Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - kobok

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 299
The Cafeteria / Re: Anyone left?
« on: May 17, 2019, 09:33:30 PM »
Do me a favor jackass. Delete my goddamn account like I told you to. Unless you're too fucking stupid to do that right.

You can do what you want to your own account.  There are no performing circus monkeys here to be ordered around.  I suggest you direct your requests inward, and direct your hostility inward and use it to root out whatever part of you makes you lash out at others.  You appear to be angry at a lot of other people here (and probably all around you) for problems you had with your practices and your life.  But guess who is in the driver's seat.

Main Hall / Re: Setting the Record Straight
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:18:32 AM »
Due to the fact that their community routinely deletes responses for no apparent reason

You were given the reasons for the deletion of that post.  It had no topical content and only discussed how much you dislike people.

Respond there if you address me.

I don't intend to do so.  I speak here, which is where I had replied specifically to address the comments you chose to make here.

I'm pleased to see that you at least appear to have read and thought about what I wrote now.  But I don't even see a written response, and thus there is nothing to address.  I have no intention of playing a recording from you, as audio is sluggish and inefficient.  Enjoy your blogging.

Hello and Goodbye / Re: Gone Again
« on: August 09, 2018, 10:14:34 AM »
I am showing that I actually have control over what I say and how I behave

If that were really true this thread probably wouldn't exist.  Who is the "I" you speak of?  Most of your posts right now appear impulsive and emotionally driven in reactions to others.  You are posting just out of an emotional need to demonstrate your power?  What part of you is really in control there?  Reflect.

Hello and Goodbye / Re: Gone Again
« on: August 09, 2018, 09:01:41 AM »
my post will appear here as I want them to or not at all

You have the right to delete the content inside any posts you make, as does absolutely everyone else.  Every post you have ever made that has been kept up has also has been at the discretion and judgment of the moderating staff, just as for everyone else.  That's how it works, and your assertions won't alter the system.  You're welcome to leave or stay, and your presence or absence doesn't make or break anything.

I'm sure you glazed over the part where I explained your issues with attachment to self-image, not wanting to hear or face this, but I would encourage you to later take some time to go back and read that again carefully.  You have an opportunity for growth.

Hello and Goodbye / Re: Gone Again
« on: August 09, 2018, 08:29:12 AM »
I was the one who deleted one of your posts in your recent thread because it was entirely off-topic and about how much you don't like other people.  When you get moderated it is because of your poor interpersonal skills resulting in personal attacks (generally as rants) rather than content.  When you were banned in the past, it was for doing the same repeatedly.  You can pretend it is something else if you wish, but that's what it consistently was.

On the rest, you're not the only person here with an education, and you're certainly not the most educated person here.  You may not know the real life backgrounds of many people here, but I know the backgrounds, degrees, and careers of pretty many here, and your perception of the scenario is quite incorrect.  Therefore it would be a bit more sensible if in the future you stopped trying to browbeat people with an educational superiority you don't really have.

You took that self-perception and started a thread where you tried to browbeat people who practice a metaphysical art that you clearly didn't even know the first thing about.  You lacked an understanding of both the cultural origins and the core theoretical basis of chi, but you based your conclusions on your own misunderstandings, and then used this to lash out with insults calling others more foolish than you.

So yes, you might also have a degree now.  And congratulations for going back to school for it, because this is a worthy accomplishment.  But the mark of an intelligent and wise person begins with Socratic wisdom, in understanding the limits of one's own knowledge.  When you were corrected with information showing your misunderstanding, you should have let go of your attachment to ego and taken the opportunity to learn.  Had you done so you would have walked away happier and more informed.  Instead you retreated into a bubble of defiant and angry ignorance.  You are blaming us, but your current frustration is actually because you are in conflict with basic facts, and you cannot bring yourself to admit it.  I suggest reflecting deeply on what you are afraid of.  There is a self-image of Rayn that you are holding to so tightly that it does not even allow you to make a mistake without deep conflicting anger.  You feel like it's a source of strength, but that attachment is holding you back far more than you realize.  But it's possible to let go of that deep attachment to your self-image, and if you learn to do so you will end up a much happier and wiser person.

So, vitalism is undefined?

To the contrary, I already clearly defined it.  Your mind is stuck on some sort of non-standard definition of "domain", and you seem to think I am lying to you because of this.  In fact I was not.  I was simply using a more common usage of domain.  This line of discussion is also a tangent, which is why I have not replied to it other than just now to let you know that I am neither an idiot nor lying to you.  Those assertions are unneeded, false, and off-topic.  For the rest, I would like to focus on the question of the actual topic.

there are many possible definitions of chi ... you are not clarifying why we are using that one.

I will tell you exactly why.  You claimed, "If you are one of these people who believes in chi, prana, ki, or whatever, just know you are just as foolish as people who believe the Earth is flat".  Therefore, your claim that everyone has been replying to is specifically about the people who believe in chi.  If you want to make a claim about the people who believe in chi, and you want to say their beliefs are foolish, then it is necessary for you to use the definition of what they actually believe.

This is not arbitrary.  It is logically necessary to address those people's beliefs for your own claim about those people's beliefs to be supported.

The logic is very simple.  You made a claim that chi is invalid because physical substances used in life can be generated by processes other than life.  Yet you have not shown that chi practices or beliefs in use actually predict that, so you have not actually made any supported claims about chi.

It is not sufficient to claim some biologist or chemist you talked to thinks that's what chi is.  Biology and chemistry curricula do not typically cover the definition of chi.  It would be sufficient if you showed that prominent practitioners of chi or respected authorities on chi think that's what chi is.

If you are attempting to discredit people who actually DO chi, which you are clearly attempting, then the burden is on you to actually show that the chi you are discrediting predicts what you have falsified.

I see that you are upset, but it's not personal, it's logic.  Fulfill the necessary logic to make the claim, or your claim has no support.

you can't call chi a subset of a domain of vitalism ergo it isn't disproven.

I never attempted to, because vitalism is not a domain nor any sort of superset.  This has not been asserted by any person here, so there is no logic in attempting to defend a point no one made.  We do not need categorical reasoning of any sort.

Vitalism is a specific and clearly discredited set of beliefs about the fundamental processes of life.  A key claim of vitalism was that only living things could make the physical substances which living things are made of.  This is what was quite obviously falsified, and the point you started the thread with.  Chi however makes no such claim.  At no point in any instruction about chi that I ever had did anyone ever claim anything of that sort.  I showed you a prominent description of chi showing chi was quite different from such claims.  And I cannot even recall ever seeing a text about chi making such a claim.

Rather than asking me to defend points I never made, why don't you try supporting the point you DID make.  Show that your claims about chi are true.  To be clear, to defend your point you must show that common theories of chi predict that only living things make the physical substances which living things are made of.

You clearly believed it very strongly when you posted this thread.  If you now cannot support your assertion about chi that started the thread with actual evidence, then the proper thing to do would be to admit that.

I am actually thinking about your argument, and I can't see the flaw.

Let me spell it out:

1) Vitalism predicts X.
2) X is shown wrong.
3) Therefore, vitalism is wrong by falsification.

Fine, but the only way this applies to chi is if CHI predicts the same X.  Show that.

Yes, I can admit I could be wrong.

That's a good start.

I am essentially abstracting chi as a vitalistic philosophy based on traits they have in common in such a way to say chi likely is vitalistic.

Let me repeat again for you.  Chi as commonly practiced does not share the conclusions of vitalism that you are using to discredit vitalism, and therefore there is absolutely no rationality in back-tracking this to a conclusion about chi.

Let me show you an analogy of your reasoning process:

1) Blue is a color.
2) Red is a color.
3) Stop signs are red.
4) Bob drove past a stop sign.
5) Bob ignores signs that are blue.

That is neither deductive nor inductive.  It's ridiculous.  You only thought you were being inductive, but you were using what is called associative reasoning.  Your argument was a heuristic comparison of the form "X has a property like Y, therefore X must have the negatives of Y."  This is a common method of sloppy reasoning that is noted in the literature as arising when one stops thinking upon finding an emotionally comfortable conclusion.  But the good news is it can be avoided in the future with attention to its process.

In order for you to be able to prove me wrong, you would have to establish that chi is used in a "standard" contemporary context in a way that it likely would fall outside of the case I laid out. ... Prove me wrong with data.

You are trying to put a burden on me to prove that two things from separate cultures are not intrinsically connected?  That's not how logical process works, but I'll bite, and provide an authoritative counterexample.  To avoid bias, I will describe my process:  I looked for an authority figure on chi practices by going to google, typing "qigong association" (without knowing what I would find), clicking on the first link, and clicking "Come Learn", "What is Qigong?":

You will see the term "vital energy" does appear as a translation for qi, but that term has no connection to "vitalism" the philosophy other than the sharing of a few letters.

What you should also note is the way qigong practices are described there is as affecting understood biological processes.

Now, how logic is supposed to work is you are supposed to provide evidence that you are correct when you called people "foolish" and "like being a Flat Earther".  I will help you...  To actually do that, you would have to actually provide evidence that normal modern chi practices are undermined by your statements about urea and aspirin.

And if you cannot back up your claim, then why are you declaring it so confidently as to insult people?  Because if you want to talk about character, that's character.

Then that implies vitalism is wrong, which is my conclusion. I am not quite sure why you are disagreeing with me. No, practicing whatever you want to practice does not interfere with your ability to take Aspirin and have it work; however, the ability for it to be made to be taken disputes vitalism. By the way, this is why you have zero credibility with me.

Did you notice that not a single person here so far defended vitalism?  In fact people only repeatedly told you that vitalism has nothing at all to do with the practices in use, and some even explicitly agreed with you that vitalism is wrong.

Where YOU are wrong is in concluding that a problem with the philosophies of vitalism implies a problem with chi.  Your connection of these two, which I quoted from the first post, is simply wrong.  And therefore your deduction that a disproof of a conclusion of vitalism discredits chi, when these are not associated and are models from completely different cultures, is wrong.

Do you have the courage appropriate to a scientific mind to admit you made a mistake in connecting these two concepts here?

Or are you more interested in trying to pretend you are correct?

A corollary of organic chemistry and the rejection of vitalism is that it is possible to synthesize Asprin where analogs to that can be derived from white willow bark. If vitalism were true, which we know it is not, then that should not be possible. The form of my statement was intentionally structured in accordance with #checkmateathiest.

I will stipulate aspirin can be manufactured in this manner.  It is not in dispute.

Your sentences make no coherent point other than throwing in a random hashtag.  I have doubts that it will make sense even with an explanation because the premise is very tenuous, but if you want them to make sense you will have to try an actual explanation.

If you are one of these people who believes in chi, prana, ki, or whatever, just know you are just as foolish as people who believe the Earth is flat

Usage of chi / ki is not equivalent to a belief in vitalism, therefore this entire thread is based on a serious misconception by virtue of its first post being fallacious.

Yes, there exist some users of chi or ki that subscribe to vitalism, but it is by no means standard.  In fact the intrinsic association of these two approaches is quite questionable considering that chi/ki practices originated in the cultures of eastern Asia, while the philosophy of vitalism originated in an area encompassing Europe and northern Africa.  While I see that wikipedia currently connects these two, that more draws into question the culturally naive level of understanding of the editors of wikipedia than the modern practices of chi/ki/qi.

Going forward I will simply use the spelling "chi" for this post, since as discussed repeatedly, chi, ki, and qi are simply various romanized spellings of a common concept.  As for what is actually true about chi culture, the practices in common use vary wildly as they are passed along with the same diversity as many other spiritual or religious practices.  The most common trend among practitioners in this area is to associate chi as being a metaphysical energy with an association with core biological processes, such as blood vessels, nerves, muscular motion, and so forth.  For modern practitioners this does not necessarily come with any disbelief in modern biology, and therefore is not falsified by throwing basic biological facts at it.  Instead, the modern understanding of chi is usually regarded by modern practitioners as supplemental to biology.  Chi in modern practices is therefore most commonly regarded as a metaphysical energy that mirrors or allows regulation of scientifically understood biological practices.

If you are going to aggressively call people "foolish" for making use of a practice, then in the future I suggest attempting to better understand the scope of the practices you are actually talking about.  In this particular instance it does not appear that you took the time to do so.

If ki is real, then explain Asprin.

Since you saw fit to bold this ridiculous sentence, I will highlight it for a reply.  I would hope given my above comments about the actual relationship with modern understandings of chi, you can see how this is ridiculous.  There is nothing about chi which contradicts the functionality of aspirin.  As is obvious by my avatar here I prefer a psi approach, but modern practitioners of chi, such as the ones I studied under, are perfectly happy to take modern pain killers, and find no contradiction in this because the viewpoints intrinsically do not contradict.  If this is surprising to you then it is your misunderstanding.

Hello and Goodbye / Re: Hi from NY
« on: March 31, 2018, 08:58:29 PM »
Welcome Julio, and also الظلام

Questions & Suggestions / Re: V-Library help
« on: March 31, 2018, 08:55:34 PM »
I replied in the other thread, since I spotted that one first:,24263.msg226811.html#msg226811

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 299