|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 21, 2010 3:06:28 GMT
No do not go up another font size, it is considered offensive and will not be tolerated, i let you get away with one rant but no more.
Make your argument and make it in good order.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 21, 2010 3:24:31 GMT
Funny I thought I already had. But it's clearly a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 21, 2010 5:43:53 GMT
Listen and listen good, I am a Moderator I do not follow every thread, I am not speaking about anything you have said. or the rights and wrongs of any debate you are invloved in.
I am talking directly to you Vajranagini about the Capitals. If you do not like the way I do things then there are many other forum you can use. Not many where you can let off steam as you have here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 21, 2010 10:53:35 GMT
I think you may need to go up a few font sizes. I don't care to read what you claimed again. I would like to see the data for myself. That seems to be a problem for a bunch of mystics and mystic hang-arounds. Skepticism is usually met with derision.
Since I couldn't find his journal publications in the data bases that I have access to I went ahead and looked him up, not as shocking as it sounds.
On a personal note, since you seem to want to make this personal, you should take those types of discussions to private messages. As to feeling sorry for those men that were kind enough to spend so much time teaching me, they might agree with the sentiment. So might my initiators in different lineages. Regardless I can still pick up the phone and call them, or stop by their homes. What they are capable of does not require a CAPS lock because the truth of their abilities does not require me to be shrill.
You made some fantastic claims. Fantastic proof was asked for. You seemed to get bent out of shape. Settle down, we are just talking.
|
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 21, 2010 10:54:37 GMT
Sorry Bill, I was typing while you were posting.
|
|
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 26, 2010 23:45:14 GMT
I am not receiving training in this particular martial art, and a close or even careless reading will prove I never made any claims to doing so. Your unrelenting attempts to create straw men reminds me of another individual, yet I'll leave it at that. It's really not necessary to point out straw men with bold letters. They are painfully obvious to most.  |
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 29, 2010 23:05:21 GMT
I think you may need to go up a few font sizes. I don't care to read what you claimed again. I would like to see the data for myself. That seems to be a problem for a bunch of mystics and mystic hang-arounds. Skepticism is usually met with derision. Since I couldn't find his journal publications in the data bases that I have access to I went ahead and looked him up, not as shocking as it sounds. Oh, so you looked him up all on your own FINALLY? I provided Dr. Johnson's name so you could DO JUST THAT. On a personal note, since you seem to want to make this personal, you should take those types of discussions to private messages. As to feeling sorry for those men that were kind enough to spend so much time teaching me, they might agree with the sentiment. So might my initiators in different lineages. Regardless I can still pick up the phone and call them, or stop by their homes. What they are capable of does not require a CAPS lock because the truth of their abilities does not require me to be shrill. Yeah well, the deliberate assumption of obtuseness was starting to get to me. Sorry, I shouldn't have let it get to me like it did. Silly, me; I assumed you had heard of "Google". You made some fantastic claims. Fantastic proof was asked for. You seemed to get bent out of shape. Settle down, we are just talking. I gave you data that appeared in a medical Qigong textbook, from a source that actually has STUDIED medical Qigong in China and so can be expected to know something about the standards that Medical Qigong students have to meet.
How are these things I said so 'fantastical"? I have heard many stories about the abilities these Chinese martial arts masters are supposed to have and even seen a few of them in action myself. There is certainly nothing farfetched about them as far as I can see; there is a LOT we don't know about the nature of matter here in the West that the East has gone ahead with; anyone who has done actual "inner work" knows that one acquires "powers' which for lack of understanding can be called "magickal".
It is a curious fact that if one refuses to accept the possibility of such abilities, you simply cannot acquire them. One's skepticism poisons all one's efforts. If the Wright brothers and everyone else who was convinced of the possibility of flight had listened to all the detractors and naysayers, where would we be today, eh? Who, never having seen a plane, could ever believe while looking at a 747, that it could ever get off the ground? YET IT DOES.
Did you know that as late as 1949, people were STILL discounting and ridiculing the possibility of rockets going to the moon? A mere TWENTY YEARS LATER, we were THERE. |
|
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 29, 2010 23:36:48 GMT
It is a curious fact that if one refuses to accept the possibility of such abilities, you simply cannot acquire them. One's skepticism poisons all one's efforts. If the Wright brothers and everyone else who was convinced of the possibility of flight had listened to all the detractors and naysayers, where would we be today, eh? Who, never having seen a plane, could ever believe while looking at a 747, that it could ever get off the ground? YET IT DOES. Did you know that as late as 1949, people were STILL discounting and ridiculing the possibility of rockets going to the moon? A mere TWENTY YEARS LATER, we were THERE. [/color] [/quote] Flight was already achieved long before Kitty Hawk. Recall the Montgolfier Brothers and the success with gliders. The rocket technology had been around for centuries before that. Human flight was questioned, certainly. This is a far, far cry from the unproven claims and substiated quackery of claimed phenomena not yet tested in controlled experimentation. You know that many suggested an alien race would be discovered on the moon. That proved to be without merit, yet the 'evidence' for it was as plentiful and valid as much of what is provided in support of phenomena. No one had to believe with all their heart for the aircraft to fly. It was pure physics. Apparently, this is not the case with other claims made here. Also, you apparently think Rembrandt, I, and anyone else that asks for evidence is completely against what is presented. It has been said over and over again that we all would love to see scientifically falsifiable verification. This remains absolutely true.  |
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 30, 2010 3:51:51 GMT
Well, it hardly gets more verifiable than being able to change the colour of litmus paper by an act of will. My partner is a acupuncture master, as well as being trained in other forms of chinese treatment, many of which he has used on me. it is entirely possible the Western medical experts DON'T WANT "proof" of the efficacy of many Traditional chinese medicine therapies precisely because they DO work, and their monopoly would be BROKEN if people started relying on THOSE, instead of on the pill-pushers working for the pharmaceutical companies that most "doctors" so-called, have degenerated into.
If we are going to be 'skeptical" here, then it should be equal on both sides; some people might do well to remember the term "vested interests", and a little question I have found useful: " Cui bono?" [Who profits?] F'r instance, "Who profits?" from keeping Traditional Chinese Medicine methods on the down-low, and making it all seem like quackery and superstition, eh? Little metal needles are so much cheaper than high-priced doses of pharmaceuticals; do you think the Western medical industry is going to countenance losing all that money to the "competition"? In that case, that throws a bit of a DIFFERENT light on the putting out of reports by Western doctors that "there is no evidence that acupuncture is effective in any way". "Skepticism" works both ways, or it SHOULD, when BIG BUCKS are involved!!
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 30, 2010 4:06:17 GMT
It is a curious fact that if one refuses to accept the possibility of such abilities, you simply cannot acquire them. One's skepticism poisons all one's efforts. If the Wright brothers and everyone else who was convinced of the possibility of flight had listened to all the detractors and naysayers, where would we be today, eh? Who, never having seen a plane, could ever believe while looking at a 747, that it could ever get off the ground? YET IT DOES. Did you know that as late as 1949, people were STILL discounting and ridiculing the possibility of rockets going to the moon? A mere TWENTY YEARS LATER, we were THERE. [/color] [/quote] Flight was already achieved long before Kitty Hawk. Recall the Montgolfier Brothers and the success with gliders. The rocket technology had been around for centuries before that. Human flight was questioned, certainly. This is a far, far cry from the unproven claims and substiated quackery of claimed phenomena not yet tested in controlled experimentation. You know that many suggested an alien race would be discovered on the moon. That proved to be without merit, yet the 'evidence' for it was as plentiful and valid as much of what is provided in support of phenomena. No one had to believe with all their heart for the aircraft to fly. It was pure physics. Apparently, this is not the case with other claims made here. Like I said; The only difference between magick and science is TIME. "Physics" is a recent phenomenon, yet there is plenty of evidence that the ancients were perfectly familiar with the concepts that science so proudly displays as"recent acquisitions". The rocket technology" you speak of HAD been around for centuries, true,enough, just like the materials for 'gasoline' and "internal combustion engines" and "electricity" were too. But human ingenuity simply had to 'catch up" and refine the concepts! Did you know that aluminum was once considered a "precious metal" becuse the methods for refining it did not exist. If you had suggested that someday it would be so common that people would throw it away with abandon, you would have been considered a LUNATIC.Also, you apparently think Rembrandt, I, and anyone else that asks for evidence is completely against what is presented. It has been said over and over again that we all would love to see scientifically falsifiable verification. This remains absolutely true. "Scientifically falsifiable verification??" Are you sure you got that right? Anything is falsifiable; you just have to have enough MONEY and VESTED INTERESTS behind you, and you can get ANYONE to LIE about ANYTHING. Happens every day, in fact! |
|
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 30, 2010 4:28:11 GMT
Like I said; The only difference between magick and science is TIME. You said, but what makes this assertion true? The words are purdy, but that does not prove it. "Physics" is a recent phenomenon, yet there is plenty of evidence that the ancients were perfectly familiar with the concepts that science so proudly displays as"recent acquisitions". Actually, physics started quite a while ago with the 'ancients' you mention. Aristotle being one of the more familiar names among many, many others. The rocket technology" you speak of HAD been around for centuries, true,enough, just like the materials for 'gasoline' and "internal combustion engines" and "electricity" were too. But human ingenuity simply had to 'catch up" and refine the concepts! After the ancients purportedly were 'perfectly familiar with the concepts'? Hmmm. Seems it only took a few centuries to do what the ancients had dozens of centuries on top of 'magic'? perfectly familiar with the conceptsDid you know that aluminum was once considered a "precious metal" becuse the methods for refining it did not exist. If you had suggested that someday it would be so common that people would throw it away with abandon, you would have been considered a LUNATIC.[/color][/quote] Being that my spouse works in the metallurgy field, this concept is not entirely alien to me. Also, you apparently think Rembrandt, I, and anyone else that asks for evidence is completely against what is presented. It has been said over and over again that we all would love to see scientifically falsifiable verification. This remains absolutely true. "Scientifically falsifiable verification??" Are you sure you got that right? Anything is falsifiable; you just have to have enough MONEY and VESTED INTERESTS behind you, and you can get ANYONE to LIE about ANYTHING. Happens every day, in fact! Yes, I got it right, and I am sure I did: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityOn the flip side, anything is 'magick'; 'if you have enough money and vested interest behind you, and you can get anyone to lie about anything. Happens every day, in fact!' Still, you could offer some worthwhile evidence, which is all that's asked here. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 30, 2010 4:49:37 GMT
I did offer evidence. And you spat on it. I said that in China, Medical Qigong practitioners were required to demonstrate certain abilities before a panel of adjudicatiors before being qualified for residency at a hospital. Just because YOU "couldn't find evidence"of any of this, that immediately disqualified it as "evidence". The fact that MY spouse practices this and other Chinese medical disciplines should qualify ME as having some sort of authority to speak on the topic, should it not? Or is the ol' "double standard' in effect, here? Looks like it to ME.
Sorry, I am NOT impressed with your insistence on 'evidence"; they do say that 'an excess of rationality is a form of madness all on its own". Or, it could be deliberate obtuseness; many times it's more about not WANTING to accept certain things as fact, rather than there being any "lack of evidence". Or you could be just "baiting" me. Or all three.
|
|
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 30, 2010 5:02:52 GMT
Um, I think you're confusing conversations? I do not recall saying anything along those lines.
Of course, I never said I was an expert. Only that I had a glancing familiarity. As you could just be baiting me, yet I honestly and sincerely would like to see someone levitate without mechanical help. Does Qigong make its practitioners levitate? Do they film it? That would help. If they do not offer such evidence, they are largely irrelevant to the concept of unaided human levitation.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Oct 30, 2010 12:27:42 GMT
