This article makes a lot more sense when you see what I mean and I am pretty sure the Nei Jing means by Qi , so please try to go through that thread first.

EMOTIONAL REPRESSION, QI AND WHEN EMOTIONS BECOME CAUSES OF ILLNESS

I think emotions are at their healthiest when they just come and go freely - to flow unobstructed. If it is flowing, it cannot be repressed, as there is nothing substantial enough to do so (please read on to understand what I mean by this). Anger may flare up with murderous intensity as the situation may demand, and in someone with good emotional qi circulating ability it passes just as quickly/naturally - not a problem. Can't directly and voluntarily always control it as such in this way of seeing, but at the very least when it is flowing emotions do not come to control you either.

But what exactly do I mean by a freely flowing emotion?

Greg Bantick suggests that emotional intensity and regularity of the experience of it, in and of itself, is not a bad thing at all. So you can feel powerful sensations in your body say daily that you label as the experience of a particular emotion, but it will not be damaging to you in the CM way until it is believed in/interpreted as real beyond the experience of it. So a freely flowing emotion is simply one that is not identified with, just felt. In fact many of us have forgotten what an emotion really "feels" like in detail, we simply leap from the bodymind sensation to the interpretation of it with our emotional label, and are only really aware of the label. Hard to let the emotion/qi flow if we jump to conclusions like this (which is the point of experiential therapies like Eugene Gendlin's "Focusing", to get back in touch with the sensations that are the building blocks of what we call our emotions, and thereby let them resolve themselves).

Only if the emotion has been identified with or believed in does it get stuck and become a CM health issue, and also only then can it be consciously or unconsciously repressed. After that stage of identification and stuckness, it probably is indeed a wise thing, in a harm minimalisation kind of way, to repress in many situations, and often a very "healthy", socially or biologically, thing to do. Ideally we never have to get to this point in the first place, and we don't if we have an excellent emotional-qi circulating ability (which when you think about it, apart from TCM level factors like a healthy liver and plenty of blood, etc, is greatly dependent on one's ego's degree of identification with emptiness... can't offend someone that is not rigidly identified with anything to be offended!).


SOMATICISATION OF EMOTIONS AS REPRESSION OF EMOTIONS?

I find it very interesting that there is a tendency in Chinese culture (in China and elsewhere) to not really talk about emotions medically. So even when a Chinese (using broad stereotypes here, just go with me) goes to see a doctor and is obviously by western diagnostic standards depressed, the Chinese patient will tend to somaticise everything and instead talk about what it feels like in the body. So instead of saying "Doc I'm anxious", it will be "Doc, I feel this tickling/empty sensation in my belly" or instead of "I'm depressed and despairing" it will be "I feel congested in the chest and feel the need to sigh", etc.

Now sometimes we (I know I have with my relatives) take this as a sign that Chinese people are just repressed and not in touch with their emotions generally. This is just a way of avoiding having to admit to others the fact one is going through emotional difficulty, you know, dealing in a stoic "stiff upper lip" kind of way to save face. I think this is often indeed the case in many ways.... just that it's not the whole picture.

I think it also has to do with the fact that in the Chinese Medical way of looking at things, emotions as labels are just not that important. It is the movement of the bodymind sensations (ie. the Qi) that PRECEDES the internal interpretation that yes, I am feeling this emotion, that is more interesting, and indeed more useful for resolving any stucknesses there. Further, any game we play as a medical system that encourages people to believe any emotion is independently real beyond the interpretation of it from the Qi that is felt, is also one that discourages beyond a certain level the perception of what exactly one is feeling moment to moment. This ironically hardens the stuck emotions as entities and thus often makes them harder to resolve. Or in other words, we forget that Qi (as I mean it, something like "all direct subjective experience") is real and important, and we pay the emotional price for our lazy shortcutting. As Kiekergaard eluded, to label is to deny...

Somaticisation of emotions as inability/refusal to be with emotions? Or identification with emotions as the inability/refusal to be with qi?


SO WHAT IS AN EMOTION ANYWAY?

