|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 13, 2010 3:44:03 GMT
Thousands isn't much for the US government. Which people are you refering to? If there was a program are you willing to stipulate that certain scientists took an objective viewpoint and decided to find scientific proof for some claims. Those clutches, I worked for them.
Who got a lobotomy from the US military for trying to leave an abusive husband? I am familiar with the remote viewing research that was conducted by the intelligence agencies and the US military with the assistance of SRI. Are these the people that gave that poor woman a lobotomy?
By the way. Putting words in caps just makes you seem to be shrill. I am sure that isn't your intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 13, 2010 23:29:25 GMT
Thousands isn't much for the US government. Which people are you refering to? If there was a program are you willing to stipulate that certain scientists took an objective viewpoint and decided to find scientific proof for some claims. Those clutches, I worked for them. Who got a lobotomy from the US military for trying to leave an abusive husband? I am familiar with the remote viewing research that was conducted by the intelligence agencies and the US military with the assistance of SRI. Are these the people that gave that poor woman a lobotomy? By the way. Putting words in caps just makes you seem to be shrill. I am sure that isn't your intention. Nope, sorry. The caps are meant to "add emphasis" in the absence of 'vocal inflection" In any case, all I have mentioned thus far just goes to show that there IS sufficient proof of "occult powers' ; so much so that governments have actually EMPLOYED people (if that can be said to be the correct term for it) to put these "occult powers" to WORK for them. What more "proof" is needed? You yourself have admitted the existence of government sponsored 'remote viewing"! |
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 14, 2010 3:32:07 GMT
No worries about the caps. Just making sure that we were on the same page in our discussion. I was just throwing up a flag to let you know that it could be construed as shrill instead of thoughtful.
The existence of a program does not constitute proof of a phenomenon. Some of my own studies have resulted in a negative. I do not like it when the data (derived from the observed phenomena) does not support my hypothesis. Failure to reject the null hypothesis is just a pain. That is science though. The program existed. It was tested. It doesn't seem to be in continuing.
I do think that having a null hypothesis supported is better than gross speculation. It removes one of the possibilities. It hones our search wouldn't you agree? Remote viewing was either ineffectual or unreliable or didn't exist at all. The anecdotal information offered by some people that were allegedly involved is interesting discussion but offers little support.
Regarding the thousands. A multi-million dollar intelligence system would not be in place in an organization that loves to fund many projects if they could do it with a few low ranked officers and NCO's in a basement. Then we have the Monroe Institute, which is a private organization. With these technologies you would think that we would have at least hundreds running around with these powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 14, 2010 22:40:18 GMT
Oh, BTW, have you EVER heard of Chinese QiGong? It is essentially a form of "magick", and is actually REGULATED in China. A Medical QiGong student must be able to change an acid to a base and back again using the power of Qi emanated from the hands and eyes, as part of the qualifying examination process. The test is conducted in front of a regulatory board, with LITMUS PAPER. I'd say that qualifies as "proof of magickal power"
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 15, 2010 3:25:49 GMT
Greetings vajranagini, Oh, BTW, have you EVER heard of Chinese QiGong? It is essentially a form of "magick", and is actually REGULATED in China. A Medical QiGong student must be able to change an acid to a base and back again using the power of Qi emanated from the hands and eyes, as part of the qualifying examination process. The test is conducted in front of a regulatory board, with LITMUS PAPER. I'd say that qualifies as "proof of magickal power" This is the first time that I have heard of 'Qi Gong' being called 'magic' essentially or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 15, 2010 3:35:40 GMT
Love to see that out of the government that regulates it, with an outside observer. Being a martial arts instructor of some relatively rare and esoteric martial arts I would be most interested in seeing the evidence.
You have made a lot of claims and alluded to some evidence that I would be most interested in seeing. Yet YOU have NOT had the TIME to SHOW it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 2:27:52 GMT
Funny, i keep asking for evidence of Crowley's fraudulence and I'm not getting it either. But I DO have here the exact criteria for proficiency in Medical Qigong, according to Professor Jerry Alan Johnson, PhD, Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Doctor of Medical QiGong.:
Decreasing the alcohol content in a cup of wine.
Neutralizing the acid in a glass of water to which a cap of ascorbic acid has been added.
Imprinting the image of the palm of the hand on an x-ray film
Changing the acidic levels in a solution containing a strip of red litmus paper to show the changes occurring.
Changing the alkaline levels in a solution containing a strip of blue litmus paper to show the changes occurring.
