General Background on Dynamics

Introduction. When I use the term dynamics, I refer to certain yin/yang relationships that seem to be more important for healing and self/other defense.

While Chi and Li seem to reside in a fourth dimension in physical terms, the space of its attributes, the qualities that can be observed in Chi and Li, seems to be infinite. This collection of pages will focus on some dynamics that seem most important to health and ability.

I want to define a few terms, a state is a fairly temporary experience. For example, someone may be able to achieve a state where they get in the "zone" while playing a sport. They may have more or less influence on attaining this state, but in far too many instances it will pass. Or, maybe at some point in time you have had an experience where you have seen someone else's chi or li, but can't necessarily do it whenever you want.

A station relates to achieving a level that is pretty much always there or easily accessible. For example, maybe while your ability to perceive another's spirit has some variation you can fairly readily sense something like the nature of a flow in someone's heart chakra.

A predilection refers to one's strongest inclinations. For example, let us say you are a teacher and every student that comes to you with an excuse for missing a day of class is met pretty much with rigidity and scoffing.

It definitely seems important that we all be aware of your impulses, particularly in challenging situations. How do these impulses correspond to what we would have someone else do unto us if the situation was reversed? It seems that everyone is going to expect others to deal with their impulses and thus needs to do it themselves. This does not seem to be something that can really be improved by playing cover-up and pretend. It is my experience that even though control can be appropriate, it seems important to not let the ability to control or cover-up let one lose touch with one's self.

Range and adaptability have to do with a person's capacity to live or respond to a situation. Maybe someone says, "I always express what I feel", but you notice they only seem to have expertise at derision of others or self promotion. So you know either they are holding back or they have very little range of expression or adaptability.

Hopefully these words make at least some sense so that I can use them in the links that branch off from here. The list of dynamics will grow over time.

Some Caveats. When I was in grade school the teacher stood in front of us and said, "Everyone knows the world is round, isn't it silly that in ancient times people thought the world was flat?" Rather than get into a discussion of what different civilizations knew/believed about the Earth and why, I want to start a discussion about describing one's experience. Think about it really, what in your OWN experience would tell you the world is generally spherical? Everyplace you walk, while there are hills and valleys and whatever, it would be quite an extrapolation to believe the world is a globe. Maybe if you were high up near an ocean and you had very keen eyesight you could notice a ship drop gradually off the horizon as it sailed away. This is probably one of the few "experiential" views that could lead someone to believe the world is spherical.

In the present day, if you aren't an inveterate believer in conspiracy theories, we have all seen pictures of someone else's experience of the Earth from outer space. The development of more inclusive theories, explanations and perspectives took centuries and they definitely rely on the "experience" of others.

On the other hand, why should a physically sightless (is this the currently "correct" phrase?) person believe there are stars up in the sky? Why don't you put a blindfold on someone that is willing to persistently claim you are deluded and making it all up and try to convince them?

I have often wanted to see an experimental proof given in a lab that all truth could be discovered via experiments in a laboratory . . . or a proof using the "scientific method" that all truth can be discovered using the "scientific method". . . or some sort of variant of this.

My understanding is that making use of repeatable experiments is one of the main features of more scientific approaches. How repeatable are the experiments that are used by people that call themselves scientific? I really don't think most of them are very repeatable. They usually rely on someone who has spent many many years of study with quite a bit of money in order to be implemented. I don't think this makes them false, but one needs to skeptical about the validity of all experiments. I like to joke that far too many "scientific" results are too much like the prophet coming down from a mountain to reveal the results of their experience and expecting us all to obey.

What makes an explanation accurate or more accurate? I know that volumes have been written about this. Hopefully, this website and some of the things that have been happening provide some real motivation to enrich and enliven the discussion.

While I don't believe the experience of "higher dimensions" is purely energies produced by the material body or a creation of the material body, I have wondered about the connection of the subtle bodies to the corporeal body. This connection is going to be VERY important, particularly in the webpages that follow.

The dynamics that follow are an experiential description. The experience really can be quite a bit more subtle than these simple dynamics, but I think it will help people to develop their own experience. I am purposely trying to use words that represent pretty common experience and avoid high falootin' sounding explanations. Maybe someday someone will come up with some sort of particle theory of the higher dimensions and actually be able to give quite a bit of evidence for its validity, but I refuse to pretend in the present.

Describing Your Experience. Have you ever really tried to describe an experience to someone else? For example, what does it feel like to play mud volleyball after a rain storm? How wet is the mud? What color is it? What is the texture? How much standing water is around? What is it like to run and try to get to the ball? Do some people dive right in and others stand around? What did the mud feel like after it dried on you? There are all kinds of other things to describe.

Have you ever actually hugged a tree? What does it feel like? What does it mean for something to feel woody (come on ... not feel a woody!)?

What does it mean for emotions to seem wooden?

Can you think of situations other than sexual ones where something woody is considered to be good?

What is it that makes some actors seem better than others? How can someone seem robotic? What does it mean for a scene to be wet, whether it is a shower scene or a crying scene? How do the qualities of moisture vary?

Why do we call some humor dry? Is there wet humor?

Why do we sometimes use the words hot or volcanic to describe anger? How would you describe the last time you pitched a fit? How would you describe it if you have never pitched a fit? What does it feel like?

Obviously, I could go on and on. Obviously, these rather broad dynamics lack the subtlety to really describe most things in any sort of real refined literary or poetic sort of way. But, I think there are still a lot of worthwhile insights to be gained from looking at things with these sort of very broad brush stroke dynamics. That is what all of these other sections are about.

It's All In The Mix. In my view, another key aspect of these dynamics is how they work together. Using what seems to me to be a more oriental warrior/healer metaphysics. Most plants need healthy soil to grow, some good rich earth. There must be moisture and warmth and sunlight. The wind can definitely help the plant to propagate. It is important that these sort of elemental dynamics work together. Obviously, different plants require different mixtures. But even in their variations, real extremes of heat, moisture, dryness, inadequate soil, too much or too little fertilizer and whatever are likely to be detrimental to the health of the plant.