The Force and Fearful Fighters

[david welch]

Why not mock something, by its name, that is often utilised charlatanistically? Why is calling chi fraudulent somehow "bigoted"? Hmmm? Actually I think it bigoted that the Western world is expected to accept the smug & unsubstantiated notions of the post-martial Asian martial arts of these our modern times, yet demean our own traditions compliantly. That is nonsense.

I think that is actually kind, for a western position.

To whoever believes in "chi" I openly laugh at you, and will give you $10,000 if you can stand in front of me with your hands in your pockets and block my wrath strike to your head with your "chi". Put up, or shut up and go away.

You are on your own as far as your hospital bill goes though.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Why not mock something, by its name, that is often utilised charlatanistically?

Because then you assume that it is always so used, which is not necessarily the case

Why is calling chi fraudulent somehow "bigoted"?

It is bigotted because it says that chi. . . and by asociation all other metaphysical or superphysical concepts . . .. cannot exist, and thus assumes that your own world view is paramount, and that all those who don't share your views are fraudulent and therefore insincere

Hmmm? Actually I think it bigoted that the Western world is expected to accept the smug & unsubstantiated notions of the post-martial Asian martial arts of these our modern times, yet demean our own traditions compliantly. That is nonsense.

Who says that the Western world is expected to accept Asian martial arts notions ? I see no such demands. . . the fact that some Westerners do accept such beliefs does not imply that they have been forced to do so.

As for demeaning Western traditions, there is no excuse for that ( except perhaps, ignorance) but that is another subject and shouldn't be used as the basis for a 'tit for tat' attack on eastern beliefs.

I tell you what: One of the biggest let-downs an Asian martial artist may have is the day he finds out that all the faith he put into Zen, ki, chi, the Tao, whatever avails him not in some knock-down drag-out fight with some thug who is actually trying to kill him.

All you are saying is that using the concept of chi in one's training does not make the fighter invincible, and I agree, however this does not mean that chi is not a useful concept, nor does it mean that those who use the concept are all charlatans. . ..
If you appy your logic to our Western traditions one might ask : If a Western longswordsman lost a fight to an Asian swordsman in spite of faith in his Western techniques does it follow that those techniques are false and that his teachers are charlatans ? Of course not !

And the last I checked, Musashi (a Japanese swordsman) never once mentioned anything about Zen, etc. He kept trying to tell the reader-fencer to go into the fight and fight -- not have faith in metaphysics.

And the last time I checked, Asian people held a wide variety of beliefs, just as Westerners do.. . . your example only proves that not All asians use the concept of chi in their training . . . so what ?

Last I checked, nobody in ARMA ever disputed the obvious & substantiated spirituality contained in the fight-books -- Catholic Christianity, Marian reverence, European astrology & magick. (By the way: You shall not find any Kabala or Graalian tradition in the known manuals -- despite what some modern specious so-called fechtmeister would have you think.) Even if many of the modern historical fencers in ARMA do not believe in the spirituality of those times, they realise & acknowledge its presence in those manuals as facts of the age. But there is also evidence in the manauls of empirically verifiable interests, not dependant upon faith but upon reason -- physiology, herbal medication, chemical formulae. Thus the full spectrum of the Western tradition which we rightly revere. In any case, we do not find any suggestion in the manuals that fighting prowess gives way to metaphysical practice as the ultimate means to winning the fight.

Yes I quite agree, but I hope you wouldn't call a man who believes that he fights while filled with the Spirit of the Lord to be a charlatan, simply because you have a different mindset ?

If so, nor should you label all asian martial artists who mention 'chi' as charlatans.

By the way: I take advice and help from John & Gene, Casper & Randall, and my other many unnamed ARMA fellows. I take the collective Fechtmeister, physics, archaeology, kinetics and fighting experience as my ultimate fencing authorities. Since my ARMA fellows consequently develop & provide advice based upon the same rationale, I thus often take their advice or at least regard it if at times I may disagree -- because it is rational & substantiated.

Of course it makes perfect sense to do so, but to mock concepts which you don't personally find useful is to assume that you know all. . .. when in reality you do not.

So there you go. We are individuals, and we are proud of our martial arts. We need not justify that to you or anyone else.

When one attacks others one finds oneself, on occasion, having to also defend.


.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

To whoever believes in "chi" I openly laugh at you, and will give you $10,000 if you can stand in front of me with your hands in your pockets and block my wrath strike to your head with your "chi". Put up, or shut up and go away.

You are on your own as far as your hospital bill goes though.

David, the original concept of 'chi' does not necessarily imply that it can be used to block a wrath strike to the head with impunity. . . . . that is just nonsense put about by charlatans. . . similar to the nonsense published about western martial arts in the movies.

If you study 'chi' then one thing becomes clear: it is not just a metaphysical concept. . .. much of it can be explained by regular physics, as has been pointed out on this thread.

For example, if a fighter yells and his opponent flinches, this can be explained via physics, and also by the concept of chi. . .. they are almost the same in terms of explanatory power . . . . and it is an illogical circular argument to say that because this is the case, that therefore chi has been discredited. . . . . when in fact the results allow that the metaphysical concept is part and parcel of the physical. . . they are nearly one and the same as explanatory theories.

.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

All you are saying is that using the concept of chi in one's training does not make the fighter invincible, and I agree, however this does not mean that chi is not a useful concept, nor does it mean that those who use the concept are all charlatans. . ..
If you appy your logic to our Western traditions one might ask : If a Western longswordsman lost a fight to an Asian swordsman in spite of faith in his Western techniques does it follow that those techniques are false and that his teachers are charlatans ? Of course not !

Chi does seem to have a similar usage a "pneuma" in Greek. A little more varied than I originally thought. This leaves the full meaning of it to be determined in the contextualization of it.

That being said, the effort of using chi as an energy with which to fight or affect an outside being, one must have a connection with the outside thing (chi being that connector is Pantheism). Thus getting into the philisophical range of "asian" religiosity and leaving very far in the dust fighting value. This being said, if one were to outright deny this and refuse it a place in consideration, I would not use the term bigot here, because now you are in the realm of a religious discussion. This is much more than a metaphysical concept (I hate that word...). And by calling someone a bigot, you have just revealed yourself to be one as well.

Therefore, if I openly do not accept, condone, or even choose to acknowledge chi, I would not call them a bigot. I simply hold to my beliefs, which will show how they are not compatible. Chi in the pantheistic usage has no place with my beliefs as a Christian. Therefore, to say that it is real, is charlatanry. It is leading someone away from the truth. Now, I know that not everyone believes the same that I do, and I will not try to force my views on anyone. But to those who would have me acknowledge that it is a true and valuable thing, I must confess that it is falsehood and dangerous to the soul. "Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me. Amen" ( Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, 1521).

... I hope you wouldn't call a man who believes that he fights while filled with the Spirit of the Lord to be a charlatan, simply because you have a different mindset ?

This proves my point. you have moved beyond the scope of objective fighting value, and discussing religion. Truth versus non-truth. There is no parrallel there.

Vocal combat is a real thing. The ability of the voice to stir the body to further action, to halt people in their own action. That is a real thing. That is an effective thing. Seen many times in many ages in many civilizations. That has value, the concept of an interconnectedness which I can use to manipulate reality, that is false.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Hi Jeremiah,

On the whole I agree with you and you make many valid points, however as you are someone who believes in a Christian spiritual deity yourself, I find it surprising that you think that the power of this deity cannot exist as a factor in a fight. . . . and you seem to also think that non physical power cannot cause physical results. . . this is contrary to the Christian doctrine so many of our fightimng ancestors believed in.

As you have stated, the discussion of sound in fighting doesn't require a metaphysical or religious discussion. . . however Casper's original post contained an argument against the existence of 'chi' , which can be summed up approximately as follows:

1) A common chi 'demonstration' is to (supposedly) stop a strike or attack with the voice, simultaneously using chi.

2) Casper stopped a strike with his voice

3) Casper did not use chi ( not stated but assumed)

4) If Casper can stop a strike with his voice without using chi then similar demonstrations which purport to use chi do not prove that chi has been used

5) Therefore chi does not exist


This argument is actually circular and doesn't work because it presupposes that chi doesn't exist

Thus:

1) If chi doesn't exist then in that case Casper could not have used it when he yelled, and nor can anyone else.

2) If chi does exist then by definition everyone has it, so Casper would in that case have used it when he yelled

It can be seen from this that the fact that Casper yelled and it stopped a strike proves nothing about the existence or non existence of chi. . . . of course this is the basis of the argument which those who deny the existence of chi always use, namely that its existence cannot be proven or disproven.. .. but it follows also that Caspers example proves nothing about chi.

.

[david welch]

Which all would be great... if we didn't know "chi" (Stahara) was the ema art of using the lower abs to control balance that was given mystical power to psych out gullible westerners into thinking the Asians were magic and undefeatable. That the gullible still live just gives them, well, "a fool and his money".

[Will Adamson]

It seems we are all operating under different definitions of "chi". My understanding of it comes from the korean tradition in which it is refered to as "ki". Here are the three ways I define it to myself:

1) A mystical energy that surrounds the body and all of nature that flows through various nodes on the human body. It can be manipulated to heal injury and disease, as well as be projected outside the body to affect others.

2) A symbiosis of the human body's various systems, particulary the nervous and endocrine. Manipulation of it can treat, but not cure, hypertension, pinched nerves, cronic pain, and some psychological disorders connected to hormone imbalances.

3) Concentration and intent in physical actions as well as a self confidence that enhances charisma.

#1 is outright charlatanry that is an embarrassment for the culture that allows it. #2 is fairly well accepted and documented in medical circles. #3 is something we all do hopefully.

The real sticking point is where the line between definitions 1 and 2 lies. Personally, as soon as energy enters the discussion, I'm highly skeptical. When projecting that energy outside the body or affecting objects enters the picture, sorry, no dice.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

Hi Jeremiah,
... as you are someone who believes in a Christian spiritual deity yourself, I find it surprising that you think that the power of this deity cannot exist as a factor in a fight.

Actually, I never mentioned anything about that. I didn't feel that it was a thing that could add to this dicussion. But since you called it out, I most definitely do know that God is a factor in fights, when and where he wants.

As you have stated, the discussion of sound in fighting doesn't require a metaphysical or religious discussion. . . however Caspar's original post contained an argument against the existence of 'chi' , which can be summed up approximately as follows:

1) A common chi 'demonstration' is to (supposedly) stop a strike or attack with the voice, simultaneously using chi.

2) Caspar stopped a strike with his voice

3) Caspar did not use chi ( not stated but assumed)

4) If Caspar can stop a strike with his voice without using chi then similar demonstrations which purport to use chi do not prove that chi has been used

5) Therefore chi does not exist

I believe that the thrust was that chi is not a valid explanation. It can be done without, so even if they say that it is chi, well, here is evidence that it is done without it.

This argument is actually circular and doesn't work because it presupposes that chi doesn't exist

Thus:

1) If chi doesn't exist then in that case Caspar could not have used it when he yelled, and nor can anyone else.

2) If chi does exist then by definition everyone has it, so Caspar would in that case have used it when he yelled

It can be seen from this that the fact that Caspar yelled and it stopped a strike proves nothing about the existence or non existence of chi. . . . of course this is the basis of the argument which those who deny the existence of chi always use, namely that its existence cannot be proven or disproven.. .. but it follows also that Caspars example proves nothing about chi

First, Casper is spelled with an "e." I do not mean to throw the discussion, but rather keep is respectful, and spelling a name correctly is an important way to keep that.

Now, to your number 2, he did not use it. His dealing with those who use chi tells us that he in no way used it. According to the pantheistic view of chi, everyone would have it (this would be the important premise). But Casper did not use it. No one I have ever known has been able to use it. Ergo, the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is not a real thing.

Again, this is getting into a religious discussion. Empirical evidence is what you are asking for. Which is something that is perhaps the hardest thing to ask for in religious context. Of course, when people say they use chi in battle, they are (trying to be) proving its presence. but I think perhaps Casper and partner are proving in this that those "empirical proofs" (redundant, I know) are in fact just an exhibit of vocal combat. A non mystical phenomenon that is real and effective.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

(edited for grammar)

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Will,

Your post pretty much sums it up for me too. .. . most of what is meant by 'chi' can be explained physically, and thus the concept can be used as a legitimate martial arts tool, although we might choose to use Western terms instead to explain the same phenomena.

Definition one is the controversial part, and since at this time nothing can be proven about the existence of superphysical chi one way or another, I just think that's it's best to remain silent about it. ... particularly as we have many Christian people in the western tradition who believe in a superphysical world, they are not being mocked on the ARMA forum.

Admittedly we don't have Christians out there on youtube claiming to show that they can defeat their enemies via miracles or bolts of lightning. . . . unlike the fools on the Asian side.. . . who are definitely asking to be ridiculed !

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

It seems we are all operating under different definitions of "chi". My understanding of it comes from the korean tradition in which it is refered to as "ki". Here are the three ways I define it to myself:

1) A mystical energy that surrounds the body and all of nature that flows through various nodes on the human body. It can be manipulated to heal injury and disease, as well as be projected outside the body to affect others.

I agree, definitions are a big part here. I follow with yours fairly closely, I would amend #1 though, in my research I have found the definition of the energy not to be a surrounding thing, but an indwelling energy which connects all things, that premise cannot be accepted. Thus making #1, well, it is not my intent to discuss doctrine. I do not agree with it on many levels. I will say that. (if you want more details PM me.)

But I do think that vocal combat is a very important aspect of fighting that should also be trained.

(actively trying to stay on topic)

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[Will Adamson]

You're right Jeremiah. I don't know why I wrote surrounding. Perhaps I should be sleeping instead. Maybe my chi can write better in the morning.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Hi Jeremiah,
... as you are someone who believes in a Christian spiritual deity yourself, I find it surprising that you think that the power of this deity cannot exist as a factor in a fight.

