Subject: Re: Materialistic validation, was Re: acupuncture

From: [email-masked] (Pankaj Seth)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:18:57 +0500

On Sun, 12 Mar 1995 12:16:10 [email-masked] wrote: 
 
>On 3/10/95 at 8:59 AM, Pankaj Seth, N.D. wrote: 
> 
>: "This energy source can only be given a name because nothing about 
>: can be known; that is, if something is known then it falls into the 
>: category of  matter and we must again inquire about the energy 
>: source which powers this 
>:  
>: very subtle matter. Whatever it is that powers the discernible 
>: world has been given various names by different cultures. The 
>: western scientific world calls it the virtual state , the Indians 
>: call it Prana and the Chinese call it Qi ; some call it God."   
> 
>Paul Iannone, P.O.B. wrote in response: 
This is a very long article, and I don't even know where to begin. But I 
>think I will state again January's point: Qi is NOT Energy, existing in
the 
>terms of the Matter/Energy dicotomy that forms the substratum of Western 
>scientific consciousness. Qi is not the force that 'powers' the
discernable 
>world--the very metaphor in these words is mechanistic. 
> 
>To everyone who is trying to solve this question by cramming East-Asian 
>Traditional Healing into the box of Western scientific consciousness: Good

>luck, I wish you well, I hope you don't 'succeed.' What is needed is _very

>much_ an appreciation of the inherently MYSTICAL nature of human
existence. I 
>would prefer that you would all start with defining and explicating 'Shen'

>(which will produce a more ready failure) than focussing on the
misleadingly 
>'convenient' Qi. 

I understand your criticisms; I wrote the article in order for 1st year
shiatsu students to gain a deeper understanding of Qi.  The metaphors and
comparisons used at times ARE too materialistic.  That is sometimes the
price of using the written word ( or words at all).  Prior to discussing
the contents of the article, the students had only a vague and very
incomplete understanding of Qi and that from a quasi-mystical point of
view.  Most of the teaching in this area is badly deficient ( Qi
deficiency?!) What words, concepts and metaphors would you use to explain
what is known as  Qi? 
 
Can you also shed some light on this "inherently MYSTICAL nature of human
existence".  "Mystical" is not a universally understood term.  What is your
experience? 
 
Paul Iannone writes further:   
"What stands behind the world of form is Dao, and Dao has no Qi." 

The above is a categorical statement which cannot be validated.  Is its
source some Taoist text or your own experience?  If it is your own
experience then perhaps you can explain your point of view.  My
understanding of Dao or Tao is that it is the way of things, how things
are, whether seen or unseen. Tao does not stand behind the world of form
(Xing or Jing). 
 
I am pleased that you understood the essence of my article to be the use of
systems theory to better understand the body/mind/spirit/etc./etc..  The
points you have raised are good ones which should be explored rather than
leaving it as Mysticism. 
 
I look forward to your response. 
 
Pankaj Seth, N.D.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Mar 1995 14:36:02 GMT

On 3/15/95 at 8:18 AM, The OrMed Mailing List wrote:

: I understand your criticisms; I wrote the article in order for 1st
: year shiatsu students to gain a deeper understanding of Qi.  The
: metaphors and comparisons used at times ARE too materialistic. 

Then how does this allow a 'deeper' understanding?

: That
: is sometimes the price of using the written word ( or words at all).

Indeed.

:  Prior to discussing the contents of the article, the students had
: only a vague and very incomplete understanding of Qi and that from a
: quasi-mystical point of view.  

That's fine. Why should students imagine they would know Qi just by hearing
about it?

: Most of the teaching in this area is
: badly deficient ( Qi deficiency?!) What words, concepts and
: metaphors would you use to explain what is known as Qi? 

I believe in the tactile/mystical approach. Odd phenomena that can be
observed in the right frame of Archaic mind, instead of in the modern frame
of mind.
  
: Can you also shed some light on this "inherently MYSTICAL nature of
: human existence".  "Mystical" is not a universally understood term. 
: What is your experience? 

I am a Daoist. It is abundantly clear to me that life is a deep mystery that
cannot be explained, understood, or described in language. Qi, in my book, is
part of that mystery. I see no particular need to state a description of Qi.
In any case, it is what linguists call 'polysemous.' It has multiple
meanings, and has a great versatility, like most of Chinese. Narrowing Qi
down to 'energy' seems like an incredible waste to me.
  
: Paul Iannone writes further:   
: "What stands behind the world of form is Dao, and Dao has no Qi." 
:  
: The above is a categorical statement which cannot be validated.  

It can very definitely be validated! But not, perhaps, so you could publish
the results in a journal or the newspaper. Healing is not a validatable
process, for the most part.

Maybe it's not right to say that Dao has no Qi. My original statement on this
was meant to state that Dao is not dependent on Qi as a Primal Substrate. If
Dao has a Qi, it is perhaps only 'the smell of a smell.'

: Is
: its source some Taoist text or your own experience?  

Experience, but also this is recognizably the tenet of Daoism, which
functions as the proximal root of East-Asian Traditional Healing (as it and
Daoism arose from the mystical speculations and experiences of Wu and Yi
sorcerors or mystics). [I don't mean to narrow down the profound mystery of
the development of this art, which I consider to a significant degree
Spirit-born ("genius" is our closest cognate).]

: If it is your
: own experience then perhaps you can explain your point of view.  My
: understanding of Dao or Tao is that it is the way of things, how
: things are, whether seen or unseen. Tao does not stand behind the
: world of form (Xing or Jing). 

Jing? Xing is correct (meaning something like 'shape'). Jing most commonly is
the transliteration of the character for 'Essence.' 

[One side note: Jing is commonly also linked with our word 'sperm' (modern
Chinese usually use Jing ye, or Jing 'juice'), which is of course sexist.
Women also have Jing, but English has no name for female sperm, or for the
substance that produces ova in a woman, so the concept is skewed by
English-only practitioners. ETH does seem to have a word for female sperm,
namely 'Tian Gui,' or 'Celestial Northern-Water' (Gui is the Tenth Stem,
referring to the North and to Water). Never knowing of 'seed' and 'egg' in
man, the early ETH philosophers focussed on the Creative Force of Jing. 'Tian
Gui,' we can see, is certainly NOT menstruation per se.]

Dao is much more than some way of 'things.' It is beyond thingness. I have
promised not to diverge into discussing Dao, so I won't here, but it is
indeed a 'missing link' in the worldview of practitioners of TCM, one of the
most obvious bases for my preference of the term 'East-Asian Traditional
Healing' for the greater tradition of which TCM is a gleaning.
  
: I am pleased that you understood the essence of my article to be the
: use of systems theory to better understand the
: body/mind/spirit/etc./etc..  The points you have raised are good
: ones which should be explored rather than leaving it as Mysticism. 

Mysticism is where most of this will remain after convenience and deficient
linguistic similarities have swept away the rest.
  
: I look forward to your response. 
:  
: Pankaj Seth, N.D. 

[email-masked]