JerryLove

Similarly, Judeo-Christian history is full of chirches condeming said groups as herecy... so there are supportable opinions in both directions. There's the "God gave it to us" group and there's the "searching for power outside of God (even in yourself) is placing yourself before God and evil". As an atheist, I don't have these problems. And no, it's clear Biblically that God does *not* give man the power to choose anything (Romans 9 or 13... I think 13)

I suspect that it's another case of seperate events being covered under one umbrella. I think many people have nerve tricks and believe them to be chi. I'd have to be feeling a specific example to form an opinion there... good question though.

Fireka: I understand skepticism... but unless they are working from their own expereince, they are essentially saying "I have no knowledge on the subject but I know you are wrong". If someone wishes to have a conclusion regarding chi, they should have an idea where the opinion comes from. Sounds like you are perhaps young (full of energy) and not terribly proficient in qigong. I'd guess it's the equivelant of a 17 year old who sayd "I never get too tired to swim" because his exertion level s below what his body can maintain.

Agreed, phrases like "there is some support fhr the idea that:" and "It's widely held", or "it seems reasonable". PS. Can you point me at the Korean art that is "Daito-Ryu Aiki Jujitsu "?

Fact: You've cited/supported ZERO of your facts.

This is not a trik of competition, it is one of demonstration... and demonstraters are given great latitude at events.

To many Christians, the problem lies in meditation and chi work. One common Christian belief is that God si soverign. As such, we have no power of our own, and any power we get is either from God, or Satan (who, irojically, also has no power). Since meditation smacks in the contemporary mind of spiritulism, which is expressly forbidden as evil in the Bible (there's an OT requirement to kill mediums and spiritualists on sight), it's viewed as "of-Satan" and, therefore, evil.

No, but Kirves did, and the discussion of incorporation also serves to discuss similarities and contrasts (something you did ask for).

The Christian group "the Power Team" used to do about the same.

Not quite. I said that I fail to find things but I never falsely find things... It's also worth noting that I usually find most stuff, but I prefer things I can work in absolutes, as tendancies are prone to subjectivism. So I almost always find tings, and I am never wrong about the things in question existing or their location. After more than a dozen tests, and certainly when piled with "everything else", that's been quite conclusive for me that "somthing" is there. In answer to your other question, I've been in MA for a decade, including TKD, Taiji, Silat, WC, and quite a bit of seminaring in many, many more.

I certainly see enough in common in WC and most Kali styles, and I see similarity in Kali and Silat. But (depending on the style of silat), I see some large differences between Silat and WC that would seem to make silat difficult to incorporate in a WC program (though the reverse is not too bad). In particular, Silat's de-emphasis on the centerline, and emphasis on mobility (I can't imagine a WC person trying to incorporate Seti-hati, or Harimau). You can mix almost anything, and we do teach quite a bit of WC at my Silat school (Owner was 10 years into CMA before ecen discovering Silat).

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3786&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

And much of what is called Qi is indeed something else (such as body mechanics). Teaching both, there are things I can isolate as "definately not body-mechanics", such as the no-contact qigong work I do.

We specifically train aggression through emphasising it, mental training, and qigong intended to stimulate the adrenal gland.

You duck a haymaker and you risk both the other hand and the knee. Works better in boxing than fighting. But more to the point, perhaps you didn't see it in time; or you may (as mentioned before) be more interested in being setup for your attack than worried about the one you are absorbing. Other examples include spearing strikes (guiding their hand into your elbow for example), bloks/strikes intended for specific effect on the body or to open a grapple that you want to be on-line for, dealing with attacks in situations where you are reasonably immobile (regarding you not moving off-line, generally you still move theirs offline), attacks where your offline positions are "bad" (want to get out of the way of the guy who really just wants to steam-roller past to get your kid?), etc, etc.

You mean arts which move the incoming strike offline rather than themselves? or ones which simply endevour to stop a strike in it's path. I can see reasosn to do both of the above. One classic response to a haymaker is to stop-hit the arm; then, of course, are the deflections intended for when moving off-line is unavailable (most bone-shields), or boxing, which will often not worry about moving off-line or redirecting because of a focus on lining up its own attack.

The big event for me that gave me skills I could acutally test for was a Qigon healing workshop that my school puts on yearly. I finally went to one.

I understand that you have not done what I have, and as such are rightly taking my comment with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I am quite certain of what I have done, and will base all my opinions accordingly. For me, I'm not dicussing things I've heard, or might have felt, but things I have experimented with and tested.

Hands up, reach to his tucked face and try to remove an eye or tyo. Hands down, reach down his pants (or the front if you can't get in) and claw/tear at his testies. On top of that, kick his legs and knees if you can, and swing your weight around, and what you are already doing. Sometimes the fingers are also exposed and can be dislocated. Sometimes they have something in a loaction you can bite. If nothing else, these things ususally break the hug enough for you to go back to what you are more used to.

I don't have a good theory on the underlying mechanice of chi. What I do know is that it has quite different charicteristics than adreneline (which I do understand the underlying mechanics of). The simple fact that I can perform qigong interactions without contact would remove it from anything else I can think of the human body manipulating.

In a fight would I hit a lot with an open hand? Yes. Why? Because that's what I've trained and I doubt I would be trying to resist instinct. Now, if you want to know why I train that way....

Absolutely, I would never teach rooting no directing pressure as Chi. So if you understand rooting [specifically pushing your hits from the ground] can you disregard everything relating to the use of hips or follow-through? I don't think the statement holds well. There was a point where I had not seen any demonstrations I could not simply discout as well. I understand where you are coming from. I can think of a few experiments off-hand that could be done so as to establish it to someone with no training / sensitivity / belief.

Adreneline is a chemical released by the adrenaial gland in the brain. It causes musculature contraction, constricts blood flow, increases heart rate and resperation, raises blood-presure, and opens airways. It also triggers the release of several other chemicals (such as endorphins), and is good for dealing with hystamine reactions. Do I really need to point out that this is not a description of "chi"?

Any decent neijia person can do that from almost any standing position

Umm, have to disagree wcnavstar, Adreneline is the adreneline that allows a mother to pick up a car (that and the endorphins that block the pain signils telling her brain how much damage she is actually doing to her own body). Rooting and sinking have ready biomechanical explanations as well. FTGU, I'm not saying it's magic; I'm just saying there more than the tricks of body positioning, center of balance, softness, etc. There is a real "something" there; and I can't really describe "what" in useful physcial terms.