Thought Art

@OBEler Claude is better

New routine:

I am more gentle with my art and more generous with my inner artist. I share more openly and more playfully. I am a good artist and my work comes to good.👍

Thanks! A big part of me is very satisfied with its repetitive nature. I’ll consider these points, and a bridge is a good idea. the fact that it is repetitive is what I like about it. I’m unlikely to change any of the chords or add new lyrics to the verse. Normally I would, but I actually enjoy the repetitive and simple nature. I listened to it like a bunch of times yesterday and I’m satisfied. I will as a bridge for sure. Changing things up and making it too dynamic can be good for songs. But, not this one . I personally find it engaging, but I guess it’s my own taste. Playing it around camp I’ve had people come up to my looking for the song in Spotify so other people seem to think so too. But, you’ve got me thinking regardless. I love this song. I record it in a month or two. I recorded my song Mountaintops a month ago and will share it with you guys once it’s on streaming services. Biggest thing for me is getting the breathing down, and smoothing out the tempo, and adding the melody to the chorus. I am luckily a lot more relaxed with my song writing than years ago. I stressed myself out of it honestly.

Very good video!

@Oppositionless me? Not really. I studied different sources. loosley I’ve applied some principles from Holistic Song Writing.

@Rigel yeah I am open. Also, the song isn’t what I would call completely refined. Definitely open to suggestions. If you have links to resources showing the techniques as well that could be an additional bonus. However I should say I personally enjoy it. It’s not a perfect take. I don’t fully know the song yet. New friend. I also didn’t EQ this phone recording which could help. I also haven’t fully worked out the breathing and I’m not convinced of the chorus but, I like the feeling a lot

@MarioGabrielJ Thank you

@Javfly33 Thanks man

Dunno

Hard to say can be hard to remember the trip

I like how deepak points out that the quantum is a mathematical concept and not a “physical or objective object. This points out a double standard in science when it treats it as such.

@Javfly33 Peak experiences regardless of catalyst aren’t meant to last all the time.

The question is not whether Qi exists but what are the possibilities of working with it? And how accurate are our current maps?

@Yimpa haha, no. One of the hardest and least profitable days ever Luckily, or not. Today is a surprise off day for the camp. I am enjoying contemplating with ChatGPT and Claude about western models of the nervous system and human energy system and Chinese model of Qi. It’s the same body we are coming at it come different angles. Very different models. They are also developed via different approaches. Many Toaist ideas come from meditative traditions where modern science doesn’t. Chinese medicine is more holistic and focusing on balancing the whole. For this reason Qi is a broad word for the bodies aliveness/ Homeostatic nature. There is clearly energy in the body if we require electrolytes and have a complex electrochemical nervous system, a beating heart, the ability to move around and be alive, that we can be tired or full of energy. That we have different emotions that effect how we move, stand, sit, breath, facial expression, choice of words and vocal tone, cognitive behviour.. But, thought art what about hormones, calories, neurons, pH and Alkaline, cells, mitochondrial, blood, nerves, etc don’t these things disprove Qi because we can observe them and not Qi? We take for granted this divine homeostatic intelligence and animating capacity if the human organism. It’s been doing this for millions of years with no end in sight… made of infinite intelligence and Consciousness. The highest will. Does physical reductionism disprove Qi? No. I would argue not at all. Traditional Chinese medicine is a a holistic practice focused on balancing the whole. It involves things like preventative maintaince through healthy balanced living. It sees the human as part of nature and that all of life has this force flowing through it. When we balance this force we can live in health and harmony. All these reductionist elements do not disprove of a life force. Because all these components come together to keep you alive. What is all the breathing, digesting, absorbing, emitting of heat, heart pumping, hormones, biochemical reactions, electrochemical reactions, and nerve signals, and consciousness and thoughts and emotions and feelings, and life! All that, and viewing it as a single process and looking to create balance in this system… a useful meta term for it all is Qi. We all have to agree that when we live healthy life styles we are generally healthier and that the body has a natural tendency to stay alive and be healthy when in the right conditions. This homeostatic tendcy of the body animating capacity is Qi. All these newly developed reductionist, materialistic, mechanistic views on the human body are extremely insightful and important. But, I do not see them as opposing Qi. You could even have the lens that the physical manifestation of such a complex being and the energy it has to keep living for millions of years is something special. How did the first heart start beating? It’s very mysterious. That, without some kind of force that runs through life we would just be rocks and dust, and water. Traditional Chinese medicine doctors were not reductionist. There goal was to maintain and restore balance too the whole body. So, they developed a different map than a reductionist one. The idea of Qi, is a useful one for such a holistic framework that sees each organ and part of the body as essential components in the body’s homeostatic ability and also that the body has an animating capacity… it can move around and think and stuff. Viewing the whole body as a totality and looking at health this way is way of looking at health and wellness. Western science has taken a more reductionist approach. There is strengths and weaknesses to different approaches.

Thought Guru

@What Am I I generally focus on teaching Qigong and not debating the theory of Qi with others. That being said my ability to explain it will be important. I am always growing and learning. However, being a Qigong teacher simply comes with the burden that people will think you are a fool. Generally, the conversation though is complicated both ways as the scientist doesn’t really know what science is and for me, I am ever deepening my understanding. I feel pretty good about this conversation. But, very hungry to deepen my understanding of this whole area. Not an easy task.

It’s obvious to me after listening to Leo’s 3 part series on the myth of science that science has many epistemic limitatations. It’s obvious now that 99% of people are programmed with this scientific model of understanding. It’s also clear the science in many cases is useful and powerful. But, Qigong and the experience I have and that of millions of people around the world don’t fit well into science. Though, you could pull from many fields like polyvagal science, sports science, breath science, fascia science, mindfulness, various somatic fields etc, Qi, is a very useful tool. Try doing breathing techniques, self acupressure and Qigong.

@What Am I It’s good to engage and use these conversations to deepen our understanding, see errors in our thinking and provide fertile soil for further contemplation. Remember not to get to heated. These conversations can be triggering and challenging at times. Debating really isn’t that useful. I’d rather we explore the underrating if science and other ways of knowledge. Aurum brought a lot to the table here and it was healthy for me to read their comments and Critisms of Qi. It’s sparked in me a deeper desire to understand Qigong, a practice which has brought a great deal of wellness and balance to my life.