Appropriate language for qi,

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

>With

> spirituality, it is difficult to comprehend a culture-bound concept

> without totally immersing oneself in that culture, especially when

the

> host culture no longer gives much importance to the concept (of

Hun1).

 

Agreed. I don't think this is limited to

sprituality. I think the fact that the

values of what you're calling the host

culture constantly change underscores

the importance of dealing with literary

sources in order to establish a comprehensive

sense of what words and concepts mean by

way of understanding the various meanings

they have been given over a span of time.

 

> I use Jewish concepts of spirituality because the Jewish map is

much

> more accessible to me.

 

Everyone develops their own personal map

based upon those with which they come

into contact. With respect to coming to

understand terms such as hun2, I think

it's important however that we pay

close attention to the maps in which

these terms are used, as their meanings

derive in important ways from these

usages.

 

Jim's right that the question, " What is

qi4? " is bass-ackwards. That was my point.

We have to approach the question of what

these words mean not by looking for simple

equivalences with words and ideas that

we already are familiar with but by seeking

to gather and familiarize ourselves with

how they have been used by those who

have used them for thousands of years.

 

If we want to understand what qi4 is,

what hun2 is, or what any other bit

of knowledge in Chinese medicine is,

we have to come to know the special

characteristics of those who have

created and used them. This is a

paraphrase of the closing lines of

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions,

in which he equates scientific knowledge

and language.

 

I completely agree with Jim and Stephen

that the idea of qi4 has an important

role to play in the development of a

more precise understanding of physical

fundamentals, as well as metaphysical

principles extending to the important

research that is ongoing into the nature

of human consciousness. I see texts such

as the Dao De Jing as early maps and

manuals of consciousness.

 

But if modern researchers are to be able

to use these ancient Chinese tools effectively

they have to have access to the meanings

that they have acquired over centuries. That is the whole

point that I think has been well made now

through the course of this discussion about

the problems associated with calling qi4 energy.

>

 

> So, in conclusion, while I believe the medicine of China can be

drawn on

> and applied practically to the modern world, it is more difficult

to

> relate the concept of Hun1 to our present day.

>

> Do our scholars of Chinese culture want to weigh in on this?

>

I don't find it any more difficult or easy

to relate hun2 to present day realities than

it is to relate any traditional notion of

Chinese anatomy and physiology. If you plot

out a time line and lay the changing senses

in which a number of key terms have been used

you can abstract trends in the character of

medical terminology. Early on, before the

Zhou, terms such as hun2, would have been

part of a conceptual set that was based on

a particular view of " spirituality " . In this

concept set, spirit entities were seen to

inhabit the world and to animate and often

invade the individual. Medicine was largely

concerned with exorcising these spirits

and demons.

 

With the gradual " rationalization " of Chinese

thought and with the advent of Confucian

values and principles of humanism, the meaning

of terms such as hun2 gradually shifted away

from this mind set and were adapted to fit

in with a more refined metaphoric understanding

of the substances and forces operating in the

environment and within the human body. But,

as late as the Tang there was yet a bureau

of incantations in the Imperial medical

bureaucracy, testifying to the enduring

character of the original sense of such terms.

 

One of the key aspects of Chinese medical

terminology lies in the patterns of interrelationships

between the various terms. The terms associted

with the so-called " spiritual " aspects of

the person exhibit one such important pattern.

To some extent, whatever we imagine the hun2

to " be " , we can utilize it as an important

tool in understanding organic interrelationships

on a " spiritual " plane. The liver and the lungs,

in other words, interrelate with each other

in various ways, according to traditional

models, and one of these ways is the inter-

communication that takes place between

these two organ systems and the rest of

the organism in terms of their ethereal

components or aspects.

 

We can't really ask or expect of ourselves

or others to set aside our own frames of

reference, but when coming to terms with

Chinese words and concepts, it's important

to recognize that these frames contribute

a substantial factor of the " meaning " that

we take away from the Chinese originals.

 

My primary concern is how close this derived

meaning comes to that of the original. With

a sound understanding of what the original

terms mean, how they mean, and how they

interrelate, I think we are best equipped

to explore the further implications as can

be pursued by then applying these tools to

contemporary research issues and questions.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev: With spirituality, it is difficult to comprehend a culture-

bound concept without totally immersing oneself in that culture,

especially when the host culture no longer gives much importance to

the concept (of Hun1).