Actually, I never mentioned anything about that. I didn't feel that it was a thing that could add to this dicussion. But since you called it out, I most definitely do know that God is a factor in fights, when and where he wants.

In other words you already believe in a superphysical power which can be made manifest physically, but maintain that when an Asian has a similar belief that he or she is necessarily mistaken.

That IS bigotry

As you have stated, the discussion of sound in fighting doesn't require a metaphysical or religious discussion. . . however Casper's original post contained an argument against the existence of 'chi' , which can be summed up approximately as follows:

1) A common chi 'demonstration' is to (supposedly) stop a strike or attack with the voice, simultaneously using chi.

2) Casper stopped a strike with his voice

3) Casper did not use chi ( not stated but assumed)

4) If Casper can stop a strike with his voice without using chi then similar demonstrations which purport to use chi do not prove that chi has been used

5) Therefore chi does not exist

I believe that the thrust was that chi is not a valid explanation. It can be done without, so even if they say that it is chi, well, here is evidence that it is done without it.

There's the circular argument all over again . .. . Casper did NOT prove that chi can be done without in the demonstration unless one presupposes that ch does not exist. .. .. this is elementary logic.

Casper's demonstration does not prove that chi can be done without because IF chi exists THEN Casper necessarily used it, whether he beleives in it or not.

You understand the point ?

This argument is actually circular and doesn't work because it presupposes that chi doesn't exist

Thus:

1) If chi doesn't exist then in that case Casper could not have used it when he yelled, and nor can anyone else.

2) If chi does exist then by definition everyone has it, so Casper would in that case have used it when he yelled

It can be seen from this that the fact that Casper yelled and it stopped a strike proves nothing about the existence or non existence of chi. . . . of course this is the basis of the argument which those who deny the existence of chi always use, namely that its existence cannot be proven or disproven.. .. but it follows also that Caspers example proves nothing about chi

Now, to your number 2, he did not use it. His dealing with those who use chi tells us that he in no way used it. According to the pantheistic view of chi, everyone would have it (this would be the important premise). But Casper did not use it. No one I have ever known has been able to use it. Ergo, the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is not a real thing.

Again, you make the same error in logic: you simply state that Casper did not use chi when using his voice, and then use this statement to supposedly prove that chi does not exist. . . this cannot be used as an argument to support the idea that chi does not exist. . . it's a classical circular argument

Of course, when people say they use chi in battle, they are (trying to be) proving its presence.

Not so, they are merely describing events according to their belief system.

but I think perhaps Casper and partner are proving in this that those "empirical proofs" (redundant, I know) are in fact just an exhibit of vocal combat. A non mystical phenomenon that are real and effective.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

Jeremiah the point here is that if chi exists then it is present in every physical human action which ever existed ( please note that I said IF ), and the fact that a noise had an effect is not incompatible with the existence of chi.

Thus the only thing that Casper proved was that the voice can have an effect on an opponent, he proved absolutely nothing about chi, one way or the other. .. .


I'm happy to talk martial arts without using the idea of chi, I don't think that it is a necessary concept, but I object to people dismissing the idea out of hand, while showing tolerance towards christian beliefs. . . because it makes the forum feel quasi political rather than purely martial.


.

[david welch]

"Chi"

All other "chi" demonstrations differ in nothing from this except in degree.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

David

Your point being that there are people out there who are deluded into believing thatthey can stop all attacks using 'chi' without any physical effort ?

If so realise that the fact that these people fail does not show that chi does not exist, any more than the fact that longswords are not always invincible proves that longswords do not exist.

.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Using the voice works on many levels, and the voice is a historically correct European combat tool.

It is bigotted to sugest that all those who describe the effects of the voice as evidence of 'chi' are necessarily charlatans, or are necessarily deluded in some way . . .. although I do agree that there is a lot of nonsense being posted on the subject and that there are plenty of faked chi demonstrations out there.

Practicing European martial arts does not require that we mock all reference to metaphysics or alternative physiological explanations, those who do so are entitled to their opinion, but there seems to be an assumption on the ARMA that Europeans are all mechanistic atheists and that the opinions of Gene Tausk and John Clements on these topics is the final truth.

Historically, European martial artists have been at least as metaphysically minded as their eastern counterparts. . . in my opinion what one makes of that is up to the individual and a little more respect should be shown for those with views not shared by the management.

In any case, the effective use of the voice can be described without reference to metaphysics. . . . and does not require us to talk about chi.


War cries, songs, trumpets, bagpipes and the like are all examples of the use of sound as a weapon.


.

No, it's not bigotted. It's quite simply the truth. War-cries and bagpipes are one thing - mystical energy forces are another.

-B.