kongjin

Aqira -

nice example about the lady with hearing-loss (and a blessing that she can now hear again)

I have occsionaly received "promptings" (for want of a better word) to do similar acts. I have yet to have the courage to do so.

All of my experience in this field has been within a consent setting (i.e. I was either asked to work, or I asked someone if I could and waited for the answer)

An example was the elbow I mentioned ... 50+ year old male, very sporting in his youth, some arthritis in the knees.

Was painting some kitchen units which were in awkward positions - involved lying with weight resting through the elbow joint. Compressive damage to ulnar nerve at the elbow resulting in loss of sensation and strength in the hand and forearm (lost the ability to lift a glass with the hand)

Examined by MD - thought perminant damage to nerve - unlikely to fully heal, possibly might improve a little as some small swelling lessened, but not full recovery.

I was asked to work and did so on 2 consecuative days, involving both TuiNa massage and emiited-Qi techniques.

Some stagnation and "rustiness" in the joint was felt. Blockage and cold in the area of the nerve, musculature not "sliding over" itself freely and some lessions.

Immediate partial relief was obtained. Full recovery 2 days after second treatment (syptoms had been present for a fortnight by this stage)

Feelings of heat, tingling, restoration of feeling, and pain! (working on the musculature) were illicited.

I have often been told that my hands can suddenly get very warm and radiating ...

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Great stuff Rob.. now we're moving!!!

“	Originally posted by RobT [b]They espouse a hard-line scientific reductionist position where they believe/ argue that the brain will someday be fully understood and, in principle, modelled. Such that one could be plugged into a machine that could give a read out of belief states, thoughts, emotions etc. So - "what are you thinking about" - "how dull this experiment is" - "no, you are thinking about how exicting this prospect is - you must be lying" ... and *bang* goes first-person privilege.	”

Provinding the human population doesn't destory itself, then I believe one day we will. Science should be seen as dynamic and evoloving, to say that the way things are viewed to day will stay this way forever is completely limiting. The world isn't flat...maybe not round either....

“	whilst speaking of assumptions ... there is that of the entire inductive method (hello Mr Hume!). Hume shows that there is no _rational_ reason why we should believe that the "future is conformable to the past". OK, so it always has been in the past, so one can say ... oh blast! that's circluar!!!!! So, all of our experimentation, all of science that attempts to form an understanding (and the test of this is always experiment - seeing if future results are consistent with present theory) is based on a non-rational assumption.	”

Sorry you've lost me on that one.

“	TCM (acupuncture for example) is often critiscised as being "just placebo". Well, there are published estimates (British Medical Journal, I believe) saying that placebo accounts for between 40% and 70% of _all_ clinicaly observed effect. i.e. including conventional allopathic medicine. Presumably acupuncture is just considered to have got quite good at this "mere placebo". So, we can either: a./ dismiss it is irrelevent, not reproducible in controlled, double-blind best practice, and anyway, nothing to do with known phsyiological process and thus outside of our control or ... b./ get actually quite excited about the fact that as many as 70% of people might be curable without physical clinical intervention! Thus no chemical side-effects, toxicity etc. This, at the very least merits investigation! Think of the benefits for allopathic treatment if one can combine the 2 - lower doses, better success rates ... or ... c./ following on from the above - we might even investigate the acupuncture process itself, instead of saying that "proper" tests are impossible to carry out due to the issues with controls from placebo effect that screw up the current double-blind standard. Instead of saying "the results are not valid because of ... " one could just as well say "while the results do not meet allopathic methodological standards, the following was observed as being _real_ events". And there's the rub - cannot easily control, so therefore ignore the result	”

I agree with you that placebo effects are fascinating. But you are confusing science the institution with what science is. Thats like saying since the church is crupt so must all religion be. People should be looking at what is going on in the stitutations..but where would the money be if we could cure 70% of things with placebo alone. Its the institution that chooses not to look at these things. I hope that one day this will change!

“	Just a few things to think about kuanti. There will always be questions that science cannot and should not seek to answer.	”

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. While there are questions that shouldn't be answered on an ethical grounds, if we stop asking then whats the point in exisiting. We might as well just be cattle! Another important point depends on who is doing the asking, and why do they want the answer. but this is not science .....


qutoe]is the inductive method rational[/quote]

Good question, but even if the method was changed so long as it sort an answer it is science.

“	science just about always uses time and space as measures - so we understand these	”

To answer the larger questions of life, the meaninfg of etc, then thats an important point and something that will have to be tackled in the far future. But for now in the world of today, where we only try to tackle questions that we are capable of answering, then thats not really releavant.

“	is science itself therefore rational	”

sciences is, but are the scientist and institutions

“	science can answer everything	”

science its self can not do anything (like saying can art paint). Will humans fine an answer to everthing....depends on time and how many questions there are...Gievn human exisitance is infinite and the number of questions is fixed, then yes one day. But thats not likely.


I have a feeling that on the most part we agree (thats as a scientist), it's all just a matter of definitions again !!

“	Immediate partial relief was obtained. Full recovery 2 days after second treatment (syptoms had been present for a fortnight by this stage) Feelings of heat, tingling, restoration of feeling, and pain! (working on the musculature) were illicited.	”

WooW!! again amazing stuff! How do you know what to do
If I asked what you thought was happening, would you scorn me for being too scientific again

kuanti -

"Science should be seen as dynamic and evoloving, to say that the way things are viewed to day will stay this way forever is completely limiting"
- agree

"Sorry you've lost me on that one"
- ah, yes, not the easiest. Just trust me that it is a proof that the inductive method is ultimately based on a foundation of non-rational assumption/ belief. Even amongst philosophers (who love to argue and disagree) it is widely held to be valid.

"I agree with you that placebo effects are fascinating."
- marevellous!

"But you are confusing science the institution with what science is.
- disagree. The illustration was that of hte _common_ perception amongst scientists. Like I said, "there is often a gap between scientific ideals and scientific practice"

"but where would the money be if we could cure 70% of things with placebo alone."
- trying to find out how to make 70%, 80% or higher

"Its the institution that chooses not to look at these things. I hope that one day this will change!"
- agree. just have to be careful that the institution is influential. It educates the next generation (who have to be free-minded enough to take the technical education and still maintain a sense of wonder which is essential to science - and the jaded scepticism of the long-time don. Believe me, I've met some - one particular individual in the physics dept there springs to mind )

"if we stop asking then whats the point in exisiting."
- really, really agree with this one!

"We might as well just be cattle!"
- moo!

"Another important point depends on who is doing the asking, and why do they want the answer. but this is not science ....."
- again, agree. Yet there are many institutionalised indivudals who have very prescribed ways of thinking...

"is science itself therefore rational
science is, but are the scientist and institutions"
- ah, good point about people - but the questrion also refers back to Humean arguments about inductive method. Maybe you then want to say science is above its own method - it is this rareified idea of wondering bewilderment at the world around, and sincerely trying to understand and study ... but this is not a _practical_ definition. Possibly, and said in all humbleness , you answer misses the question.

Yes, I suspect there is a fair amount of definition problems ... and I too have been an experimental scientist (nuclear physics ... gamma ray detection in large NaI crystals) as well as a theoretician.

However, the more theroetical you get (read fundamental) - the more you realise that each step forward in theory actually results in a great deal less simplicity and understadning as to what is really going on.

Newtonian mechanics - expalined everything. Lovely!

Now, relativity, QM ... we don't even know what QM means!!! We started out with this nice mathematical structure ... and end up not even knowing if this is seeking to describe reality, or in some way actually is reality (I am not kidding - welcome to the world of Philosophy of QM!)

We may well be moving deeper in our understanding - but the number of unanswered questions seem to be increasing (no fan of the "God of the gaps" am I).

Define philosophy and science as better defining our ignorance!!!

:0

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

“	Originally posted by RobT [b]"Sorry you've lost me on that one" - ah, yes, not the easiest. Just trust me that it is a proof that the inductive method is ultimately based on a foundation of non-rational assumption/ belief. Even amongst philosophers (who love to argue and disagree) it is widely held to be valid.	”

Trusting stops questioning......mooooo!

“	"- trying to find out how to make 70%, 80% or higher	”

But that would rule out all those lovely pills they sell!

“	just have to be careful that the institution is influential. It educates the next generation (who have to be free-minded enough to take the technical education and still maintain a sense of wonder which is essential to science - and the jaded scepticism of the long-time don.	”

I sit before you as a shining example


[quote]Yes, I suspect there is a fair amount of definition problems ... and I too have been an experimental scientist (nuclear physics ... gamma ray detection in large NaI crystals) as well as a theoretician.[quote]

How the hell have you managed to do all that and be 2 years younger than me!

“	However, the more theroetical you get (read fundamental) - the more you realise that each step forward in theory actually results in a great deal less simplicity and understadning as to what is really going on...................Totally agree, and with increased complications comes then need for improved methods. We may well be moving deeper in our understanding - but the number of unanswered questions seem to be increasing (no fan of the "God of the gaps" am I).	”

Every time you answer one question it raises ten more. hence why things takes so long to be established and so long for things to be expected. Like sailing an oil tanker that gets longer the more oil (knowledge) it gets inside!

And like bad sailors we've sailed why off course with this thread.....

PS(I come back to the inductive rational method one once I've had a think about it!)

Answer one, and get ten more - would be an exponential increase ...

science - the process by which we refine our ignorance

one last digression before returning to the point of the thread

Hume on inductive method (excuse the formulation - I make it up as I write):
inductive op. deductive
deductive is from a priori - true by definition of the terms involved
inductive is a posteriori

the argument proceeds something like as follows:

we observe nature and see patterns of events where after every event e1 there follows an event e2 ...

this may be itself further split by saying we, at a time, notice an event e1 being followed by an event e2

we think back through our experience and see that whenever we remember an event e1 occuring, it is soon followed by an event e2

we link the two together and postulate some sort of casual relationship, and thereby form a law such that "for each event e1 we expect that it should be followed by an event e2"

but herein is the problem ...

we then pay attention to our experience with events of type e1 over the coming time period

we do indeed observe that events e1 are followed by events e2

we therefore seem to have validated the postulated law ... but have we

all we can actually say is that, in our past observations, e2 follows e1. It is a datum - observed fact about the _past_

what is our logic for extending this into the future ... that when we have done so in the past it has always held true ...

but, again, all we can actually say is that, in our past observations, the law about e1 and e2 has held true. Again, this is a datum - observed fact about the _past_

of what, or on what, is the extension into the future based (for that is the nature of "laws" or "rules") We cannot just say, "because we did so in the past [that is, in the past, we extended into the future, and that time which has passed between our extension and now - that was future and is now past] has backed us up". This is backwards looking again.

So, in Hume's words, this use of the inductive method is based on the assumption "that the future be conformable to the past" - which is essentialy held without rational basis.


This is far more subtle than the usual "it only takes one counter-result to disprove an hypothesis" - it actually strikes much deeper.

It leads to the question, "is science, this bastion of rationality, itself rationaly based"

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

I may be repeating myself here or from another thread our temple has a lesson of new and discovery
"there is no new only the newly discovered"
we use that as a base to realize the only limits are definitions.

rob - we have discussed before some of what I do, this case I posted in one of hundreds actually this is the second deaf case this year.

the heat in your hands or your hands suddenly heating up is a very good sign, at least for minor healings like pain swelling headaches etc you should be able to knock those out

"when there are no restrictions you will not be restricted", these are not just clever sayings these are keys to doing these things, if a person sees it as a saying they are trapped and unable to perform. Rigid reality is restricted fluid reality has no concept of restriction. I do healings not becasue I can I do healings becasue I don't know that I can't.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

to go back to something slightly more related to the original title of the thread ...


"! How do you know what to do"
actually a mixture - I have a fair backing of TCM and bodywork theory which gives a structure, a framework into which to work. This allows for a systematic approach to diagnosis and treatment

but this must/ may also be balanced with another two approaches:

empathetic - some people can "physicaly" feel what is going on in the other person. This varies from being able to feel locations of sprains and other physical senstaions, to feeling blockages and other uncomfortableness of a less material sense (dis-ease op. illness). This allows insight beyond the usual prescriptive diagnostic measures. For example, one usually palpates, asks questions etc ... but the questions one asks need top be guided. You either use the "standard" ... which may occasionaly miss some things as "you didn't ask about that" ... or use something else to inform. Sometimes you are right and the answer is "how did you know ... now you come to mention it, yes ..." sometimes you are not so right.

intuitive - by "connecting" the hands just do what they want to, are guided merely by "what feels right" and in the moment. This allows a much more personal and "appropriate" treatment regime than prescribing points on what theory says should do the job.

I try to balance and use all three ... though the empathetic thing is a little foreign to me most of the time. Possible, but not for all people (some people occasionaly ask for treatment with whom I do not "gel" - or just don't like for not particular reason other than everything about them annoys. It is difficult to set this asside completely)


"If I asked what you thought was happening, would you scorn me for being too scientific again"

you can ask, I can answer. What you make of the answer is another thing entirely

Can I describe what goes on in terms that a rigorously scientific mind would recognise ... no, probably not. I was not taught this way, this langauge, but another. That is what I am used to ... and for what I need it for, it makes sense.