 

 

 

If I may play the devil's advocate role for a moment. I'm not sure I

would agree that you can't appreciate a concept when not totally

immersed in another culture. Joseph Campbell is the best public

example. And, no one culture completely represents or exhausts the

archetype (the equivalent to strange attractors in complexity

theory).

 

These terms could have fallen out of importance for good reason.

Perhaps these types of concepts shouldn't survive into our

contemporary American context (except as historical curiosities) if,

as Z'ev suggests, they are already out of use in Chinese culture.

The spiritualizing of organic relationships may be a simple groping

by a prescientific people for an explanation, where Complexity

Theory and Psychoneuroimmunology offer much better explanations for

the observed phenomona.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> If I may play the devil's advocate role for a moment. I'm not sure

I

> would agree that you can't appreciate a concept when not totally

> immersed in another culture. Joseph Campbell is the best public

> example. And, no one culture completely represents or exhausts the

> archetype (the equivalent to strange attractors in complexity

> theory).

 

It's a good point. However I'm a little uncomfortable

with your equating the Jungian notion of archetypes

(not sure if you have some special meaning in mind

for " the archetype " ) and strange attractors. Maybe

you can elaborate on this. It's attractive to think

of such an equivalence, but I'm not sure I see it.

>

> These terms could have fallen out of importance for good reason.

 

There's an interesting idea. Do you mean to imply

some sort of intended reason? Or do you mean through

a series of cause-effect relationships that can be

clearly delineated? If it's the former, where might

this intention lie? If it's the latter, I'm not sure

what the explanation you have in mind is and wonder,

so what?

 

> Perhaps these types of concepts shouldn't survive into our

> contemporary American context (except as historical curiosities)

if,

> as Z'ev suggests, they are already out of use in Chinese culture.

 

Well, now you're gettin' downright Darwinian.

Where does the judgment reside that determines

what should and shouldn't survive?

 

> The spiritualizing of organic relationships may be a simple groping

> by a prescientific people for an explanation, where Complexity

> Theory and Psychoneuroimmunology offer much better explanations for

> the observed phenomona.

 

In the spirit of devil's advocate, might it

not be similarly possible to dismiss Complexity

and Psychoneuroimmunology as simple groping

by postscientific people for an explanation?

 

The fact that you or anyone else finds

these gropings better than those is well

and good. But we'd better stop and discuss

for a moment the basis by which such

judgments are to be made if we're to

avoid a confusion if not a conflict of

values.

 

The traditional Chinese system of epistemology,

which is what we're discussing here in the

specific details of qi4 and, now, hun2,

contains a set of values by which one

can make such judgments. These values have

to do with survivability, longevity, the

duration of ideas and the artifacts and

institutions that are built upon them.

 

We have evidence of the sustainability

of these traditional Chinese notions, but

as to the long term implications of a great

deal of modern scientific groping, it's

not unreasonable to assert that it is

still too soon to tell.

 

The word and the concept of hun2 are very

much alive in Chinese medical texts in

China today. The word remains in common

usage to mean...something about the

spiritual state of human beings, who

even in this complex psychneuroimmunological

age remain creatures curiously closely

related to their ancient ancestors, particularly

in terms of their spritual yearnings and

gropings for explanations.

 

I just think it's prudent to exercise

a bit of restraint before we leap to

the conclusion that we can dispense with

this or that idea owing to its apparent

obscurity or any of the other vagaries

to which artifacts of human intelligence

are subject.

 

Ken

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I have a question which I'd like to hear your opinion on. Let me see

if I can cleaqrly and cogently state this question. It's something I

have never thought about before this morning in quite this way.

 

If a word has several (or many) different meanings (as, seemingly,

does the word qi), is it possible for those meanings to each be valid

in their own context of usage without having to have some common,

deeper meaning which somehow unifies or underlies all these other

meanings?

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although, you and your

lovely wife have not been able to come up with a single definition of

the word qi, is that really necessary to understand the usage of this

word in individual instances where, especially in medicine, it tends

to occur as a compound term? It seems that we are being seduced into

the typically Western attempt to find/create an unifying ground theory

of reality vis a vis qi, and I'm not sure that this is either

necessary or useful. Maybe that's exactly what you are getting at. But

I wonder if we're making more of this whole issue than is really

necessary. Further, it is really useful to conflate the meanings of

the word as used by Cheng Man-ching in terms of tai ji with

specifically medical usages of this term? There seems to be an

unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as or

has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine. Although both

Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate the qi

of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such, their

technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply a

single underlying meaning. As a clinician, I think we can define terms

such as spleen qi, great qi, defensive qi, righteous qi, evil qi,

etc., without getting into abstruse philosophical-philiological

discussion, and, as a clincian, these are the important terms to me.