Graduates must demonstrate proficiency in all these capacities before being allowed to complete an internship at a resident hospital.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 2:29:35 GMT
Greetings vajranagini, Oh, BTW, have you EVER heard of Chinese QiGong? It is essentially a form of "magick", and is actually REGULATED in China. A Medical QiGong student must be able to change an acid to a base and back again using the power of Qi emanated from the hands and eyes, as part of the qualifying examination process. The test is conducted in front of a regulatory board, with LITMUS PAPER. I'd say that qualifies as "proof of magickal power" This is the first time that I have heard of 'Qi Gong' being called 'magic' essentially or otherwise. If magick is "causing changes in accordance with the will" then QiGong IS "magick". |
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330 
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 2:30:48 GMT
Funny, i keep asking for evidence of Crowley's fraudulence and I'm not getting it either. Why are you asking this question? I don't recall anyone claiming he was a Fraud. I claimed he was *possibly* a Fraud, but that's an entirely different matter.  |
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 2:43:31 GMT
Greetings vajranagini, The This is the first time that I have heard of 'Qi Gong' being called 'magic' essentially or otherwise. If magick is "causing changes in accordance with the will" then QiGong IS "magick". IF magick is NOT 'causing changes in accordance with the will', then 'Qi Gong' is NOT magick. From the Oxford dictionary: "magic (mag·ic) Pronunciation:/ˈmajik/ noun the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces: do you believe in magic? suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight: the magic of the theater informal something that has such a quality: their seaside town is pure magic" You're using Crowley's definition, which is fair to question until it is demonstrably proven correct through experimentation and falsification. Qi Gong looks a lot more like science than magick. I am certain the two words, 'magic' and 'magick', are synonyms. Indeed, stage magic and trickery which Crowley disliked fulfills "causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 16, 2010 17:11:10 GMT
Looking for the paper in databases. Can you tell me in which journal the study was published?
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 23:22:34 GMT
If magick is "causing changes in accordance with the will" then QiGong IS "magick". IF magick is NOT 'causing changes in accordance with the will', then 'Qi Gong' is NOT magick. From the Oxford dictionary: "magic (mag·ic) Pronunciation:/ˈmajik/ noun the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces: do you believe in magic?suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment You are referring to "prestidigitationa quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight: the magic of the theater informal something that has such a quality: their seaside town is pure magic" You're using Crowley's definition, which is fair to question until it is demonstrably proven correct through experimentation and falsification. Qi Gong looks a lot more like science than magick. It has been aptly said that the ONLY difference between "science' and "magick" is TIME. I am certain the two words, 'magic' and 'magick', are synonyms. They are not meant to be. I find Crowley's distinction between them entirely useful. But you, who are trying every which way to put forward your obvious prejudice against Crowley, and by extension his methods, of course, would NOT. Indeed, stage magic and trickery which Crowley disliked fulfills "causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. Does it? In prestidigitation nothing actually "changes"; it just APPEARS TO. In Qi Gong the changes wrought by the power of Mind directed and focused by the Will upon substances actually measurably changes alcohol levels in wine, the acidity of an ascorbic acid solution, and the colour of litmus paper" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 16, 2010 23:57:58 GMT
Greetings, If magick is "causing changes in accordance with the will" then QiGong IS "magick". IF magick is NOT 'causing changes in accordance with the will', then 'Qi Gong' is NOT magick. From the Oxford dictionary: "magic (mag·ic) Pronunciation:/ˈmajik/ noun the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces: do you believe in magic?suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment You are referring to "prestidigitationa quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight: the magic of the theater informal something that has such a quality: their seaside town is pure magic" You're using Crowley's definition, which is fair to question until it is demonstrably proven correct through experimentation and falsification. Qi Gong looks a lot more like science than magick. It has been aptly said that the ONLY difference between "science' and "magick" is TIME. I am certain the two words, 'magic' and 'magick', are synonyms. They are not meant to be. I find Crowley's distinction between them entirely useful. But you, who are trying every which way to put forward your obvious prejudice against Crowley, and by extension his methods, of course, would NOT. Indeed, stage magic and trickery which Crowley disliked fulfills "causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. Does it? In prestidigitation nothing actually "changes"; it just APPEARS TO. In Qi Gong the changes wrought by the power of Mind directed and focused by the Will upon substances actually measurably changes alcohol levels in wine, the acidity of an ascorbic acid solution, and the colour of litmus paper" ;D Basically, each will view this/these subjects etc., according to their point of view, knowledge, understanding, experience etc. Qi Gong is an interesting science. I used the 'natural' form which allows the energy to develpoe and flow in a natural way, and not the visualization/will power etc form of the West. Metaphysical knowledge has a metaphysical source that follows metaphysical laws. End of story. ... but as they say in Pittsburgh 'whatever'. |
