8 ms·

Reiki focuses specifically on this aspect in emphasizing the focus, intent and emotional commitment of the practitioner. Replace "energy" with "emotion" and it

Reiki focuses specifically on this aspect in emphasizing the focus, intent and emotional commitment of the practitioner. Replace "energy" with "emotion" and it begins to look legitimate.

hosh 7y ago
Sure, the attitude one holds is important. People can sense that at some level. Subtle energy is real though. Reiki is one of the modalities that does not require being in person. There’s a bunch of weirder, more obscure modalities that can work with chronic pain, trauma, and the like.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Addressing the quiet downvoters. It upsets me how dismissive our culture can be. What if there's something to it? There's a rich history of people thinking that there is. Do they really not deserve a second thought? I wish everyone were always a skeptic, but never off-hand dismissive. To those entrusting our mainstream with authority on what's bullshit and what's not, remember that psychedelics research is still illegal most places. I'd argue that history is random, and thus the mainstream. Further, variety is a good thing: the more of it we can sustain, the healthier our society is.
  - 411111111111111 7y ago
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. Nobody is dismissing proof here. They're only dismissive of the extraordinary claims that an immeasurable energy somehow inherent to some things has any effect beyond essentially the placebo effect. After all, there hasn't been any evidence which showed differently. If you have some studies showing actual results beyond placebo's baseline, we'd all be ecstatic for the new knowledge
    - dmos62 7y ago
      It merits skepticism. But, is it a lack of the scientific method that's motivating the backlash? Or, is it that the claim falls within an unpopular marginality? The obvious rebut is that it's unpopular, because it lacks scientific method. In other words, mainstream is mainstream due to merit and can be used as source of truth. If anyone takes this view, I hope they're very conscious of it, because in my opinion this viewpoint can't last long.
      - hnhg 7y ago
        You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.
        dmos62 7y ago
        You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.
        hnhg 7y ago
        Yeah, I did. In that case, I agree.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated. And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism. Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense. Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I think there are two components here. One is people reporting their experience. We should definitely honor that. But the other is people making claims of fact based on their experience. That's something people need to be responsible about, because it imposes a burden on the rest of us, and can be actively harmful. So if somebody sees funny lights in the skies, great! I would like to hear about their experience. But suppose somebody uses that to claim that aliens are real and are coming to probe people's anuses and the government is covering that all up. That's not a neutral act! As we can see with the recent rise in conspiracism and a lot of specific wacko beliefs like Flat Earth theories, bad thinking is contagious. And when we look at antivax hysteria, it becomes obviously dangerous. A comment like "subtle energy is real" is for me in the realm of irresponsible behavior. It's an unevidenced assertion of fact about the nature of the universe. And here, it's placed in contradiction to somebody being open-minded about the experience and trying to find a way to fit it into more useful frameworks of fact. So the "subtle energy is real" person is actually the one being dismissive here. I'd say the downvotes are reasonable.
    - hosh 7y ago
      What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring? It's ok if you feel that what I said was irresponsible. I know that is the mainstream view of things, and I expected a lot of backlash for posting a comment on this. I usually hang out with the crowd where the experience and reality of subtle energy is not in doubt. Among them are the people for whom ... let's just say, something in then turns on (or something), and they are experiencing a number of phenomenas which includes subtle energy. Some of it are triggered by psychedelics, and some of it is not. For them, they experience what you feel: cognitive dissonance, anxiety, fear, anger. They freak out. Among them are both people who actively sought it out ... and people who are open-minded skeptics. At that point, they are lost. The responsible thing at that point is to provide a framework to help them make sense of it. The ones who are skeptical appreciate it. They have the opportunity to explore and test out the claims for themselves.
      - zarmin 7y ago
        >"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla Material reductionism has really done a number on Western civilization. The notion that existence is limited to what can be measured, and all claims to the contrary get painted with the brush of pseudoscience, to me, embodies the hubris that is holding science back. Not to diminish the achievements of science and academia – they just have one eye covered. See the work of Dean Radin for a series of studies on nonmaterial phenomena, that I hope are the start of a wave of discovery.
  - chao- 7y ago