 

Any insight you might care to share on these issues would be

appreciated since you've spent so much time and energy trying to

research all this. Since I've only just begun thinking about all this,

I still feel very much in the dark about all the parameters and

definitions of this discussion.

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> A couple of points:

>

> First, the discussion of qi4 tends to follow two interrelated paths.

> One seeks to discover what it is. What is qi4? The other seeks to

> discover what have the Chinese had to say about it. Since it is a

> concept that it so inextricably interwoven into the fabric of

Chinese

> life and thought, I prefer to pursue the latter in taking the first

> steps to approach the former. First and foremost we need to

> understand what the Chinese think qi4 is. Once we approximate this

> understanding we can more reasonably expect to achieve results from

> seeking after the nature of qi4.

>

> Qi4 is a tool. In fact one of its many meanings, through association

> with another word, min3, is tool. It's a kind of formal term that

> would appear in phrase like " laboratory equipment " equipment and

tool

> having more or less the same meaning here, i.e. the stuff you use to

> get work done. Min3 means " utensil. "

>

> The work is coming to understand qi4. But to use the tool called

qi4,

> you first have to understand what it is and how it functions, as

with

> using any other tool. You cannot expect someone with no idea of what

> a hammer is or a laser beam or any tool to be able to pick it up and

> use it profitably without devoting some time and attention to

> learning about the tool itself. It's more reasonable to expect that

> someone with little to no knowledge of the tools they possess is

> likely to get relatively little done and may even injure themselves

> and others.

>

> I think Lorraine was pointing out that the word qi4 has lots of

> meanings and that it's quite useful to know them. What my wife and I

> discovered over the course of several years of what turned into a

> kind of obsessive research project was that you really have to know

a

> lot of different things in order to even begin to understand what

the

> Chinese have meant for the past few thousand years when they use the

> word qi4. We followed along the second path describe above, and at

> every step, new material appeared until it dawned on us that we'd

> need to write a whole book.

>

> The table of contents lists out the categories of phenomena, ideas,

> and artifacts that we find indispensable to the study and eventual

> understanding of what qi4 is. If you want to tell your patients and

> your students what they've come to hear and seek to know about qi4,

> then tell them it is a big subject and though you can certainly

> start to help them understand what it is today, the day they ask you

> the question, it will take years and years for them to develop a

deep

> and meaningful grasp of what qi4 is all about. Tell them that unlike

> so many of the cultural artifacts of our modern lives, qi4 is not

> something that can be quickly or easily understood. It's a little

> mysterious and that even after studying it for many years, you still

> don't have much more than a good feeling of what it is all about.

>

> If that last part is not true or does not apply to you, then please

> share with us all what qi4 is. I know a lot of people in China who

> would love to know...and they've been working to find out for their

> whole lives.

>

> > perhaps it is the soul or cosmic intelligence. But I don't know

> what

> > chinese medicine has to say about the intelligence of qi. Is qi a

> form

> > of god becoming manifest in the flesh. Perhaps Ken or others who

> know

> > more about all these things than me can tell us.

>

> I am, obviously, happy to talk about the experiences that I've had

> while working with my wife to compile material that we acquired

while

> following the path of research leading to an understanding of what

> the Chinese have to say about qi4.

>

> One of the things that they say is that the work of following the

> path of coming to know qi4, to know the nature and the complex and

> subtle operations of qi4, this work is accomplished individually,

> privately, within the confines of one's own mind/body. Another thing

> that they say is that there is something mysterious about qi4. It is

> a mystery when you first begin to look for it. It remains a mystery

> the entire time that you are engaged in the quest. And it endures as

> a mystery long after you have vanished from the face of the earth.

>

> Faced with these constraints, I don't find much of meaning that I

can

> say about what qi4 is. I find Todd's use of the notion of self-

> organizing forces particularly useful in conveying some of the

> metaphysical and physical concepts embodied by the Chinese word.

And,

> as I said before, I also like to use the notion of connectivity when

> asked " So, what is it? " Qi4 is what connects all causes with their

> effects.

>

> But the importance of the inclusion of the mystery in the overall

> undertanding of qi4 ought not be downplayed. I believe it exhibits

> some of the most significant robustness of Daoist epistemology, i.e.

> the self-referrential awareness that Bohr described as being both

> actors and audience.

>

> Zheng Man Qing said that the qi4 should be accumulated in the dan1

> tian2. For the Daoist, said the Professor, there is no other way.

>

> He emphasized this point again and again. When he addresssed the

> special characteristic of tai4 ji2, he wrote that it is the capcity

> that it engenders to sink the qi4 and the mind to the dan1 tian2.

>

> I include mention of these here, because according to Prof. Zheng,

> all the answers to the questions that people have who seek to

> understand the nature of qi4 can best be answered by following this

> method. Without the accumulation and refinement of one's personal

> qi4, regardless of the method one uses, the " appropriate language

for

> qi4 " really never comes to mean much at all.

>

>

> >

> > > Is Qi the information and self-organization or is it the

> ability/force

> > > to self-organize and inform?

> >

> >

> > hmmm. good question. I don't think there is any separation

> between

> > the doer and the doing here. again, perhaps someone else has more

> > insight into either information theory and/or taoist/neoconfucian

> ideas

> > on these matters.

>

> There is a great " debate " that spans centuries concerning qi4 and

> li3. The Song scholar Zhu Xi authored a doctrine that held that li3

> (the cosmic principle, logos) preceeded qi4 (which, in this usage

> can perhaps be understood as substantial forces and forms). The

> earlier trend in thinking, such as is found in Zhuang Zi and Meng

Zi,

> among many other sources, is that qi4 is the most fundamental

" stuff "

> and includes the transformations of the stuff. I don't claim any

> great insight into this issue. I've always construed the argument

Zhu

> Xi advanced as further evidence of his compulsive and oppressive

> character that was brought so forcefully to bear upon Chinese

culture

> starting a couple centuries or so after his death.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

is that really necessary to understand the usage of this word in individual instances where, especially in medicine, it tends to occur as a compound term? It seems that we are being seduced into the typically Western attempt to find/create an unifying ground theory of reality vis a vis qi, and I'm not sure that this is either necessary or useful. Maybe that's exactly what you are getting at. But I wonder if we're making more of this whole issue than is really necessary.

>>>>I totally agree. And again in medicine Qi is nothing more or nothing less then the function and dysfunction as we identify them

Alon

 

-

pemachophel2001

Monday, December 10, 2001 8:30 AM

Re: Appropriate language for qi,

Ken,I have a question which I'd like to hear your opinion on. Let me see if I can cleaqrly and cogently state this question. It's something I have never thought about before this morning in quite this way. If a word has several (or many) different meanings (as, seemingly, does the word qi), is it possible for those meanings to each be valid in their own context of usage without having to have some common, deeper meaning which somehow unifies or underlies all these other meanings?I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although, you and your lovely wife have not been able to come up with a single definition of the word qi, is that really necessary to understand the usage of this word in individual instances where, especially in medicine, it tends to occur as a compound term? It seems that we are being seduced into the typically Western attempt to find/create an unifying ground theory of reality vis a vis qi, and I'm not sure that this is either necessary or useful. Maybe that's exactly what you are getting at. But I wonder if we're making more of this whole issue than is really necessary. Further, it is really useful to conflate the meanings of the word as used by Cheng Man-ching in terms of tai ji with specifically medical usages of this term? There seems to be an unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as or has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine. Although both Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate the qi of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such, their technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply a single underlying meaning. As a clinician, I think we can define terms such as spleen qi, great qi, defensive qi, righteous qi, evil qi, etc., without getting into abstruse philosophical-philiological discussion, and, as a clincian, these are the important terms to me. Any insight you might care to share on these issues would be appreciated since you've spent so much time and energy trying to research all this. Since I've only just begun thinking about all this, I still feel very much in the dark about all the parameters and definitions of this discussion. Bob, "dragon90405" <yulong@m...> wrote:> A couple of points:> > First, the discussion of qi4 tends to follow two interrelated paths. > One seeks to discover what it is. What is qi4? The other seeks to > discover what have the Chinese had to say about it. Since it is a > concept that it so inextricably interwoven into the fabric of Chinese > life and thought, I prefer to pursue the latter in taking the first > steps to approach the former. First and foremost we need to > understand what the Chinese think qi4 is. Once we approximate this > understanding we can more reasonably expect to achieve results from > seeking after the nature of qi4.> > Qi4 is a tool. In fact one of its many meanings, through association > with another word, min3, is tool. It's a kind of formal term that > would appear in phrase like "laboratory equipment" equipment and tool > having more or less the same meaning here, i.e. the stuff you use to > get work done. Min3 means "utensil." > > The work is coming to understand qi4. But to use the tool called qi4, > you first have to understand what it is and how it functions, as with > using any other tool. You cannot expect someone with no idea of what > a hammer is or a laser beam or any tool to be able to pick it up and > use it profitably without devoting some time and attention to > learning about the tool itself. It's more reasonable to expect that > someone with little to no knowledge of the tools they possess is > likely to get relatively little done and may even injure themselves > and others.> > I think Lorraine was pointing out that the word qi4 has lots of > meanings and that it's quite useful to know them. What my wife and I > discovered over the course of several years of what turned into a > kind of obsessive research project was that you really have to know a > lot of different things in order to even begin to understand what the > Chinese have meant for the past few thousand years when they use the > word qi4. We followed along the second path describe above, and at > every step, new material appeared until it dawned on us that we'd > need to write a whole book.> > The table of contents lists out the categories of phenomena, ideas, > and artifacts that we find indispensable to the study and eventual > understanding of what qi4 is. If you want to tell your patients and> your students what they've come to hear and seek to know about qi4, > then tell them it is a big subject and though you can certainly> start to help them understand what it is today, the day they ask you > the question, it will take years and years for them to develop a deep > and meaningful grasp of what qi4 is all about. Tell them that unlike > so many of the cultural artifacts of our modern lives, qi4 is not > something that can be quickly or easily understood. It's a little > mysterious and that even after studying it for many years, you still> don't have much more than a good feeling of what it is all about.> > If that last part is not true or does not apply to you, then please > share with us all what qi4 is. I know a lot of people in China who > would love to know...and they've been working to find out for their > whole lives.> > > perhaps it is the soul or cosmic intelligence. But I don't know > what > > chinese medicine has to say about the intelligence of qi. Is qi a > form > > of god becoming manifest in the flesh. Perhaps Ken or others who > know > > more about all these things than me can tell us.> > I am, obviously, happy to talk about the experiences that I've had > while working with my wife to compile material that we acquired while > following the path of research leading to an understanding of what > the Chinese have to say about qi4.> > One of the things that they say is that the work of following the > path of coming to know qi4, to know the nature and the complex and > subtle operations of qi4, this work is accomplished individually, > privately, within the confines of one's own mind/body. Another thing > that they say is that there is something mysterious about qi4. It is> a mystery when you first begin to look for it. It remains a mystery > the entire time that you are engaged in the quest. And it endures as > a mystery long after you have vanished from the face of the earth.> > Faced with these constraints, I don't find much of meaning that I can > say about what qi4 is. I find Todd's use of the notion of self-> organizing forces particularly useful in conveying some of the > metaphysical and physical concepts embodied by the Chinese word. And, > as I said before, I also like to use the notion of connectivity when > asked "So, what is it?" Qi4 is what connects all causes with their > effects. > > But the importance of the inclusion of the mystery in the overall > undertanding of qi4 ought not be downplayed. I believe it exhibits> some of the most significant robustness of Daoist epistemology, i.e. > the self-referrential awareness that Bohr described as being both> actors and audience. > > Zheng Man Qing said that the qi4 should be accumulated in the dan1 > tian2. For the Daoist, said the Professor, there is no other way.> > He emphasized this point again and again. When he addresssed the > special characteristic of tai4 ji2, he wrote that it is the capcity> that it engenders to sink the qi4 and the mind to the dan1 tian2. > > I include mention of these here, because according to Prof. Zheng, > all the answers to the questions that people have who seek to > understand the nature of qi4 can best be answered by following this > method. Without the accumulation and refinement of one's personal > qi4, regardless of the method one uses, the "appropriate language for > qi4" really never comes to mean much at all.> > > > > > > Is Qi the information and self-organization or is it the > ability/force > > > to self-organize and inform?> > > > > > hmmm. good question. I don't think there is any separation > between > > the doer and the doing here. again, perhaps someone else has more > > insight into either information theory and/or taoist/neoconfucian > ideas > > on these matters.> > There is a great "debate" that spans centuries concerning qi4 and > li3. The Song scholar Zhu Xi authored a doctrine that held that li3 > (the cosmic principle, logos) preceeded qi4 (which, in this usage> can perhaps be understood as substantial forces and forms). The > earlier trend in thinking, such as is found in Zhuang Zi and Meng Zi, > among many other sources, is that qi4 is the most fundamental "stuff"> and includes the transformations of the stuff. I don't claim any > great insight into this issue. I've always construed the argument Zhu > Xi advanced as further evidence of his compulsive and oppressive> character that was brought so forcefully to bear upon Chinese culture > starting a couple centuries or so after his death.> > KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Ken:

It's a good point. However I'm a little uncomfortable

with your equating the Jungian notion of archetypes

(not sure if you have some special meaning in mind

for " the archetype " ) and strange attractors. Maybe

you can elaborate on this. It's attractive to think

of such an equivalence, but I'm not sure I see it.

 

Jim: I can't think of the author's name or find it on my shelves at

the moment, but there is a book comparing Jungian concepts and those

of Complexity Theory---it couldn't have been a dream.

 

 

 

Ken:

Well, now you're gettin' downright Darwinian.

Where does the judgment reside that determines

what should and shouldn't survive?

 

Jim: " Darwinian " is probably a good choice of word, as concepts and

their use evolve. The judgment ultimately resides with the culture

at large as paradigms shift (in Complexity theory they may say phase

change). First a few individuals express a new point of view and

then, slowly, the culture at large or the profession responsible for

it may stop using the concept or chooses a new way. Later

generations come to think of the new concept as what was always

obvious in the first place. This is essentially true of scientific

concepts (e.g., Newtonian space and time becomes Einsteinian space-

time)---although much of the American culture still thinks the way

Newton did because at the gross experiential level, the errors it

causes are acceptable and they don't understand Einstein. And some

concepts have evolved in other cultures. In Korean pulse diagnosis,

we can reiterate most ideas at the next scale---e.g., we apply the

concept of nine sectors on each wrist (3 depths in each position) to

every position for a total of 27 sectors on each wrist. Later, it

gets still more complicated.

 

 

Ken:

In the spirit of devil's advocate, might it

not be similarly possible to dismiss Complexity

and Psychoneuroimmunology as simple groping

by postscientific people for an explanation? The fact that you or

anyone else finds

these gropings better than those is well

and good. But we'd better stop and discuss

for a moment the basis by which such

judgments are to be made if we're to

avoid a confusion if not a conflict of

values.

 

Jim: You can always argue for the fundamentalist viewpoint. But

America is the culture that CM is being translated into and,

inevitably, its ideas will absorb and change CM to some degree---

especially because Western medicine and culture often attempt to be

scientific. Discussion is fine; but stopping is out of the question.

It can't be done. Several if not many competing threads of thought

will always be going on. What survives our tinkering will only be

discovered in the future. I interpret your need to wait and find out

what the Chinese have said as a fundamental difference between us

(although I am curious, too). You seem to want to wait and see what

the Chinese were thinking to engender some authority and I think

it's too important to be left to the Chinese. Other Asian cultures

(Korea, in my case) and now American culture are already changing

and evolving CM. From now on we should write Chinese medicine in

quotation marks--- " CM " ---since it's no longer uniquely Chinese.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Jim,

>

> > If I may play the devil's advocate role for a moment. I'm not

sure

> I

> > would agree that you can't appreciate a concept when not totally

> > immersed in another culture. Joseph Campbell is the best public

> > example. And, no one culture completely represents or exhausts

the

> > archetype (the equivalent to strange attractors in complexity

> > theory).

>

> It's a good point. However I'm a little uncomfortable

> with your equating the Jungian notion of archetypes

> (not sure if you have some special meaning in mind

> for " the archetype " ) and strange attractors. Maybe

> you can elaborate on this. It's attractive to think

> of such an equivalence, but I'm not sure I see it.

> >

> > These terms could have fallen out of importance for good reason.

>

> There's an interesting idea. Do you mean to imply

> some sort of intended reason? Or do you mean through

> a series of cause-effect relationships that can be

> clearly delineated? If it's the former, where might

> this intention lie? If it's the latter, I'm not sure

> what the explanation you have in mind is and wonder,

> so what?

>

> > Perhaps these types of concepts shouldn't survive into our

> > contemporary American context (except as historical curiosities)

> if,

> > as Z'ev suggests, they are already out of use in Chinese culture.

>

> Well, now you're gettin' downright Darwinian.

> Where does the judgment reside that determines

> what should and shouldn't survive?