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 17, 2010 3:52:37 GMT
If magick is "causing changes in accordance with the will" then QicGong IS "magick". IF magick is NOT 'causing changes in accordance with the will', then 'Qi Gong' is NOT magick. From the Oxford dictionary: "magic (mag·ic) Pronunciation:/ˈmajik/ noun the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces: do you believe in magic?suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment You are referring to
"prestidigitation Which fits in precisely to Crowley's proffered definition of magick: 'causing changes in accordance with the will', then' I say, what makes this statement of Crowley's valid? a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight: the magic of the theater informal something that has such a quality: their seaside town is pure magic" You're using Crowley's definition, which is fair to question until it is demonstrably proven correct through experimentation and falsification. Qi Gong looks a lot more like science than magick. causing changes in accordance with the will', thenIt has been aptly said that the ONLY difference between "science' and "magick" is TIME.Perhaps it has been aptly said, but is that statement actually apt or true, and how do you prove it? I am certain the two words, 'magic' and 'magick', are synonyms. causing changes in accordance with the will', thenThey are not meant to be. I find Crowley's distinction between them entirely useful. But you, who are trying every which way to put forward your obvious prejudice against Crowley, and by extension his methods, of course, would NOT. Again, what makes Crowley's definition of magick more correct than say, Roger Bacon? I give a LOT more validity to Bacon's opinion as he was closer to the time frame for the use of the word 'magick' than Crowley: "I shall a while discourse on such admirable operations
of Art and Nature, as have not the least Magick in them, afterwards assign them their Causes and Frames."FRIAR BACON Indeed, stage magic and trickery which Crowley disliked fulfills "causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. Does it? In prestidigitation nothing actually "changes"; it just APPEARS TO. In Qi Gong the changes wrought by the power of Mind directed and focused by the Will upon substances actually measurably changes alcohol levels in wine, the acidity of an ascorbic acid solution, and the colour of litmus paper" ;D Isn't the manipulation of perception actually just achieving the willed result through mostly mechanical and scientific means? So, yes, prestidigitation does 100% fulfill the desired effect by the nature of making it appear to, or exactly the result the prestidigitator willed (in between brushing his teeth ;D). |
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 17, 2010 4:00:19 GMT
The word 'magic' or it's dirivatives are purely Western in there origin, and has nothing to do with E vs. W cutural confusions at the base:
Etymology
From Middle English magik from Old French magique, reborrowed from Latin magice, borrowed from Ancient Greek μαγική (“magical”) (τέχνη (“art”)), derived from μάγος (mage) from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian 𐎶𐎦𐎢𐏁 (maguš, “sorcerer”). Displaced native Middle English dweomercraft "magic, magic arts" (from Old English dwimor "phantom, illusion" + cræft "art"), Old English galdorcræft "magic, enchantment", Old English drȳcræft "magic, sorcery".
More Roger Bacon quotes on 'Magick':
"from particulars, universals, which will demonstrate the unnecessary aspiring to Magick, since both Nature and Art afford such sufficencies."
FRIAR BACON
|
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 18, 2010 2:04:59 GMT
Any help here on the journal that Chi Kung information and studies were posted in?
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 19, 2010 4:10:06 GMT
It was given in Volume One, page 31 of the Introduction of the textbook "Chinese Medical Qi Gong Therapy" by Dr. Jerry Alan Johnson, as I said before, but you obviously missed. Oh, and he is also a Taoist MAGICKIAN, and the text makes frequent reference to the topic; no pussyfooting around!
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 19, 2010 5:35:47 GMT
Here is some skepticism regarding Qi Gong: www.skepdic.com/chikung.html"What empirical evidence is there for chi or its harnessing? Testimonials and self-validating statements are offered in lieu of controlled scientific tests. Nevertheless, advocates are convinced they are not deluded in their metaphysical explanations. The acupuncturist is convinced he or she is unblocking chi. The reiki therapist and therapeutic touch nurse think they are channeling ki or prana. The Reichians think they can heal the body by harnessing and directing orgone. As a philosophy, chi kung and its relatives may provide one with a sense of harmony, power and meaning. As a metaphysical belief there is no way to disprove the existence of chi. However, explanations of events in terms of controlling and harnessing chi are superfluous by Occam's razor.
The most convincing evidence are the demonstrations given by so-called masters of various martial arts who claim to use chi to knock out people without touching them. As long as those being knocked about are believers, the demonstrations work. As soon as a skeptic enters the ring, the powers fail. Why? One explanation is that the believers are acting as they believe they are supposed to act. They are role-playing, which is not to say that they are not sincere. Nor is it to say that they are pretending. They are acting according to suggestions, much the way people act on stage with a stage hypnotist. Before making up your mind about chi masters, look at thi video clip of Yanagi Ryuken who tries to use chi to ward off an attacker in a demonstration."
A video of a Qi Gong failure (there are quite a few videos documenting Qi Gong failures, it seems): www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_qg5d1YGI  www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html"Dubious Claims
The conditions claimed to respond to acupuncture include chronic pain (neck and back pain, migraine headaches), acute injury-related pain (strains, muscle and ligament tears), gastrointestinal problems (indigestion, ulcers, constipation, diarrhea), cardiovascular conditions (high and low blood pressure), genitourinary problems (menstrual irregularity, frigidity, impotence), muscle and nerve conditions (paralysis, deafness), and behavioral problems (overeating, drug dependence, smoking). However, the evidence supporting these claims consists mostly of practitioners' observations and poorly designed studies. A controlled study found that electroacupuncture of the ear was no more effective than placebo stimulation (light touching) against chronic pain [3]. In 1990, three Dutch epidemiologists analyzed 51 controlled studies of acupuncture for chronic pain and concluded that "the quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. . . . The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful." [4] They also examined reports of acupuncture used to treat addictions to cigarettes, heroin, and alcohol, and concluded that claims that acupuncture is effective as a therapy for these conditions are not supported by sound clinical research [5].
Acupuncture anesthesia is not used for surgery in the Orient to the extent that its proponents suggest. In China physicians screen out patients who appear to be unsuitable. Acupuncture is not used for emergency surgery and often is accompanied by local anesthesia or narcotic medication [6].
How acupuncture may relieve pain is unclear. One theory suggests that pain impulses are blocked from reaching the spinal cord or brain at various "gates" to these areas. Another theory suggests that acupuncture stimulates the body to produce narcotic-like substances called endorphins, which reduce pain. Other theories suggest that the placebo effect, external suggestion (hypnosis), and cultural conditioning are important factors. Melzack and Wall note that pain relief produced by acupuncture can also be produced by many other types of sensory hyperstimulation, such as electricity and heat at acupuncture points and elsewhere in the body. They conclude that "the effectiveness of all of these forms of stimulation indicates that acupuncture is not a magical procedure but only one of many ways to produce analgesia [pain relief] by an intense sensory input." In 1981, the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs noted that pain relief does not occur consistently or reproducibly in most people and does not operate at all in some people [7].
In 1995, George A. Ulett, M.D., Ph.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Missouri School of Medicine, stated that "devoid of metaphysical thinking, acupuncture becomes a rather simple technique that can be useful as a nondrug method of pain control." He believes that the traditional Chinese variety is primarily a placebo treatment, but electrical stimulation of about 80 acupuncture points has been proven useful for pain control [8].
The quality of TCM research in China has been extremely poor. A recent analysis of 2,938 reports of clinical trials reported in Chinese medical journals concluded that that no conclusions could be drawn from the vast majority of them..."I had a deep interest in the Fulon Gong in China. Also, I have been the recipient of multiple Reiki treatments and was offered the chance for eventual Mastership by a Reiki Master. A good friend of mine, who moved away before I could take him up on the offer. I spoke to him yesterday, and he is doing well. Anyway, I do think that much of what is claimed is rather suspect. Often, there is some truth to something that becomes concentrated on the bunko portions where people claim things that they are unwilling or simply cannot prove. I'll admit I thought I received some benefit from the treatments, though it is difficult to say if the result was largely placebo or not. |
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 20, 2010 3:34:08 GMT
It was given in Volume One, page 31 of the Introduction of the textbook "Chinese Medical Qi Gong Therapy" by Dr. Jerry Alan Johnson, as I said before, but you obviously missed. Oh, and he is also a Taoist MAGICKIAN, and the text makes frequent reference to the topic; no pussyfooting around! Is this a reviewed text in the sense that the claims in were able to be repeated by, or at least observed under experimental conditions from those that did not have a vested interest in the textbook? |
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 21, 2010 2:55:21 GMT
Why don't you try actually READING what I have written?
I SAID that "these are the criteria that students of Medical QiGong must meet IN CHINA, in order to COMPLETE THEIR INTERNSHIP AT A HOSPITAL THERE". NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH "vested interests in the textbook". which Dr, Johnson wrote AFTER HE COMPLETED HIS STUDIES IN MEDICAL QI GONG IN CHINA. THAT"S HOW HE KNOWS WHAT IS REQUIRED OF STUDENTS OF MEDICAL QI GONG. Did I make myself clear, or should I go up another font size? SHEESH!>slaps forehead< I sure feel sorry for whoever is teaching you that martial art or whatever it is!
|
|