    EDIT: This comment ended up way longer than I set out for it to be. The TL;DR is "I used to not get it. Now I get it, but I will still discourage it." >Do they really not deserve a second thought? People do deserve a second thought, as do enduring ideas, but not always a third. For some of us, on some matters, this is our third thought, or thirtieth thought, or more. I am happy to put a name to my downvote, and to explain. After many grumpy years becoming increasingly more despondent about people (friends, even partners) who would carry on about this "energy" nonsense, I became equally intolerable myself. The topic would elicit angry, knee-jerk reactions and loud denouncements, if only because I was so sick and tired of it. At some point, seven years ago, give or take, I had a revelation vis-à-vis the linguistics of it all. I would let hosh speak for themselves, but for many people I have known the "energy" isn't real (or fake!) in any physical sense. They are not trying to express a strong ontological opinion about a human's ability to control a specific-yet-ill-defined force of nature. They are using the word as an all-encompassing metaphor for a large, flexible, ever-changing collection of experiences, both sensory and internal: sometimes your subtle body language, or emotional cues (intentional or unintentional), or their own projections of your mental state. There's probably a more precise vocabulary for any specific instance or combination of sensations, but many people are satisfied by sorting their experiences into just "feels good" and "feels bad", or the slightly-better-sounding "positive energy" and "negative energy". I still remember someone who befriended me recounting the why. They had taken the initiative to walk through a large gathering, and seek me out because they "felt the energy I was sending them". I definitely was not in control of any energy, never mind sending it. It took time to pry out the specifics, but ultimately what they meant was that I looked friendly and seemed engaged in the conversation I was having. I don't doubt that most people making statements about energy that they feel (or are "sending"), are genuinely having some internal experience and are describing it. But they aren't producing vibrations from their energy gland and evoking energy particles towards my energy gland. At least thus far that is not a thing we know humans to have and do. Even after realizing this, and becoming more contained in my reactions, I still find the term imprecise at best, and an enabler of harm at worst. I will continue to discourage it whenever I can. To directly address hosh's phrasing, the closest I could come to agreeing-to-disagree on "Subtle energy is real though", would be to phrase it as "The idea of a 'subtle energy' is a useful metaphor that sometimes helps some people reason about their experiences". Saying it "is real" in a definitive physical manner is ridiculous, by the precise dictionary definition: "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd".
- driverdan 7y ago
  > Subtle energy is real though. Do you actually understand what the word "energy" means? What form of energy is it? Can you demonstrate with a controlled scientific test this energy?
  - hosh 7y ago
    "Subtle energy" is a specific term that is not the same as the description of a physical energy. I understand what the word "energy" means in the scientific sense, but do _you_ understand what the term "subtle energy" means? Subtle energy is something that can be experienced. Among those who do experience it, if it is a hallucination, it's a shared hallucination. It has something to do with consciousness. I have severe doubts it can ever be describable or disprovable with a controlled scientific test. That is, I thiknk there are limits to what the scientific method can determine. I don't think it is measurable, at least not with the technology we can construct. It is not electromagnetic, though some forms may be experienced as having electric or magnetic properties. But one property that is not described by physical description is that it carries information: emotion, awareness, sentience, in varying degrees. However, I know of people who have tried, though I haven't seen what they published about it. It is replicable: do the correct set of practices long enough, and you can experience it. (And this is why people freak out when those practices actually works). However, I don't think it can ever be objectively measured. Psychedelics can sometimes trigger the experience of it. With the use of microdosing and clinical applications of psychedelics becoming mainstream, I expect more people will start encountering this.
  - jmcmichael 7y ago
    It's qualitative energy, not quantitative energy. The same energy one feels when one experiences love, feels lifted up by a favorite song, or feels exuberance when one's team wins the superbowl.
    - hosh 7y ago
      I don't mean it as "qualitative energy" in the sense you are using, though there are qualities to it. It affects conciousness, and is in turn affected by consciousness. The consciousness can be trained to influence, even direct or focus the it. So yes, people experience love, fill inspired, or feel exuberance, and those are subtle energy in different forms. But it also has substance. Someone skilled in its use can intensify it, purify it, project it, and influence someone else's mood with it.
gerbilly 7y ago
> Reiki focuses specifically on this aspect in emphasizing the focus, intent and emotional commitment of the practitioner. Replace "energy" with "emotion" and it begins to look legitimate. Even better replace "energy" with "attention" or "sympathy". See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard
sebastianconcpt 7y ago
Which is interesting because emotion is directly proportional to level of energy in brain cells.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  What form of energy? Electrical activity? If we apply just the term "Energy", we're now in undefined territory.
- ganzuul 7y ago
  Is this a result from research into depression?