So, I run my hand over an injury (about 6 inches above) and feel things like distension, throbbing, heat, swirling and usetlled or the surface, harder and more congealed underneath, pressure building above, a "gapping" or void beneath ...
I then palpate and find resitance to pressure, pain illicited on pressure of some points and not others, physical heat and swelling ...

you get the picture. Some of the description you recognize, some you don't.

I quite like aqira's "I do healings not becasue I can I do healings becasue I don't know that I can't" ... there is something to that.

I always say, though, that "I" do not "do healings" ... just that by respectfully prompting and helping, I encourage the other's own body to get on with the job for itself. I also do not have extensive experience and am exploring for myself what happens (not if something is possible, merely what is going on)

Incidentaly aqira, hence the comments earlier about the role of the mind and some people just not wanting to get better. they won't until they have a change of heart (not mind, heart).

One of the big things I have found is not to get to involved in exactly what that finger is doing - it should be much more whole-body than that. And in so doing, one _is_ much more aware of that finger (like pushing hands: awareness of an individual part vs of center)

Pain, stomach aches, headaches, migraines, sporting injuries, lower back pain ... all these I have worked with and acheived success (I have never once failed to give at least pain-relief)

beyond this ... well, I wait for people to come to me anyway. The above list is what has come to me - all friends or people who know me personally. I do not advertise, nor would I.

Time and experience before anything of more import.

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

rob-yesit is best to people to open to the possability to be healed not just in this art but in traditional medicine as well, it does make it flow however it is not impossable to do it to someone trying to prove you wrong, after all if it is an injury or illness you can treat that as a seperate enity.
the question of how do you know what you do, that has more than one answer becasue sometimes you do and sometimes you don't you look at the results and wonder sometimes but don't forget if you get results wasn't that the intent anyway
oh that might be a key word

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

Aqira -

yes indeed, it is possible to work with people with whom one does not gel, or they are trying to prove you wrong. There is still theory and systematic approach, they still have a body and this will give feedback to the hands ... just I end up working differently, only a part of what I can.

intent ...

yes, this is a big big part. Can't verbalise, don't understand, just do/ use it. Can't write about without either
a./ blithering like an idiot, or
b./ sounding like a new-age hippy junky

I abhor both, so I'll just stick to what I can put into words without laughing at myself.

OK, maybe a little bit ...

mind in body, integrate the two, yet also expand so larger than physical structure, open up to above (BaiHui point), let flow in powerfully and down to DanTian, intertwine/ wrap around other ...


no, no ... its too much. I just can't do it ... (that is talk about it here, in written words, I just can't take myself that seriously ... yet these things are not meaningless to me either). Still, that little old quote from Wittgenstein in every post ...

aqira - i enjoy our little discussion here. I trust you do not find me too awkward or arogant a converstationist

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

no a little frustrating and challanging sometimes

yes it is hard to write about no concept concepts or how do you write about the undefined

I find it hard to get across the point sometimes of detachment becasue it is not a step by step process think about it, if the mind were to do a proceedure to detach how could the mind be detached. It is sort of like telling someone don't think about that pain and then they try to ignor the pain and that very act makes it even more real. Giving idenity to fluid reality returns it to rigid reality not new age just not old thinking

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

kuanti....very good you got us to open up a little

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

I apologise for the furstrations, not so for the challenges I'm afraid. Anything that keeps the little grey cells active

"Giving idenity to fluid reality returns it to rigid reality"
- agree. The whole thing is similar to self-consciousness. We never are conscious of self - always we're one-step removed. Conscious of ourselves trying to be conscious of ourselves consciously attempting to be self-conscious ...

opening up - yes, a little more than usual. I spend so much time, not only here at DL, but also with people that train TaiJi, listening to them talk about what are advanced practices which require a fundemental base from which to work from, without them ever actualy working to acquire a base.

And the base is physical (you ever met a _decent_ TaiJi master who was not fundamentaly healthy, or a healer who needed healing)

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

robt ......let me throw another one at you,
do you understand how the nerve systems work in the body
if so do you understand the relationship of alterations of chi (or better in this case prana} that coinside with the flutuatiuons of the pns
if so then we can go into fear and then into some other healing concepts that I would really like you to try since you have already gone past the first results of intentional healing.

maybe you are even getting a sence of where I am going with this

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

rob....the one step behind comment you made is part of some of what I have been telling you on other post

now i think you and I are starting to open up instead of establishing positions

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.