50020102 VI om
nagasiva@luckymojo.com:
>> it sounds, when you talk about "a controversial, not entirely correct,
>> and Sinocentric answer to the question 'What is qi/ki/ch'?'" that you
>> have definite ideas about what is "correct".
Matthew Weigel <Matthew_Weigel@deneb.fac.cs.cmu.edu>:
> Well, to clarify, I have definite ideas about what is *not* correct.
> I definitely believe that the term is used quite differently in different
> places, many of those in spurious circumstances (a recent example on the
> newsgroup involved a usage similar to cooties, in Japan), many of them
> not.
what you've stated here would be a better intro than saying that 'there are
no right answers' which you seem to be doing in the text I've quoted below.
> A single 'definition' of the term(s), given from the point of view of a
> single martial art, has a very definite problem IMO.
makes sense. else it would come off to me as a reference document or a "FAQ"
which comes from a limited perspective (no crime, but not comprehensive).
> My 'goal' for the answer is that it either make almost everyone unhappy,
> or that it make almost everyone happy.
I'd worry less about who is happy and more about identifying the larger
groups of people who tend to provide these answers (i.e. see if you can
determine if there are cultural or membership commonalities in order to
identify them concisely for the reader).
> An answer de minimis that satisfies that would
> be, "please ask the newsgroup" - everyone would certainly be unhappy, at
> the least with a FAQ document refusing to answer a FAQ.
agreed.
>> the standards to which
>> you will adhere in the construction of your reference document should
>> be stated outright, else you can legitimately be criticized for not
>> reflecting the variety of opinions about this very broad question.
from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcweigel/rmafaq/rmafaq1.html#11 :
my feedback interlineates.
# 11) What is Ki/Qi/Chi?
#
# There are no absolute right answers to this question. Instead of giving the
# one true answer to this, below are several different opinions.
I'd rather see a broad-minded examination of the term's meaning and usage,
how this accords with specific schools or traditions of martial arts, how
this compares with conventional religious cosmologies and metaphysics, etc.
# (a) Ki doesn't exist. Everything the ki model tries to explain can be explained
# with body mechanics, biophysics, and psychology. There is no need to postulate
# some mysterious force. Science can explain it.
secondary where the term/concept is itself concerned, because the premise of
the FAQ is presumably that the term has a referent, even if it can be explained
away as placebo or something. this existence question has the air of questions
of the existence of some kind of god or God. I'd place it AFTER the descriptions
of to what people refer when they use the word.
# (b) Ki exists absolutely. Ki is an energy, a living force, a spirit that can be
# used to increase your strength, throw people around, etc. Subjective experience
# shows that ki is real. It may either be a bio-kinetic phenomena science doesn't
# understand yet or the power of the mind in union with the body.
#
# (c) Ki may or may not "really" exist. It is a useful model. The ki model allows
# you to visualize how to increase your strength, throw people around, etc. -- it
# doesn't matter if it exists or not. If someone invents a better model (i.e. one
# that is easier to visualize), then maybe we'll switch to it.
existence, rather than meaning, seems to place an emphasis on contention rather
than on qualitative referent. that is, you could say something like
Arguments about the actual existence of ki can be quite involved,
some contending that it is a bio-kinetic phenomenon, others that
it is a metaphor or model. The way ki is usually described as
working, regardless of the issue of its existence, include.... [etc.]
# Of the styles that stress ki, some work on developing the flow of ki within
# their bodies. An example of this approach is Taijiquan. Other styles work on
# letting the ki of the universe flow through them.
very nice.
>> I'm not sure what the value of "teeth" is in a FAQ, especially one
>> that is meant to represent a spectrum of opinion about a contentious
>> or disputed subject.
>
> I would like the answer to explore in some detail the different
> perspectives, rather than give a throwaway 'YMMV' answer.
then I would try to IDENTIFY these perspectives in some way, perhaps
associating them with schools, popular authors, cultural or religious
background.
> Yes, the
> mileage will vary, but it will vary in somewhat predictable ways, and
> giving the reader insight into the different ways the answer is viewed
> may give them insight into how they want to approach the answer, and
> whether they want to.
indeed, agreed. I'd suggest that additional information for the reader
about the typical context of their assumptions and how they view ki
will give them a better foundation upon which to stand in discussions
with such individuals.
> > there *is* value in having reference files that
> > might be called 'FAQs' which are strongly-oriented toward specific
> > opinions. these push forward important standards of knowledge and
> > sources of authority, which should, if possible, be specified within
> > the introduction, as I mentioned above.
>
> This is an interesting idea. I'll look into it some more.
this is one way to pick up the typical contextual knowledge-base
(because the respondant may give clues to it, key-words, citations,
etc.).
> Incidentally, I am really glad I asked this question. Ya'll may be
> losing respect for me by the minute, but I think I'm gaining some
> helpful answers in return :)
thanks, no loss of respect from this quarter. tough decisions call
for inquiries from others with similar difficulties. good luck.
in qi,
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved