Certified Reiki Master

I want to learn the ways of the force. Why are you here and why do you hate me so much?

It's not our fault that "the ways of the Force" have nothing to do with pretending to have magical powers like ten-year-olds. Nobody hates you, Fyxe. All we're saying is that there are things you will find at TOTJO and things you won't. You are welcome to stay and study with us and contribute to the materials and discussions about them. If you were looking for Hogwarts, sorry to disappoint.

Fyxe wrote: Reike is legend? I thought he was a real man from Japan?

Mikao Usui was a real man from Japan. His account of discovering Reiki was his own, first-person retelling. I am not sure why Steamboat said it is a legend, unless the inference is that Usui is suspect because no one else can corroborate his testimony.

Fyxe wrote: I get what you are saying about energy omhu. So what you mean is that reike and force healing use the same energy right?

Yes, that's right! I'll respond to the rest of your post in a personal message a bit later. I'm going to delve a bit into Gisteron's latest post next (shortly).

Fyxe wrote: I want to learn the ways of the force. Why are you here and why do you hate me so much?

There are no "ways of the force" because the force is a fake, fictional entity developed for a series of science fiction action movies. Nobody on this planet possesses the power to cast lightning from their hands, jump 50+ feet in the air unassisted, heal themselves using only the power of their mind, or wave their hand to convince Trooper Tom to send them on their way sans speeding ticket.

Also, NO OTHER ANIMAL on this entire planet; possesses these capabilities.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Not one creature - animal or otherwise, has in the history of mankind demonstrated an inherent capability to make use of supernatural phenomena.

So why should we be able to?


P.S - If you can't handle criticism or differing opinions, perhaps TOTJO isn't the right place for you.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: Mikao Usui was a real man from Japan. His account of discovering Reiki was his own, first-person retelling. I am not sure why Steamboat said it is a legend, unless the inference is that Usui is suspect because no one else can corroborate his testimony.

That, and even if there were, the story doesn't add up. None of the evidence fits.

Fyxe wrote: I want to learn the ways of the force. Why are you here...

Odd question

and why do you hate me so much?

I don't, I just genuinely am tired of you asking questions (that aren't genuine questions) which are underpinned by a laziness in reading what other people have said which exacerbates your ignorance. If you want, to understand TotJO, I will be the first to try and help you.

This post is to address some of the thoughts in Gisteron's recent post. I do not expect to have much impact on Gisteron's perspectibe ... this is just offered for others who, should they be considering Reiki or another form of nontraditional healing as an option, can be exposed to the idea that there is more than one point of view.

Gisteron wrote:

Just because a claim has not been tested by the scientific method does not mean that claim is false.

No, it just means that we have nothing to point to in an effort to justify it, and that to assert that the claim is accurate is grossly dishonest in light of that profound lack of justification we can offer for it.

Personal testimony and anecdotal accounts do not meet the standards that support scientific consensus, but they are not "nothing". Sometimes, they are unreliable. At others, they're essential. The legal system of virtually every culture relies much more heavily on personal accounts than on carefully controlled studies, and while we can see the results are imperfect they do work well enough that reliance on them is sustained. Further, there are times when conclusions based on personal experience precede the research that validates them; it's not unusual for example, for pharmaceutical companies to research the medicinal properties of herbs and other natural compounds based on the anecdotal experience of the tribal societies that use them.

Gisteron wrote:

Even by practitioners, Reiki is considered a complement to traditional medicine, not a replacement for it.

First of all, I'm pretty sure I could find you practitioners who would say otherwise - in fact some service offerers have been getting in quite some trouble over this.

Well, I can accept that this has happened. Practitioners should know better. Western allopathic medicine offers a range of benefits with more consistency than we have so far been able to attain with Reiki or similar disciplines ... and, then, there's the fact that medical care is regulated and making claims not endorsed by established health authorities is illegal for good reasons. While I might suggest Reiki treatment to someone with a medical complaint, it'd only be after they saw a licensed medical professional.

Gisteron wrote:

I do not care that some object that Reiki is not to date validated by science. I was in pain, I received Reiki, and now that pain is gone. That is a bigger deal to me personally than the existence or non-existence of double-blind controlled studies or allegations about the placebo effect.

Oh, so when you said in the second point that "The scientific method of controlled investigation is a really, really helpful process. It has contributed quite a bit to human welfare." what you omitted was "... but I just happen to find that completely unimportant and am happy to throw it out like the trash it is once my feelings inevitably trump it."

No, I am not saying that at all. Science is important, but so is personal experience; it is not a choice of being able to employ either one or the other. Science-based medicine, in this particular instance, had nothing to offer. Alternative treatment proved successful. That informs me that, at least sometimes, the alternative treatment provides benefit, even if it has yet to be confirmed or explained by research in pathology. I am not going to discount the tangible benefit I received - one which has made a significant difference in my ability to perform physical work - because there's not a research paper confirming it can happen yet. To make the point once again, personal experience has value.

Gisteron wrote:

Energy is energy, no matter what it's called.

Except energy is of course measurable and with some superb accuracy even with amateurish equipment. But this woo-woo "energy" is nothing like actual energy, is it?

I think this is a good point. It is true that what an expert in nuclear physics or electronics or biology would call energy is different than the quality to which energy healers refer, and that we (including me) use the word energy to describe the healing property we try to employ is confusing and performs a disservice. I honestly do not know how the custom of using "energy" to describe that property got started, but it might serve us to change the terminology. We could say "the Force" I suppose.

Gisteron wrote: The mere fact that statements like this can be made and not cause much of a fuss with the practitioner community or their "patients" is already a strong indication that we are talking about something completely vacuous. ... What day was it when superstition and impulsivity and open, unapologetic irrationality became the Jedi thing to embrace?

I think in this case the practitioner community is not one monolithic entity that is fully in alignment. I believe that the sort of fundamentalism that many of us so readily see in some of the world's large religions can creep into just about any discipline - including the Reiki community and including scientific skepticism. While I haven't encountered any, I do not doubt there are Reiki practitioners who cannot accept that their discipline has limits, that it may not produce results for everyone, that the discipline suffers from a lack of credible certification. Yet, there are those who can, as well, who are more balanced in recognizing that traditional health care has a very important place, Similarly, there are skeptics who take a let-me-wait-and-see attitude, and those who reject out of hand any evidence that isn't documented in a scientific journal. The willingness to venture outward, to experiment, to stride beyond conventionality, and to note the outcomes of doing so is not the same as superstition.

In terms of describing Reiki and similar disciplines as vacuous, imo it's worth noting that one of the very first assertions on the very first page of this website reads "Jedi believe in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." Both parts of that statement are fundamental assumptions, unsupported by scientific evidence - and the concept of the Force is particularly vacuous from a skeptic's stance. If such statements aren't part of our shared perspective, it's worth asking why we are even here.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: Personal testimony and anecdotal accounts do not meet the standards that support scientific consensus, but they are not "nothing". Sometimes, they are unreliable. At others, they're essential. The legal system of virtually every culture relies much more heavily on personal accounts than on carefully controlled studies, and while we can see the results are imperfect they do work well enough that reliance on them is sustained.

A murder was committed, John and Jeffrey are primary suspects. Nobody can point at a motive John might have had for it. There is no record of any kind of relationship John had with the victim, be it familial, work or finance related or any documented encounters in the past. John's brother jack affirms John's alibi, and the victim's neighbor Jordan alleges to have witnessed Jeffrey coming to visit the victim while they were still alive after which they overheard something of a fight with an unknown conclusion. Despite the seeming lack of relation, fingerprints matching John's are found at the victim's door knob and various drawers in their kitchen, as well as a knife stained with the victim's blood and matching the wounds to which they had succumbed. Traces of John's skin are found under the victim's finger nails and traces of the victim's blood are found in some of John's clothing items as well as shoes that match the size and profile of shoe prints in the victim's residence.
John has an alibi from a witness's testimony and there is another's strongly suggests that Jeffrey was the culprit. But the chemical and DNA evidence unambiguously points at John.
The reliance of legal systems on personal testimonies is not borne of the reliability of such "evidence" but of the fact that in many, many legal cases there is literally nothing better available. In cases where there is strong forensic evidence and it contradicts witness accounts, we go with the forensic evidence. Sure, it can be wrong, and witnesses can be wrong. Sure, it can be planted, and witnesses can lie. That does not make them equal. Reliability isn't a matter of correctness or wrongness. Personal accounts can be both but when compared against scientific measurement they are always unreliable in the sense that one shouldn't generally ever rely on them. The only cases where we do are the cases when we have literally no other choice because there is nothing else we have.

Further, there are times when conclusions based on personal experience precede the research that validates them; it's not unusual for example, for pharmaceutical companies to research the medicinal properties of herbs and other natural compounds based on the anecdotal experience of the tribal societies that use them.

Fair enough. We can discuss the efficacy of Reiki once anything of the sort happens for Reiki. Until then we have claims that either have not been subjected to testing or have failed to pass it. It's like the tribesmen selling their healing herbs, pharmaceutical labs never confirming that the herbs have any of the effects alleged or containing any of the chemicals that could produce those effects, and the tribesmen and their buyers insisting that they do regardless.

Science is important, but so is personal experience; it is not a choice of being able to employ either one or the other.

Yes, well, when study after study fails to confirm the claim, but some personal experience feels like it did and you conclude that therefore the claim is accurate, forgive me for thinking that you find science unimportant. It sounds like rigorous testing and sceptical inquiry is something you'll happily throw out in favour of your personal perception if the two conflict.