Well, it hardly gets more verifiable than being able to change the colour of litmus paper by an act of will. My partner is a acupuncture master, as well as being trained in other forms of chinese treatment, many of which he has used on me. it is entirely possible the Western medical experts DON'T WANT "proof" of the efficacy of many Traditional chinese medicine therapies precisely because they DO work, and their monopoly would be BROKEN if people started relying on THOSE, instead of on the pill-pushers working for the pharmaceutical companies that most "doctors" so-called, have degenerated into. If we are going to be 'skeptical" here, then it should be equal on both sides; some people might do well to remember the term "vested interests", and a little question I have found useful: " Cui bono?" [Who profits?] F'r instance, "Who profits?" from keeping Traditional Chinese Medicine methods on the down-low, and making it all seem like quackery and superstition, eh? Little metal needles are so much cheaper than high-priced doses of pharmaceuticals; do you think the Western medical industry is going to countenance losing all that money to the "competition"? In that case, that throws a bit of a DIFFERENT light on the putting out of reports by Western doctors that "there is no evidence that acupuncture is effective in any way". "Skepticism" works both ways, or it SHOULD, when BIG BUCKS are involved!! Well, I'm not sure it's all as organized and conspiratorial as that. Some of it is, like when they declared Comfrey a 'dangerous' herb because injections of a highly concentrated form of it's active ingredients caused (*gasp*) health problems in lab mice. Who would have thought it? But anyway, much of the time I think it boils down to ignorance and incuriosity. Modern medical practitioners want to believe their model for how the body functions is the right one and the only one. So anything else must be quackery. So when one herbalist makes a mistake and someone dies, it's big news and is fodder for having the whole practice of herbology shut down or regulated by outsiders. A licenced physician kills someone (happens all the time) by accident and good luck talking about it without a fleet of their association's lawyers accosting you. This belief holds even amongst their own and they'll happily throw their own fellows under the proverbial bus. It's almost like a modern day inquisition at times. A group of researchers released a study lately out of a hospital in New York (can't remember which one it was, sorry!) that was looking into if/how acupuncture actually worked. They came up with the earth shattering conclusion that the needles, when twisted, caused cellular damage which made the body react by releasing a natural local painkiller to the area which gave the patients a 'short term feeling of having been successfully treated'. The reaction of their fellows? Apparently they were regaled with contempt and insults from their fellow researchers. The one fellow who was interviewed talked about how the most difficult part of their research was all their colleagues who treated their work as 'quack science' and a huge waste of time and money. Talk about a scientific attitude, huh? So even when then DO try to study these phenomenon, and do so within the tight little empirical box of modern medical science, you can't even entertain any theory that doesn't jive with the conventional wisdom of the time without risking being ostracized. Some things never change. |
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 30, 2010 13:07:52 GMT
Generally most scholars publish works in one if not many of the various publications out there. There are a lot of them. I have access to quite a few of them through my university. Not one mention. Since the scholarly route was turning up nothing I used Google. I found his claims about himself. I was looking for something peer reviewed.
For the most part a peer reviewed journal publication is more reliable because the reviewers are not informed of who the author is and the author does not know who the reviewers are. There are strict forms to be followed to check the accuracy of the report.
Since one cannot prove a negative the responsibility then falls upon the claimant to provide evidence to support the hypothesis. As you said there is a lot that we don't know about the world. The methods of science are a route to finding that knowledge. Sadly for many that route requires evidence. The evidence is stronger when an experiment can be repeated under observation and strict scientific controls.
I do not refuse to accept the existence of these abilities. I refuse to blindly accept claims that are fantastic. If these claims can be supported in a manner that addresses doubts then I would be happy to accept the evidence used. Skepticism is not the same as rejection.
|
|
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 30, 2010 17:40:26 GMT
I think the conversation started with a Guru claiming he was up to the challenge of killing a skeptic with only the power of his mind. The Guru unquestionably failed. To the Guru's credit, at least he attempted to show some evidence. The conversation then transformed into discussion on human levitation and a call for verified instances. Thus far, none have been displayed aside from magnetism-clearly not the human levitation of the sort claimed. Second failure at displaying evidence. Now, we have gone into Qigong and Asian medicine, much of which I suppose functions, yet it is not clear that all of it functions nor how it works when it does.
I have been a recipient of Chinese medicine, and would suggest that I felt it worked for me, yet I am not certain how much is placebo effect. Placebo effect, of course, has its uses, yet can be gotten many different ways, many of them simpler. I wouldn't back it wholeheartedly without more research.
How much should we accept without objective evidence? Augur offered an objective instance of studied acupuncture and the reasons it could possibly function. I am willing to accept that evidence, and I am always willing to accept evidence proven under controlled conditions. I do not see why this is so difficult with other claims.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Oct 30, 2010 18:52:40 GMT
How much should we accept without objective evidence? Augur offered an objective instance of studied acupuncture and the reasons it could possibly function. I am willing to accept that evidence, and I am always willing to accept evidence proven under controlled conditions. I do not see why this is so difficult with other claims. It's difficult because it seems that even attempting a study on some of these methods, let alone actually suggesting that there might be some minor and transitory benefit from them, seems to get met with serious resistance from a largely conservative medical research establishment that doesn't seem terribly curious about such things. And even when it is done, it doesn't even get much traction. When I was working in a TCM clinic that primarily treated terminal cancer patients we were engaged in a study, with the help of a urologist, on men with prostate cancer. At the time, the survival rate of men who chose surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy was no different than those who opted for no treatment whatsoever. Of course, no one called any of the doctors who suggested any of these treatments to these men 'quacks' despite the dubious outcome they could expect. Now I'm not saying they should be, as they were doing the best for their patients as they knew how. But for our purposes, it gave us a pool of men who hadn't been 'polluted' with radiation and poisons to perform a study on with some reasonable controls. My mentor ended up having a ~65% (if my memory serves) success rate amongst his patients with a prescription of herbs, exercise (Qi Gong), and support groups and while the lone urologist who worked with us was astounded at the lowered PSA levels and many cases of complete remission. However, getting anyone else interested or to take us (or him) seriously was extremely difficult. Nobody wanted to touch it with a 10 foot pole. So while I completely agree that these methods should be held up to the same scrutiny and review as any other medical discipline, until people in the medical research establishment are actually willing to begin to entertain the fact that some of them actually work and that there's more than one medical model one can apply to the human condition it's not going to happen. |
|
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 30, 2010 19:10:02 GMT
I understand that many are skeptical beyond the point of convincing, though I also understand there was and still is a great deal of credulity in society and a great deal of people willing to take advantage of that credulity; often to the great detriment of their victims. I don't doubt some of this works, and much could easily be verified such as the value of herbs and exercise. I think a Qi Gong has largely become a way to distract the earlier conversation of the Guru who attempted to kill with his mind and other fantastic claims such as Unaided Human Levitation. This is much like comparing Apples to Onions. The Guru gave it a good ol' 'college try' and failed. The levitation has not been proven. I am far more in favor of the evidence for Qi Gong, yet I think alternative medicine is a far cry from 'Physic Slayings' or 'Magnificent Levitating Men Without Their Flying Machines'. ;,)
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 31, 2010 2:59:46 GMT
Would anyone believe a VIDEO of someone levitating? I hardly think so; they would simply assume it was a "special effect". Nobody can put any faith in any photo or movie nowadays; I'll wager all the fuss about this "1920s cell phone" is nothing but a GIANT HOAX. Somebody probably had a slow day at a movie lab and "photoshopped" that figure into the movie clip and then released it, claiming he had "discovered evidence of time travel". PUH-LEAZZE. "Evidence of somebody with TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS", more like!
Oh, and I will remark here that Crowley discussed "levitation" in "Magick Without Tears"; He said that once he came into the room when Allan Bennett was meditating, and found him still meditating in the lotus pose, but UPSIDE DOWN at one end of the room, as though somebody had picked him up and tossed him. He speculated that Bennett had levitated, but imperfectly. Crowley also recounted an expereince where one of his mistresses had seen him levitate; he had gotten himself into an exalted state of mind through taking nursery rhymes and giving them an "mystical" interpretation (the account of these is extant). According to the woman, Crowley then seemed to "change" into another person, and his eyes became very peculiar (completely black) and there was a sort of yellow glow about him...and then he rose into the air about a foot above his chair! Her account ended there because she got so frightened at these phenomena that she fainted!
Crowley also said that many times he would 'disappear"; at the Abbey of Thelema, they would all be walking to the beach across a meadow "where there wasn't cover for a rabbit", and Crowley would vanish from sight, and then re-appear again. in fact it got fairly commonplace! This is not as unlikely as it seems; nor is it a difficult trick; I have done it (admittedly, under duress) and I have a "magickal" friend who can also do this. She told me once she was leaning against a tree, and while doing so, she felt suddenly as though she had "disappeared" into the tree; -and only a moment later a couple came along and had a heated argument literally only INCHES AWAY from her!
She said they did not notice her standing RIGHT THERE only about 6 inches away from them, almost closer to them than they were from each other! She thus speculated that the odd "invisiblity"sensation she had must have been GENUINE!
|
|
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 31, 2010 17:56:07 GMT
I think the footage from the Chaplin film was likely real. It seems to be an old lady with an 'ear-horn' hearing aid, and not remarkable at all. I've seen people be far too credulous over ridiculous claims (such as made often by Crowley). Of course, Crowley was known from the start to embellish the truth. I assume Crowley began to believe his own stories. His claims may be true or may be entire falsehoods. An account from a book is not enough proof. Especially one written by the claimant. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' Again, I would like to see some type of verification of these things or record from credible witnesses. A report from a scientist would be grat. Certainly, there is footage of levitation, and some of it very convincing. Those who claim it is real generally refuse to let anyone close enough to examine the event. I'm not sorry if I demand evidence before I accept an account from someone who may or may not be what they claim of something that remains unproven. If I said I had a purple lepracaun living in my garbage can, I would not expect you to believe me without compelling evidence. |
|
