Is it necessary to continue this discussion on-list?
JK
Matthew Weigel wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Try to keep religion, cosmology and metaphysics asside.
>
> Well, the history *is* interesting...
>
> > Ki is complicated enough to define without bringing in the extra
> > luggage.
>
> ...but it can get pretty bogged down :-)
>
> > I practice Aikido and can manage the unbendable arm trick.
>
> Which predisposes you to hold a particular opinion on the subject :-)
>
> At the very minimum, what aikidoka taijiquan players refer to as ki and
> qi (respectively) has pretty interstingly different uses and theories,
> disregarding whether it's 'real.'
>
> > > [...] ki (Japanese), and ki (Korean) [...]
> > ^^ ^^
> > Is it the character set ? :-)
>
> The character is the same, and (as I recall) it is the same character
> as in Chinese (traditional). Ever heard of hapkido
> (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcweigel/rmafaq/rmafaq2.html#16.8)?
> --
> 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
> *************************************************************
*************************************************************
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