It looks like this was sent to the list after all, so I'm forwarding my
response.
> 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.
Yes. Just to be clear, and I can't remember whether I mentioned this in
faq-maintainers or not (I repeat it a *lot* on the newsgroup, so forgive
me if I've forgotten to mention it), is that I'm not the author of the
current answer, I'm not happy with the current answer, and I'm working
on a better answer.
What I say when discussing the question and answer in general, is what I
think is my better understanding of how to answer the question for a
wide variety of people, as it comes in fits and bursts. I am trying to
compose those fits and bursts into a real answer, but until I do I'd
rather have an answer that, essentially, can be easily ignored.
> > 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).
Right. It would invite either corrections (too much email :), or other
people writing additional documents in response to it (to be
unmaintained in the future).
> 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).
Yes, that is what I am trying to do (without the humor and sarcasm
inserted).
> > 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.
And that's essentially what I think the current answer does, which is
why I think it should stay until I have a *real* answer.
> # 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.
That's a second milestone I want to work towards; after I can give a
broad smattering of answers from different disciplines, I'd like to
address it historically; there was actually some very good discussion on
the topic to dispute my would-be contributor's one-size-fits-all answer,
that delved into prana, a Hebrew word I can't remember, as well as qi,
ki (Japanese), and ki (Korean), and I plan on drawing heavily on it.
But first, I need a good answer to the immediate curiosity.
> # (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.
Well, yes and no. The broader opinion that portion attempts to
represent is that understanding it as ki is inferior, and limiting. In
that respect, it's important to mention that (some) people think that in
order to progress, you have to lose your concept of ki.
> # (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....
Well, such an argument tends to put to the side some of the 'bigger' qi
claims, like enabling a person to take strikes to vulnerable areas
(groin, neck, small joints) without injury. The "just a concept" view
generally includes things like an unbendable arm, surprisingly powerful
blows, and pressure point stuff; it's generally not tenable if you
accept the iron shirt claims (much less the 'strike from a distance'
stuff that a few claim).
In fact, part of the difficulty in answering the question is that the
answerer will tend to let seep his opinions of what is bunk and not;
where the answer draws the line between 'real' and 'ridiculous.' I've
never seen or even heard of, third-hand, a strike from a distance (kong
jing, I think?) being performed except against a technician's own
disciples, so I would be strongly inclined to say "...but that kong jing
stuff is a joke" (more scholastically).
It's a difficult row to hoe, though; it comes up in a number of other
situations, when an art's published lineage is hopelessly full of holes
(even going back a generation or two). It's what you'll be told if you
train there; most of the practicioners accept it as true; do I include
it, plain or even with caveats and footnotes? Right now, if it's not
'too' outrageous, I let it slide because I know that every time it's
debunked on the newsgroup there's someone who defends it, loudly if not
with facts - and if it is too outrageous, it simply doesn't get
mentioned (for instance, the official Chung Moo Doe biography of its
founder/grandmaster makes no mention of his jail time for tax evasion
related specifically to his work in the system, but rather discusses the
new 'explorations' he is/was doing 'in private').
> # 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.
To be honest, having worked with both aikido (which I think is what is
referenced by the latter) and taiji, I don't know that this is at all
accurate. So, the one time it tries to be specific, I think it fails.
> > 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.
> 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.
That's an excellent way of putting it.
> > 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.).
The problem is that, if I'm maintaining it, it *almost* might as well
go in the FAQ. There are currently only two other documents (the
basically un-maintained Groaner FAQ, and the Newbie Guide whose
copyright notice precludes maintenance by any but the author, who has
disappeared). I mean, the 'style description' section probably should
be in its own document too, but it's just too much administrative
hassle.
I appreciate getting to discuss this a little bit, by the way; I don't
get to discuss the problems of the current answer and some solutions of
the same very often.
-- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer mcweigel+@cs.cmu.edu************************************************************* 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