of his time, but he rejected it, and honestly I can’t blame him, as much as I’m interested in ‘tantra’ I’m not remotely interested in being taught tantra. But in the end I suspect he bypassed all subtle infrastructure and found an explanation that works philosophically but energetically leaves subtle mechanics unengaged. Yes. But the Buddhist would say that the Buddha did teach this but that it was held secret until the time was right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 3 hours ago I find this emphasis on belief a bit odd - and very Christian. Christianity promotes faith and in the end science emerges as a project out of western Judeo-Christian thought. The ideas that qi is just oxygen and that meridians are nerves is a result of this I think. Just for the record I was trained up to degree level in science and my father was a scientist. So I have some experience of the hard edge of that world. I understand it reasonably well. It is very effective (including medical science) at its own level. But it does not allow for subtle levels or bodies etc. However I think it can be observed that although medical science is effective at dealing with a range of things - a side effect is to push the problems to somewhere else - hence the massive rise in things like autism, allergic reactions, immune diseases and so on. This is why I uphold the view of the ancients. That there is/are dimension(s) to reality to which you can travel to effect change and 'do things', that there are subtle levels to existence beyond the physical/material, that we are as beings not a single entity but a combination of several and that non-embodied entities of various types exist and can interact with us. In other words I agree with the ancients. And given, for instance, in China this view held for ? thousands of years, was upheld in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and so on, it has a long pedigree, which the few centuries of science cannot challenge. I don't count these things as beliefs because I have tested them out empirically and decided they are true (even though these days would be considered a bit bonkers!). Having said that, it is true that the ideas and diagrams and so on which you will find in books on Neidan etc. are not themselves the reality but merely a kind of clue or code for unlocking it. So you cannot look in a book and literally see the reality of these things. But when your practice begins to work you will have 'oh that's what they meant!' moments where the reality is revealed. This is my position. Here I stand I can do no more. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liminal_luke Posted 1 hour ago 8 hours ago, steve said: Just Ok, I don’t have much energy to debate or discuss at the moment. Some tough personal stuff happening right now. ✌🏽 6 hours ago, Taomeow said: @steve Here's a hug. If you think sharing might help, drop a line. Group hug, OK? Hoping things go well for you Steve. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted 1 hour ago @steve sending you well wishes. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites