You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Chinese Martial ArtsDiscuss Chinese style Martial Arts here - Chinese Kempo, Kung Fu, Jeet Kune Do, Pa Kua Chang, San Shou, Tai Chi, Wing Chun, Wushu
I must admit, they are both good points when you put it like that. It is not exactly 7 years, it is said that it can take up to 7years later which I guess is that it happened to somebody. From what I have read these claims are backed up by western medicine, but yes, how do they know that's what caused it after seven years unless they were with them 24hrs a day for that period. I guess we'll never really know but I tell you one thing, I'm not signing up for the tests to find out.
I'm with you on that.
Here's a possibility, considering the thought that there are only two people who know the entirety of the style.
Poison. Something that slowly rots an organ. Placed right, and used in exact quantities, certain poisons (alkalie poisons come to mind) might cause such long-term damage.
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Well, I guess the thoughts around conditioning can be the same with regard to starving the body. Think of body conditioning like seven star strikes and kicks, where you condition your arms and shins to not feel pain by repeatedly striking them over and over and over again. Eventually the nerve endings begin to shift and change, so after a while you no longer feel the pain in the strikes, but if you notice, you no longer bruise on those spots again either. The blood flow in that particular area has changed, there is a lot of scar tissue, but scar tissue also has blood vessels within them, so should bleed as well, but the body basically learns to adapt by changing the flow path of the blood so it does not break down as much.
The same thing with extreme forms of working out. There was a point in my life where I constantly sent my body into an overly exerted state with working out and lifting weights. I broke down the muscle basically on a daily basis (worked out the same muscle groups every other day, and worked out for 3-4 routinely). It hurt a lot, but eventually my body got used to it, it learned to heal itself within a day or so as long as I give it lots of food and sleep. Eventually I started noticing overall I started healing faster, like bruises from strikes and cuts I would get would heal completely in days where before it used to take over a week, it was crazy. I loved it.
The body has a lot of strange tendencies and is really one of the least understood machines in the world really. We're still managing to figure out new things every day.
Also, keep in mind, westerns science is hundreds of years old, but eastern philosophies and medicine are thousands of years old, people tend to forget that. A computer is not going to save you from the black widow standing on your arm, if you understand what I mean.
Also, keep in mind, westerns science is hundreds of years old, but eastern philosophies and medicine are thousands of years old, people tend to forget that.
Older does not mean better. A lot of people tend to forget that, as well. Likewise, roughly the other half of the population thinks that newer is better. They're wrong, too. How old something is really has little impact on how correct it is.
Eastern and Western medicine both perform best when co-existing. There are things in Eastern medicine that are complete hoaxes, and there are things that it doesn't do well on (deteriorating tissue around the joints, for example). Likewise, there are things that Western medicine either can't deal with or uses dangerous/invasive procedures to deal with.
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Also, keep in mind, westerns science is hundreds of years old, but eastern philosophies and medicine are thousands of years old, people tend to forget that. A computer is not going to save you from the black widow standing on your arm, if you understand what I mean.
I think that you would be hard pressed to find a specific start date for either philosophy or science as far as a 'which came first' question is concerned. The truth is that they are simply modern terms. What we now call science or philosophy were one and the same thing more than a few centuries ago. (If you notice many of the great scientists were also philosophers.)
My opinion is that modern science can't know more about these fighting techniques and points as when they were discovered they were in times when they could be tried and tested for real in battle. We must have faith in what the masters have left for us as we cannot go around killing people. I may be wrong but I'm sure I've read that most martial arts these days have been changed to be more acceptable in modern times. eg. finishing moves are rarely taught in most schools.
Modern science generally doesn't work like Mythbusters: we don't need to kill people in order to show that something would be fatal. Examining the way a technique is performed and comparing the technique to what is known about human physiology we could be able to figure out what is or is not fatal. You would be surprised at what science is actually capable of testing.
For example, modern science has managed to explain an ancient technique involving a palm strike to the chest that causes death. Compressing the heart quickly and swiftly when it is trying to relax at just the right moment in between beats can cause the heart to go off rhythm. Once the natural rhythm is disturbed, the brain attempts to get it back on track and the body goes into a panic mode. Not long after the person dies. This theory goes to explain several deaths (in sports) as well as techniques in ancient martial arts. Although with the very small window of opportunity available I would hazard a guess and say that the instances in martial history of this kind of death strike can be chalked up to a lucky strike quickly turning into a legend as it gets passed around by word of mouth.
No matter how anglicized you want to say that martial arts is, if something was consistently deadly in combat at least one nation's armed forces would be teaching it to solders. If there are only 2 who know the full extent of Dim Mak then national governments would have tracked them down and forced them to reveal their secrets and/or had them killed.
Modern science generally doesn't work like Mythbusters: we don't need to kill people in order to show that something would be fatal. Examining the way a technique is performed and comparing the technique to what is known about human physiology we could be able to figure out what is or is not fatal. You would be surprised at what science is actually capable of testing.
For example, modern science has managed to explain an ancient technique involving a palm strike to the chest that causes death. Compressing the heart quickly and swiftly when it is trying to relax at just the right moment in between beats can cause the heart to go off rhythm. Once the natural rhythm is disturbed, the brain attempts to get it back on track and the body goes into a panic mode. Not long after the person dies. This theory goes to explain several deaths (in sports) as well as techniques in ancient martial arts. Although with the very small window of opportunity available I would hazard a guess and say that the instances in martial history of this kind of death strike can be chalked up to a lucky strike quickly turning into a legend as it gets passed around by word of mouth.
No matter how anglicized you want to say that martial arts is, if something was consistently deadly in combat at least one nation's armed forces would be teaching it to solders. If there are only 2 who know the full extent of Dim Mak then national governments would have tracked them down and forced them to reveal their secrets and/or had them killed.
Are you a religious person? There's no concrete evidence of higher powers yet millions believe they exist. I don't know if they do or not but who am I to say? Qi disruption has been proved by medical science. Also I don't believe that there are only 2 people that know it and am still waiting for these peoples names.
Are you a religious person? There's no concrete evidence of higher powers yet millions believe they exist. I don't know if they do or not but who am I to say? Qi disruption has been proved by medical science. Also I don't believe that there are only 2 people that know it and am still waiting for these peoples names.
Ok. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it has.
First of all, science can prove nothing. Science can only fail to disprove things. Even gravity, whose effects we can see constantly, is only a theory. A theory that has survived millions upon millions of tests, but a theory nonetheless.
Second, if medical science has failed to disprove ki disruption (not correcting your spelling, by the way, just using my own, which I interpose with chi at my own fickle will ), where is your evidence of this? I've heard a lot of people say that medical science has "proven" this or that, but when asked for resources, they can't provide any. I'd really like to see these reports. Even tell me what university/medical facility performed the experiments, and I can probably find the reports through my University library's database.
I will point out again that I'm not an entire skeptic. It is my belief that there are things that our science, until it becomes integrated with our spirituality, will never be capable of explaining.
But the other edge of this particular sword means that I must take these issues on faith, something that I struggle with my analytical mind day after day to do.
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Ok. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it has.
First of all, science can prove nothing. Science can only fail to disprove things. Even gravity, whose effects we can see constantly, is only a theory. A theory that has survived millions upon millions of tests, but a theory nonetheless.
That gravity works is a law, how gravity works is the theory.
The phrase "just a theory" really isn't a good way to cast doubt on something. The only concrete proofs occur in math, beyond that all we are capable of doing is experientially verify things in highly controlled settings. Sure, its "just a theory" that make airplanes work, but it is a very well documented and tested theory that continues to be refined through continued experiments.
I have it in a book somewhere. I will find out about the tests.
Although, I'm not too bothered whether anyone believes it. I do and that's what matters.
That gravity works is a law, how gravity works is the theory.
The phrase "just a theory" really isn't a good way to cast doubt on something. The only concrete proofs occur in math, beyond that all we are capable of doing is experientially verify things in highly controlled settings. Sure, its "just a theory" that make airplanes work, but it is a very well documented and tested theory that continues to be refined through continued experiments.
You're right about the gravity thing. I've just had it explained a little differently in my logical science class (Basically, the premise was that if it wasn't a mutual attraction thing, gravity would be renamed, but that's an argument in semantics).
I'm not doing it to cast doubt on Dim Mak. As I said, I don't necessarily disbelieve it. I was pointing out a law (theory?) in scientific thinking. (And no, it's not "just a theory" that makes airplanes work, it's a bunch of theories. :P)
To go deeper into it, something that is seen and is verifiable by technology is "fact." The cause for such a fact is "theory." Example: Black belt A strikes target, target falls down, EKG shows that heart has gone into arrhythmia. These are all fact. The main theory is that ki disruption has caused arrhythmia. But a set of questions (posed either by the officiating scientists or by scientists from other organizations) Did the Black belt designate his target? Was the target a high ranking student of the art? Theory 2 is that the target has enough control to send his own heart into arrhythmia. (A very impressive feat, mind you, but entirely different from the original theory). Who performed the EKG? Was that part of the test legitimate? Theory 3 is that the thing is a hoax. (Honestly, most scientists will put this theory at #1. In fact, many scientists put it at #1 for every test they make. Start out skeptical until proven wrong)
It is mostly because I know that this kind of logical testing has not been widely applied to Dim Mak, I believe that there is an important distinction to make regarding the difference between "proof" and "failure to disprove". I'm entirely fine with people believing it. I do (to a point. And good for you, Dan, for believing it. I'm not knocking you for that). I also believe in God with every fiber of my being. If someone were to tell me that a scientific test proved the existence of God, I'd question him just as thoroughly (ok, more thoroughly).
When it comes to things such as flight, whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow, gravity, etc... I don't bring up the difference between the two, because, as you said, the tests regarding the subject have been so thorough that modern science cannot conceive of the theories regarding them being wrong.
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Well... thank scientifically unproved God... for a second I actually thought we were actually going to have an argument.
Anyway, I don't know what to think about ki disruption as a means of attack other than it seems like calling it ki and saying that science cannot possibly understand it is just smoke and mirrors to disguise what is nothing more than physical interactions of matter.
So ki exists, but it doesn't. Dim Mak is as real as a magic trick. It seems way too contradictory for me to say that is what I think about it.
Well... thank scientifically unproved God... for a second I actually thought we were actually going to have an argument.
Anyway, I don't know what to think about ki disruption as a means of attack other than it seems like calling it ki and saying that science cannot possibly understand it is just smoke and mirrors to disguise what is nothing more than physical interactions of matter.
So ki exists, but it doesn't. Dim Mak is as real as a magic trick. It seems way too contradictory for me to say that is what I think about it.
We've had plenty of arguments. We just tend to recognize the positive points in each others' posts pretty quickly.
We both seem intelligent, but you're far wiser than I, for you don't even try to explain your stance at this point. I seriously could write for hours and still not get my stance on this right.
I think I'm going to take my cue from you (though, if references are provided, I will definitely look into them and see what I come up with)
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
We both seem intelligent, but you're far wiser than I, for you don't even try to explain your stance at this point. I seriously could write for hours and still not get my stance on this right.
Haha! I'm wiser because I've given up trying to explain myself. If that wasn't so funny it would be depressing.
Haha! I'm wiser because I've given up trying to explain myself. If that wasn't so funny it would be depressing.
At least your response isn't "If that wasn't so depressing it would be funny."
Honestly, though, there is a truth to that. This really isn't the forum (read: method of transmitting ideas) for me to fully express my thoughts on something as complex as this. In longer letters, perhaps, but here, it just takes too much effort, especially since, when there are three or more people in a thread, each "hears" a different thing when they read something, so you're left explaining yourself twice. It's more effort than it's worth, especially in this case, when we're talking about something that, for us, is really theoretical anyway, but not deeply philosophical.
See? There I go again.
__________________
"I don't have the knack of victory at all times. I have only learned how not to miss the right moment." Kenshin Uesugi
"If you confer only with people in your own circle (relatives and friends), their opinions will naturally favor you, rendering them useless." Tsunetomo Yamamoto
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Dim-Mak is real
), where is your evidence of this? I've heard a lot of people say that medical science has "proven" this or that, but when asked for resources, they can't provide any. I'd really like to see these reports. Even tell me what university/medical facility performed the experiments, and I can probably find the reports through my University library's database.
Linear Mode