I write all the above to, amongst other things, therefore suggest that we need to re-examine our assumptions of just what an emotion is, and how this can be very useful to us in the udnerstanding of Qi. For example, if we agree anger is an emotion, what about tiredness? I know I am feeling angry because of a certain sensation in my bodymind, that I can sometimes voluntarily elicit, and sometimes gets stuck in stressful circumstance, and in those times needs some other action like punching a pillow to be able to resolve. Tiredness fits the bill under this generic description too. What is the difference? What defines a certain state of being as an emotion and another state of being as not?

INTRODUCTION

A very important article I read recently that will offend some, but provide deep understanding to others.  Whatever one denies, one attracts...


Is It Necessary To Know How To Kill?"

******************************************************
"Violence is not always the answer, but when it is the answer, it's the ONLY answer"
- Author Unknown
******************************************************

*********************

NOTE: I realize the subject of this issue is highly controversial but urge you to read through this entire issue before forming an opinion. I will revisit this subject more in the future.

*********************

Lets start with a couple of questions:

1.) In this day and age, what could possibly be the reason to teach someone how to kill another human with his or her bare hands?

2.) Do I actually advocate instructing clients in this very specific, lethal material?

The answer to the first question is that there are MANY reasons why it is essential one get this lethal knowledge. The answer to the second question is: not only do I advocate teaching it, I ABSOLUTELY teach it to all my clients.

So, what are my reasons for taking this very controversial position?

First off, I've carefully laid out the principles behind the training I advocate for life or death situations. You have read in previous newsletters about the disastrous effects of training with rules against THE OTHER GUYS who don't observe those same rules.

It is very clear that using violence is appropriate in very few situations. To use violence for any reason other than hurting an other guy who would otherwise harm you is extremely risky.

You see, with proper knowledge of the nervous system of the human body one can effectively attack any assailant, regardless of size, strength or athletic ability.

So it is inconceivable that one could train a client for self-protection yet ignore the subject of killing. If faced with a life and death struggle you need clear, concise information on how to systematically shut down the other guy's central nervous system (CNS).

This is especially true for male-on-female violence, which females MUST treat as a lethal situation. Also any fighter facing a potentially lethal attack by a larger, stronger or faster other guy must be able to immediately shut down that other guy's CNS.

Still, very few instructors directly teach this knowledge. Why? It has been my experience few actually have the skill and expertise to do so. To hide this deficiency they state legal issues and spiritual reasons for not teaching such principles.

Yet many of the techniques they show will directly result in potentially lethal outcomes -- SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER POINTED OUT TO THE CLIENT!

In fact, most clients go through training with no clear knowledge of which strikes and techniques ARE lethal and what the impact is on the human body from these blows and manipulations.

I find it far more dangerous not to know how to kill when you consider the flip side of that knowledge is the fact that any time you put your hands on another human being to inflict violence you have no idea whatsoever how that person will response to the blow.

A person built like Arnold Schwarzenegger may have a bad heart and your punch to the solar plexus to 'teach him a lesson' may, in fact, kill him. That is why I stress the difference between EGO THREAT situations and LIFE-OR-DEATH THREAT situations.

You probably heard about the 'Hockey Dad' trial in Massachusetts. A man ended up going to jail for manslaughter over an argument with his son's hockey coach. By all accounts the smaller coach was a real jerk and made the kids do some useless and dangerous training on the ice.

This 'Hockey Dad' voiced his concern and the verbal exchange led to a fight. 'Hockey Dad' ended up killing the smaller coach by repeated blows to the head.

It was not intentional, both were wrong. But the one common factor here was this: neither had any idea of the effects of those strikes upon the other! Both families lost their dads that day -- one was killed, the other is in jail.

It is my goal with a client to give you ALL the lethal knowledge necessary so you can make the decision on whether or not it is worth the potential legal hassles to fight over an EGO THREAT or to instantly be able to destroy the other guy's CNS in a LIFE-OR-DEATH THREAT.

I can't tell you how many testimonials I get from clients who have easily avoided the 'Hockey Dad' scenarios by having the clear knowledge of the appropriate use of violence. I value those testimonials as highly as the ones received from those who used the very same knowledge to save their lives in a life or death scenario.

Truly knowing how to kill another human places total responsibility on the trained individual, makes you a far better citizen and, in my experience, far less likely to use violence as an answer to any situation that is not life threatening.

LASTEST ENTRY

INTRODUCTION

THE ART OF LISTENING - LESSONS FOR ALTERNATIVE AND CONVENTIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

The two keys to integrating the perspectives of the latest scientific discoveries, as well as the deepest and subtlest of ancient wisdom in my opinion, are the ability to critically think for oneself (as I have already talked about last post), and the ability to completely honour and listen to the critical thoughts of others.

Ken Wilber, my favourite modern writer/philosopher, has a wonderful principle in the work that he does ?"No human is smart enough to produce 100% error". In other words, every single person and major system of knowing in existence, no matter how seemingly primitive, has some partial truth to it. The flipside to this principle is that no-matter how well thought out and internally consistent and empirically supported the system you happen to like is, it too is missing part of the total puzzle and is also only a partial truth.

Here is what I have discovered in my observations of people ?those with the deepest knowledge of what they are doing are the most open to what others have to say. Their roots are strong enough to allow their branches to be very flexible and not have their whole being destabilized. Those with a more shallow understanding are those that are more stubborn and dogmatic, more lazy in their thinking, more  intolerant of opposing/differing opinions. And this is okay, I mean we have to start off somewhere and stick with it to be able to achieve that depth that allows us to grow to the heights of our potential.

But eventually in this learning process, we come to the point where we appreciate not just that the way we see things has great value, but why it has great value. Once we can see that, we can also begin to understand the areas where our own perspective has its weaknesses. In my opinion, it is this final step which is much more rarely reached by people in our society today, to have the humility to see our own flaws and imperfections and where other people's seemingly conflicting ideas can help us to keep growing.

I think it is not that people find it difficult to hear other people out of strength, it is essentially a manifestation of a weakness at the root, a kind of self-esteem issue. Only when we feel threatened do we get defensive and attack other ideas. But if we are given the space to see that an different point of view is not at all a threat to our own worth or of the truths that we have discovered, then it becomes that much easier to humbly listen to what others have to say.

In this, Wilber again comes to the rescue. He says it is useful to "free an inquiry by limiting it". What that means is that instead of saying/inferring that "We know all these facts about the physical/material side of how the body works and therefore this other knowledge that you guys have developed that talks from the more subjective/energic side of things is therefore invalidated", it goes something more like "We know all this stuff about the physical side as that is our area of specialty and we have our own systems of validating knowledge in that realm. You guys know heaps on and are specialists in the subjective point of view and I also honour the contributions you guys make to the total picture".

Do you see the subtle yet very important difference? Neither point of view has to step on or marginalize the other, and they are both then able to freely do what they do best. Now I understand sometimes people do come up with crap, probably because the respective systems of knowledge validation are in need of a bit of an overhaul. But to criticize with this basis of respect and space is much better received and productive than just attacking and making people feel stupid. Sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind, but we still have to be kind!

-Li

NEXT ENTRY

LASTEST ENTRY

INTRODUCTION

A WARNING FOR THOSE IN ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE - DOGMA AND LASTING SECURITY

I think that it is fair to say that whether it be for a profession of for an individual, lasting ecurity? or the personal and public belief in the integrity of one own practices, is ultimately dependant on the degree to which that profession or individual rigorously and regularly examines its own assumptions and dogmas. The false security that comes from unquestioning faith in the wisdom that is passed down to us, whether that be from medical school or from ancient traditions, can only ever be short-term.

People are not necessarily turning away from conventional medicine and coming to alternative therapies because they suddenly see how much we have to offer. The majority of the people that do so come because they feel betrayed by western medicine and frustrated by the rigidity in thinking that doctors so often demonstrate. Let us say in 10 years or so, TCM becomes a registered profession and starts being identified as a primary healthcare modality (not likely, but just go with me here). If we as a profession are just as reluctant/unable to examine our own myths and beliefs with a critical mind, I guarantee you that the betrayal felt by the public towards Western medicine will eventually come to hit TCM and other newly successfully institutionalised healthcare modalities as our weaknesses and flaws start becoming evident. The new kid on the block always gets his shot to show how he is better then the status quo and initially gets off quite lightly, but that period of leniency does not last and public opinion can turn fast (as doctors and the pharmaceutical industry is finding out).

Insecurity, in the long term, is inversely proportional to critical thinking ability, whatever modality or religion or belief structure or perspective the individual or institution happens to be at.

NEXT ENTRY

LATEST ENTRY

INTRODUCTION

POSTURE AND RELAXATION

I have been thinking a lot about posture and how it effects one's internal state of mind.  I had read some very interesting things about the relationship between chronic muscular tension and mental/emotional stress that ties it all nicely together, which I will try my best to explain below.

In Taiji and Qigong training, there is a great deal of emphasis on standing in the correct posture.  Modern teachers explain the importance of this as because the best posture is also the most energy efficient. It is possible to use next to no muscular tension to maintain your standing position when everything is aligned correctly with gravity, so that the degree with which you are able to completely relax without falling over is the degree to which your posture is correct.

This may seem a little backwards at first.  Most of us have the preconception that to stand up straight is tiring, which is why when we are allowed to "relax" it is the habit of most to hunch their shoulders. To stand with chest out, shoulders back and spine erect is something that not many people can maintain for long periods of time.

This seeming incongruity is explained by the fact that our bodies tend to get locked into certain patterns of muscular hardening.  Standing straight is indeed the most energy efficient and relaxed way to stand in relation to gravity, but in most of us this position requires us to resisting against some of our other muscles that are locked in their habits of tension.  For most of us, good posture means fighting ourselves, and that is why it is so much of an effort.

The question becomes then, how and why do these muscular locks develop in the first place?  For the following, I will basically be copying straight out of Ken Wilber "No Boundary" and Michael Greenwood's articles (http://members.shaw.ca/paradoxpublishing/pages/publications.htm#articles) on Qi Stagnation, please refer to them for further details.

We must begin by remembering that all of the muscles involved in this chronic tension are skeletal muscle, and skeletal muscle is physiologically voluntary, i.e. under conscious control.  These muscular locks are being created by something within us, and not some external force.  The only reason we have lost the ability to relax these areas at will is because we have forgotten that we are tensing them in the first place.  Or to be more accurate, we are in denial of own part in it.

Psychological denial and "muscular denial" are very closely related.  Psychological denial can be used as a strategy for the ego to disown socially unacceptable emotions.  This typically involves the projection of these feelings onto things external to the self, only to have this emotional energy come back at them from the outside.  An example of this is if someone is feeling aggressive but is unable to admit to it for whatever reason, he may project that aggression as coming from other people and instead end up feeling fearful and persecuted by them.  In reality he is only feeling the effects of his own aggression, of his own denied feelings.  If he was in full ownership of his own feelings, even if others were indeed harbouring aggressive feelings towards him, it would not bother him in the same persistent way.

An individual's pattern of muscular tension or "armouring" is a reflection of the emotional blockages and denials within that person.  Using the above example, we can imagine how aggression could physically manifests in the desire to strike out at something.  When this aggression is disowned and projected, the muscles also play their part, fighting this violent urge by mobilising other muscles to keep the others in check.  The end result is the expenditure of a lot of muscular energy, a great deal of tension in the neck and shoulders, and a net movement of zero.  All this for the sake of being able to remain in the belief that one cannot be having these aggressive feelings, and that it must be coming from someone else.

There are stand out points here.  Firstly, being able to maintain a good posture is as much about the development of emotional awareness as it is physical, which may be why those that have better posture seem much more confident and grounded - basically because they very likely are.  The better your natural posture, the deeper your default state of relaxation, and the more accepting you are of the reality of you.  That also helps to explain why long time Taiji and Qigong practitioners tend to get calmer the longer they practice.  Secondly, the existence of muscular tension in otherwise healthy tissue very commonly has an emotional component.  It is almost always a sign of some degree of unawareness of one's own feelings that if reowned, will lead to a more relaxed body and mind.  That also explains why some people have such strong emotional releases from acupuncture and other bodywork modalities, because as the saying goes: "The issues are in the tissues". 

NEXT ENTRY

LATEST ENTRY

INTRODUCTION