Science-based medicine, in this particular instance, had nothing to offer. Alternative treatment proved successful.

Except all you have is that you got better. Granted, in my own research I work with datasets with something like 10⁵ data points per measurement and I feel a bit squeemish looking at medical studies where something like 50 test subjects can at times be considered a large enough sample to draw conclusions from. But the evidence you point at is one person who got better correlating with them taking alternative medical treatment. That's not "another type" of reliable, that's literally the poorest statistics it is possible to construct. This is like saying that Wednesdays are the reason for rainfall because that one time a rainy day fell on a Wednesday. What indication do you have that the treatment you received was successful? What indication do you have that it had anything whatsoever to do with your recovery?
Bear in mind, I'm not disputing that you got better. I don't know why you pretend like that's being debated. Nobody demanded you show a research paper about your current condition either. But you do make a claim as to how you did, and it involves a treatment that has not demonstrated its effectiveness under controlled conditions, i.e. a treatment of which we don't know that it could have been what helped you. So, when you make that claim, it's not unreasonable to ask by what reasoning you arrived at it, seeing as the majority of experts in relevant areas have yet to come to share your opinion. And when upon the question all you have is "Well, I did get better, didn't I?", I'm sorry, you missed the question. Repeating that you personally experienced getting better because of things you wouldn't demonstrate were actually the cause doesn't answer how you came to think that it was.

The willingness to venture outward, to experiment, to stride beyond conventionality, and to note the outcomes of doing so is not the same as superstition.

Of course not. What I refer to is the belief in the existence or effectiveness of magic spells despite the persistent failures in every controlled attempt at confirming them. The problem is not with new or fresh or unconventional ideas, the problem is not with venturing out to test them. It's mildly annoying when people blindly insist that their fresh unconventional ideas that happen to contradict what we know about nature must be some hitherto hidden wisdom before performing any tests. And what's downright frustrating is when those ideas do eventually get tested over and over and over again, and the tests results keep returning negative time and time and time again, and people still insist they are onto some hidden truths. It's not just that Reiki makes odd claims. It's that people who believe in it these days can only do so by ignoring all evidence to the contrary. And then they turn around and say that science is great and important, but that they are also happy to completely throw out the notion of evidence gathering when ever they feel like it because, don't you know, they can use their "personal experience" instead.

In terms of describing Reiki and similar disciplines as vacuous, imo it's worth noting that one of the very first assertions on the very first page of this website reads "Jedi believe in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it." Both parts of that statement are fundamental assumptions, unsupported by scientific evidence - and the concept of the Force is particularly vacuous from a skeptic's stance. If such statements aren't part of our shared perspective, it's worth asking why we are even here.

If I had to offer a guess, I'd say that most of us are here because we want to be. I for one cannot speak on behalf of anyone else here for they did not elect me to do so in their stead. But since you bring it up again, I shall respond again, just to keep memories fresh...
The front page does not dictate to me what I do or have to believe. It is never stated to be a prescriptive document in this way. It is also never stated to be a descriptive one. It was not constructed from any survey of member or user beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, it is more of an invitation blurb than anything else. "If you believe, empathize with those who do, or wish to discuss some of these things in some sort of way, this may be a fine place for you to visit."
What is meant by "The Force" is a regular discussion topic with new users and elder ones, in private, and in public. If a difference of opinion about it is what makes it vacuous, so be it. When I say that Reiki training is vacuous, I'm saying that there is nothing to it. Else the idea of finding a complete three level training that takes all of a weekend or so and something like an hour's worth of minimum wage earnings would be laughable. Imagine if someone offered you the opportunity to become a dentist at that sort of investment, it'd be ridiculous!
As for "the inherent worth of all life within it", I'll say it openly and without shame, as I did when I was ranked Apprentice still - I do not believe that. To me, value is what things get assigned in a process called valuing. Worth is not a property anything can have "inherently", that's just a contradiction in terms, at least in the way I use those terms. I value life, I find that all of it has worth, but I don't believe it has any inherent worth because I don't understand what that can mean. It is like saying it has an inherent non-inherent property.
If that statement has meaning to you, so be it. I suppose that's one more thing you can bond with others over while I can bond with those who find the statement weird like I do. I don't think you belong here any less for understanding and agreeing with it, or that I belong here less for failing to. I think we would be missing out on this moderately interesting discussion - or clash, if one must see it so - if either of us wasn't here. In that sense I'm glad both of us are, and in that spirit, thank you for being one of both of us.

Oh, Im sorry rex, I did not realize that you were in charge of my experience of life and the force. Im sorry, please tell me what to do next because I feel lost without your constant direction onto what I SHOULD BE DOING!!

Bottom line, Fyxe: you won't learn to "use the Force" here. It's not something we teach. It's not something we regularly discuss. If that's what you want, you'll have to look elsewhere.