Matthew Weigel <Matthew_Weigel@deneb.fac.cs.cmu.edu> referral to website:
# 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.
nagasiva@luckymojo.com:
> > 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.
Matthew Weigel <Matthew_Weigel@deneb.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
> 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.
perhaps you can extract from that discussion to create a rudimentary or
basic starting-point. I've done that with similarly expansive subjects
in magic and religion newsgroups, intentionally drawing out through
concise questions, an elaboration on the original context from which
the answer to the FAQ proceeded. then I composited the responses from
the individuals involved and created a rough draft or first form of the
FAQ I was creating (prior to restating it in my own words and then
listing the individuals whose text/information I used as contributors).
> But first, I need a good answer to the immediate curiosity.
got it.
# (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.
the issue seems to be what "it" is that is understood as ki. in this
case how it is conceptualized or whether the term "ki" refers to some
specific thing or is a metaphor becomes secondary, as I see it. that
is, the person who believes that understanding 'it' as ki is inferior
has an idea they believe is *superior*, and that, abstracted, is "to
what ki really refers" (when understood 'correctly' or from their
perspective). in this case, I'd substitute 'to what it really refers'
for 'ki' and combine these along with those who answer more directly.
I'd be happy to expand on this if I'm being unclear. I'm not sure how
best to express the idea.
> 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.
that lies outside the scope of what ki *is*, though it is related.
that is why I say that all of it is secondary to what ki may be (due
to the fact that they are addressing what *others* believe as well
as how they see the world).
# (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).
sure, and from each of these perspectives the referent 'ki' means something,
even if it is a misunderstanding of a process, a fantastic imagining of an
irresistable force or energy, or the actuality of same. behind each of those
who propose the 'misunderstood ki' assertion there is a 'real background'
that they typically espouse in its place. explanations for ki are what are
pertinent as an answer to the query "what is ki?" in a FAQ. everything
beyond this (such as whether ki is a misunderstood process of phenomenon)
is irrelevant and may be valuably placed in a follow-up question like:
Question A1: What is ki?
Question A2: Is ki real, or just imaginary?
question A2 can deal with metaphysical issues of existence, whereas the
initial question A1 can deal with how ki appears, regardless of whether
the appearance is actual, a metaphor, a misunderstanding, etc.
> ...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?
where possible, placed in proper context, as we have agreed. until said
time, attempting a broad generalization of inclusive postulations that
make it plain that no consensus amongst the contending theories has yet
been found may be valuable.
> 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
when debunked and defended this affords an opportunity for you to
step in and ask concise questions that will yield raw material for the
FAQ you're constructing, on BOTH sides of the matter, including whether
the participants in the most recent discussion come from specific kinds
of backgrounds, have learned within particular traditions, teachers, etc.
> - and if it is too outrageous, it simply doesn't get mentioned....
during my FAQ constructions I have attempted to include even the most
outrageous explanations, I can understand setting some kind of limitation
if you want to please newsgroup participants. :>
> > 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.
thanks. ideally the speaker within threads on the subject will identify
their particular background or trajectory from which they are speaking,
though this may be obtained after their expression in private. you could
construct compilation files with brief bracketed identifiers as to their
background and tradition for the purposes of reflecting back to the
newsgroup itself (the ideal of a FAQ really) its own biases and how these
compare with one another.
[re compilation of posts preparatory to making a FAQ]:
> > 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.
compilation files suffice for a FAQ because they do in fact contain the
frequently asked questions, PLUS, you could place a little note at the
end of the compilation file that says, effectively:
If you don't see your perspective represented within this
compilation file, post your response to this FAQuestion
in this thread and cc it to <faq-editor@email.address>
so that I may include it in the file the next time I post it.
while it may not look as pretty as an edited FAQ (when I was creating
the files for alt.magick I called them the 'KreeEpinG OoZE FAQ files'
and numbered the compilations with named topics), it may encourage
a greater range and degree of participation in answering the question
than may be obtained from just writing a FAQ yourself with or without
input from newsgroup regulars. if you preface the compilation with a
note that indicates the value of identifying the background of the
speaker (because as a group you may begin to see where these teachings
are coming from) such as the following, you may be more likely to
receive helpful contributions:
The following compilation of posts answering the question
"What is ki?" are provided as a resource for later construction
of a newsgroup FAQ document. Those who accurately reflect their
tradition of instruction or sources of authority will assist
immeasurably the study of martial arts as a whole and in
particular the identification of source for specific concepts
in martial arts instruction. Thanks for your participation!
> There are currently only two other documents (the
> basically un-maintained Groaner FAQ,
poorly-named, can't tell what it is by its title.
> and the Newbie Guide whose
> copyright notice precludes maintenance by any but the author, who has
> disappeared).
quotation from it with proper credit should be fine. maintaining it
isn't the same as using it as a resource in the creation of future
newsgroup reference documents. if someone put it out then it is a
published file and quotation of it, properly credited, is reasonable.
what you create may make that document irrelevant to future researchers.
> I mean, the 'style description' section probably should be in its own
> document too, but it's just too much administrative hassle.
minimize, minimize, minimize, I say. rarefy, rarefy, rarefy. more often
than not we place too many words in places where they are unnecessary.
perhaps I'm just a minimalist. targetting specific documents for the
purposes of noise-reduction and from specific perspectives (as we have
in alt.magick) seems to work quite well. 'style description' is truly a
useful noise-reduction factor, whereas trying to provide an adequate
response to questions like "what is ki?" is liable to either be general
and prevent squabbles arising out of myopia and unfamiliarity with the
breadth of the subject as a whole, or quite specific and representational
of only a specific school of instruction). balancing these can be tricky,
and you may indeed wish to construct different files for these purposes.
what I've done is create initially a noise-reduction file reflecting
what I was able to capture in compilation files which doesn't get very
detailed about any single perspective.
this has inspired a few "competing FAQs" in the newsgroup which address
the perspectives that some subgroup therein favours. when complaints
began that I was attempting to 'monopolize conversation' through
generalizations that the critics claimed were 'my opinions' (really
rarefactions of previous compilations), I created an example reference
document in contrast (clearly identified with my name) indicating my
actual (much more extreme) biases and hoped to inspired documents
approximating this character. this seems to be happening in alt.magick.
this effectively splits up the work you're talking about into the initial
noise-reduction FAQ (brief, general, exposing newbies to big controversies
without attempting to delineating them), the various (now 2 or 3) reference
documents with specific perspectives expressed (from which anyone may
thereafter draw, if not from compilation files), and a more comprehensive
and involved FAQ like you are describing that may derive from previous
efforts but does not require you to do all the work.
> 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.
I know the feeling. my interest in FAQ production and knowledge issues
(from the philosophic to library science) inspires me to analyze it
quite closely and experiment with new mechanisms to cover sometimes
quite ambiguous or contentious subjects.
I'd love to contribute to some kind of 'FAQ FAQ' particularly designated
for complex and intellectually-contentious subjects like religion and
philosophy which may benefit from rudimentary and extensive constructs.
I'm sure there are numerous practical approaches that enable even very
minimal time and effort resources to produce valuable reference documents.
*************************************************************
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