Reiki focuses specifically on this aspect in emphasizing the focus, intent and emotional commitment of the practitioner. Replace "energy" with "emotion" and it begins to look legitimate.

hosh 7y ago

Sure, the attitude one holds is important. People can sense that at some level. Subtle energy is real though. Reiki is one of the modalities that does not require being in person. There’s a bunch of weirder, more obscure modalities that can work with chronic pain, trauma, and the like.

dmos62 7y ago
Addressing the quiet downvoters. It upsets me how dismissive our culture can be. What if there's something to it? There's a rich history of people thinking that there is. Do they really not deserve a second thought? I wish everyone were always a skeptic, but never off-hand dismissive. To those entrusting our mainstream with authority on what's bullshit and what's not, remember that psychedelics research is still illegal most places. I'd argue that history is random, and thus the mainstream. Further, variety is a good thing: the more of it we can sustain, the healthier our society is.
- 411111111111111 7y ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. Nobody is dismissing proof here. They're only dismissive of the extraordinary claims that an immeasurable energy somehow inherent to some things has any effect beyond essentially the placebo effect. After all, there hasn't been any evidence which showed differently. If you have some studies showing actual results beyond placebo's baseline, we'd all be ecstatic for the new knowledge
  - dmos62 7y ago
    It merits skepticism. But, is it a lack of the scientific method that's motivating the backlash? Or, is it that the claim falls within an unpopular marginality? The obvious rebut is that it's unpopular, because it lacks scientific method. In other words, mainstream is mainstream due to merit and can be used as source of truth. If anyone takes this view, I hope they're very conscious of it, because in my opinion this viewpoint can't last long.
    - hnhg 7y ago
      You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.
      - dmos62 7y ago
        You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.
        hnhg 7y ago
        Yeah, I did. In that case, I agree.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated. And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism. Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense. Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 7y ago
  I think there are two components here. One is people reporting their experience. We should definitely honor that. But the other is people making claims of fact based on their experience. That's something people need to be responsible about, because it imposes a burden on the rest of us, and can be actively harmful. So if somebody sees funny lights in the skies, great! I would like to hear about their experience. But suppose somebody uses that to claim that aliens are real and are coming to probe people's anuses and the government is covering that all up. That's not a neutral act! As we can see with the recent rise in conspiracism and a lot of specific wacko beliefs like Flat Earth theories, bad thinking is contagious. And when we look at antivax hysteria, it becomes obviously dangerous. A comment like "subtle energy is real" is for me in the realm of irresponsible behavior. It's an unevidenced assertion of fact about the nature of the universe. And here, it's placed in contradiction to somebody being open-minded about the experience and trying to find a way to fit it into more useful frameworks of fact. So the "subtle energy is real" person is actually the one being dismissive here. I'd say the downvotes are reasonable.
  - hosh 7y ago
    What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring? It's ok if you feel that what I said was irresponsible. I know that is the mainstream view of things, and I expected a lot of backlash for posting a comment on this. I usually hang out with the crowd where the experience and reality of subtle energy is not in doubt. Among them are the people for whom ... let's just say, something in then turns on (or something), and they are experiencing a number of phenomenas which includes subtle energy. Some of it are triggered by psychedelics, and some of it is not. For them, they experience what you feel: cognitive dissonance, anxiety, fear, anger. They freak out. Among them are both people who actively sought it out ... and people who are open-minded skeptics. At that point, they are lost. The responsible thing at that point is to provide a framework to help them make sense of it. The ones who are skeptical appreciate it. They have the opportunity to explore and test out the claims for themselves.
    - zarmin 7y ago
      >"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla Material reductionism has really done a number on Western civilization. The notion that existence is limited to what can be measured, and all claims to the contrary get painted with the brush of pseudoscience, to me, embodies the hubris that is holding science back. Not to diminish the achievements of science and academia – they just have one eye covered. See the work of Dean Radin for a series of studies on nonmaterial phenomena, that I hope are the start of a wave of discovery.
- chao- 7y ago
  EDIT: This comment ended up way longer than I set out for it to be. The TL;DR is "I used to not get it. Now I get it, but I will still discourage it." >Do they really not deserve a second thought? People do deserve a second thought, as do enduring ideas, but not always a third. For some of us, on some matters, this is our third thought, or thirtieth thought, or more. I am happy to put a name to my downvote, and to explain. After many grumpy years becoming increasingly more despondent about people (friends, even partners) who would carry on about this "energy" nonsense, I became equally intolerable myself. The topic would elicit angry, knee-jerk reactions and loud denouncements, if only because I was so sick and tired of it. At some point, seven years ago, give or take, I had a revelation vis-à-vis the linguistics of it all. I would let hosh speak for themselves, but for many people I have known the "energy" isn't real (or fake!) in any physical sense. They are not trying to express a strong ontological opinion about a human's ability to control a specific-yet-ill-defined force of nature. They are using the word as an all-encompassing metaphor for a large, flexible, ever-changing collection of experiences, both sensory and internal: sometimes your subtle body language, or emotional cues (intentional or unintentional), or their own projections of your mental state. There's probably a more precise vocabulary for any specific instance or combination of sensations, but many people are satisfied by sorting their experiences into just "feels good" and "feels bad", or the slightly-better-sounding "positive energy" and "negative energy". I still remember someone who befriended me recounting the why. They had taken the initiative to walk through a large gathering, and seek me out because they "felt the energy I was sending them". I definitely was not in control of any energy, never mind sending it. It took time to pry out the specifics, but ultimately what they meant was that I looked friendly and seemed engaged in the conversation I was having. I don't doubt that most people making statements about energy that they feel (or are "sending"), are genuinely having some internal experience and are describing it. But they aren't producing vibrations from their energy gland and evoking energy particles towards my energy gland. At least thus far that is not a thing we know humans to have and do. Even after realizing this, and becoming more contained in my reactions, I still find the term imprecise at best, and an enabler of harm at worst. I will continue to discourage it whenever I can. To directly address hosh's phrasing, the closest I could come to agreeing-to-disagree on "Subtle energy is real though", would be to phrase it as "The idea of a 'subtle energy' is a useful metaphor that sometimes helps some people reason about their experiences". Saying it "is real" in a definitive physical manner is ridiculous, by the precise dictionary definition: "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd".
driverdan 7y ago
> Subtle energy is real though. Do you actually understand what the word "energy" means? What form of energy is it? Can you demonstrate with a controlled scientific test this energy?
- hosh 7y ago
  "Subtle energy" is a specific term that is not the same as the description of a physical energy. I understand what the word "energy" means in the scientific sense, but do _you_ understand what the term "subtle energy" means? Subtle energy is something that can be experienced. Among those who do experience it, if it is a hallucination, it's a shared hallucination. It has something to do with consciousness. I have severe doubts it can ever be describable or disprovable with a controlled scientific test. That is, I thiknk there are limits to what the scientific method can determine. I don't think it is measurable, at least not with the technology we can construct. It is not electromagnetic, though some forms may be experienced as having electric or magnetic properties. But one property that is not described by physical description is that it carries information: emotion, awareness, sentience, in varying degrees. However, I know of people who have tried, though I haven't seen what they published about it. It is replicable: do the correct set of practices long enough, and you can experience it. (And this is why people freak out when those practices actually works). However, I don't think it can ever be objectively measured. Psychedelics can sometimes trigger the experience of it. With the use of microdosing and clinical applications of psychedelics becoming mainstream, I expect more people will start encountering this.
- jmcmichael 7y ago
  It's qualitative energy, not quantitative energy. The same energy one feels when one experiences love, feels lifted up by a favorite song, or feels exuberance when one's team wins the superbowl.
  - hosh 7y ago
    I don't mean it as "qualitative energy" in the sense you are using, though there are qualities to it. It affects conciousness, and is in turn affected by consciousness. The consciousness can be trained to influence, even direct or focus the it. So yes, people experience love, fill inspired, or feel exuberance, and those are subtle energy in different forms. But it also has substance. Someone skilled in its use can intensify it, purify it, project it, and influence someone else's mood with it.

gerbilly 7y ago

> Reiki focuses specifically on this aspect in emphasizing the focus, intent and emotional commitment of the practitioner. Replace "energy" with "emotion" and it begins to look legitimate. Even better replace "energy" with "attention" or "sympathy". See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard

sebastianconcpt 7y ago

Which is interesting because emotion is directly proportional to level of energy in brain cells.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
What form of energy? Electrical activity? If we apply just the term "Energy", we're now in undefined territory.
ganzuul 7y ago
Is this a result from research into depression?