>

> > The spiritualizing of organic relationships may be a simple

groping

> > by a prescientific people for an explanation, where Complexity

> > Theory and Psychoneuroimmunology offer much better explanations

for

> > the observed phenomona.

>

> In the spirit of devil's advocate, might it

> not be similarly possible to dismiss Complexity

> and Psychoneuroimmunology as simple groping

> by postscientific people for an explanation?

>

> The fact that you or anyone else finds

> these gropings better than those is well

> and good. But we'd better stop and discuss

> for a moment the basis by which such

> judgments are to be made if we're to

> avoid a confusion if not a conflict of

> values.

>

> The traditional Chinese system of epistemology,

> which is what we're discussing here in the

> specific details of qi4 and, now, hun2,

> contains a set of values by which one

> can make such judgments. These values have

> to do with survivability, longevity, the

> duration of ideas and the artifacts and

> institutions that are built upon them.

>

> We have evidence of the sustainability

> of these traditional Chinese notions, but

> as to the long term implications of a great

> deal of modern scientific groping, it's

> not unreasonable to assert that it is

> still too soon to tell.

>

> The word and the concept of hun2 are very

> much alive in Chinese medical texts in

> China today. The word remains in common

> usage to mean...something about the

> spiritual state of human beings, who

> even in this complex psychneuroimmunological

> age remain creatures curiously closely

> related to their ancient ancestors, particularly

> in terms of their spritual yearnings and

> gropings for explanations.

>

> I just think it's prudent to exercise

> a bit of restraint before we leap to

> the conclusion that we can dispense with

> this or that idea owing to its apparent

> obscurity or any of the other vagaries

> to which artifacts of human intelligence

> are subject.

>

> Ken

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

 

Further, it is really useful to conflate the meanings of

> the word as used by Cheng Man-ching in terms of tai ji with

> specifically medical usages of this term? There seems to be an

> unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as or

> has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine. Although both

> Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate the qi

> of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such, their

> technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply a

> single underlying meaning.

 

I have also wondered about this same thing. Whether the qi talked

about in tai ji is something different than the qi referred to in

medical texts. There seems to be some inkling that they are one and

the same in the nei jing, where reference is made to those of old

moving the qi with their minds, but now we have to use the base arts of

acupuncture and herbs instead. I am of course paraphrasing an idea and

perhaps incorrectly.

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> Jim: I can't think of the author's name or find it on my shelves at

> the moment, but there is a book comparing Jungian concepts and

those

> of Complexity Theory---it couldn't have been a dream.

 

Ah! Neither can this be.

But I'm actually more interested in

getting your take on the concept than

I am in the citation of where it comes

from. I've been trying to grasp how

archetypes are strange attractors and

I'm not having much luck. But I'm a

notoriously slow learner. But thorough.

>

>

>

> Ken:

> Well, now you're gettin' downright Darwinian.

> Where does the judgment reside that determines

> what should and shouldn't survive?

>

> Jim: " Darwinian " is probably a good choice of word, as concepts and

> their use evolve. The judgment ultimately resides with the culture

> at large as paradigms shift (in Complexity theory they may say

phase

> change). First a few individuals express a new point of view and

> then, slowly, the culture at large or the profession responsible

for

> it may stop using the concept or chooses a new way. Later

> generations come to think of the new concept as what was always

> obvious in the first place. This is essentially true of scientific

> concepts (e.g., Newtonian space and time becomes Einsteinian space-

> time)---although much of the American culture still thinks the way

> Newton did because at the gross experiential level, the errors it

> causes are acceptable and they don't understand Einstein. And some

> concepts have evolved in other cultures. In Korean pulse diagnosis,

> we can reiterate most ideas at the next scale---e.g., we apply the

> concept of nine sectors on each wrist (3 depths in each position)

to

> every position for a total of 27 sectors on each wrist. Later, it

> gets still more complicated.

 

Hmmm...I find this interesting but

not altogether responsive to my question.

I'd understood that you were forwarding

a judgment as to whether or not the word/concept

of hun2 should survive. And I was just

wondering how you could make such a judgment.

>

>

> Jim: You can always argue for the fundamentalist viewpoint.

 

I suppose you can at that, but that's not

what I was doing. I was just pointing out

that in the groping for explanations modern

people resemble rather than distinguish themselves

from their ancestors. The groping may well

be the important part.

 

But

> America is the culture that CM is being translated into and,

> inevitably, its ideas will absorb and change CM to some degree---

> especially because Western medicine and culture often attempt to be

> scientific.

 

Whoa! I have a really hard time with the appearance

of America in the foregoing sentence as some sort

of immutable aim of human civilization. There are

at least two billion people on earth that I can

say with some certainty might not entirely agree

with your designation as the destination of choice.

I'm thinking of the billion or so members of the

nation of Islam, who must be somewhat disaffected

with America these days, and of course the Chinese

who for reasons that are rather well supported

by historical reference see themselves and their

own culture as a fairly portentous one.

 

>Discussion is fine; but stopping is out of the question.

> It can't be done. Several if not many competing threads of thought

> will always be going on. What survives our tinkering will only be

> discovered in the future.

 

I'm glad you recognize this, because your statements

seem to me to suggest some knowledge of the outcome

before it takes place.

 

>I interpret your need to wait and find out

> what the Chinese have said as a fundamental difference between us

> (although I am curious, too). You seem to want to wait and see what

> the Chinese were thinking to engender some authority and I think

> it's too important to be left to the Chinese.

 

Well, you've lost me a bit here. I don't know what

I'm saying or doing that leads you to believe

that I'm waiting for anything. And personally

I'm not in a position to leave anything to

the Chinese or not leave anything to the Chinese

or to leave or not leave anything to anyone else.

 

Other Asian cultures

> (Korea, in my case) and now American culture are already changing

> and evolving CM. From now on we should write Chinese medicine in

> quotation marks--- " CM " ---since it's no longer uniquely Chinese.

 

No matter what it changes into, its origins

remain what they are. I must have somehow

misrepresented my views if you think that

I am opposed to the modern adaptations

currently taking place with respect to

the transmission of Chinese medicine outside

of China...or inside of China for that

matter. I see such adaptations as a thoroughly

traditional phenomenon. Chinese medicine has

been adapted to conditions in each and every

successive age through which it has survived.

 

What I highly favor is an approach to this

process of adaptation that is based upon

sound scholarship, rooted in the collected

experience of generations of past masters

of the subject who have had to solve so

many of the kinds of problems that we now

face. Of course, the range of their experience

does not fully encompass that of modern people.

Of course, we have to innovate and apply our

intelligence creatively to the growth and

development of the subject. But to do so

without the benefit of the accumulated

knowledge base of the subject is an onerous

and needless disability.

 

It's also extremely disrespectful of

generations of Chinese scholars to dispense

with their work without ever having read it.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

>

> I have a question which I'd like to hear your opinion on. Let me

see

> if I can cleaqrly and cogently state this question. It's something

I

> have never thought about before this morning in quite this way.

 

Well, that's cool.

>

> If a word has several (or many) different meanings (as, seemingly,

> does the word qi), is it possible for those meanings to each be

valid

> in their own context of usage without having to have some common,

> deeper meaning which somehow unifies or underlies all these other

> meanings?

 

Do I understand you correctly to be saying, " Isn't

it so that... " although the words you've used are,

" Is it possible... " ? If it's the latter, if you

are really asking " is it possible, " well, anything

is possible. Words are our servants and not our

masters. They take on the meanings that we give

them. Those who study the usages of words, those

who write dictionaries, those who read what such

folks write, all of these also contribute to the

body of knowledge that accumulates around words

over the course of their lifetimes.

 

If you're asking " Isn't it so that... " then I

guess I'd say, " No. " I to a theory

of words that suggests that they do grow

over the course of time from roots which

may have had one meaning or set of meanings

in a distant past that may well differ from

the subsequent meanings of words that derive

from them. This is not unique with respect

to Chinese words. I think it's true of words

in general, and particularly true of words

in languages that have been around for

millenia and undergone such extensive and

continual change.

 

Despite the differences in specific meaning

between a later word and the root from which

it derives, I believe there is often a great

deal to be learned by an understanding of

this root meaning and comparison of it to

the later sense. Regardless of whether or

not some sort of " unification " of idea

occurs, I believe that the process of

investigation is, in and of itself, a

valuable experience for those engaged in

the study of subjects like Chinese medical

terminology and the theories in which the

terms are employed.

 

Let me know if I've misunderstood your

question.

>

> I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although, you and

your

> lovely wife have not been able to come up with a single definition

of

> the word qi, is that really necessary to understand the usage of

this

> word in individual instances where, especially in medicine, it

tends

> to occur as a compound term?

 

Yes. It is really necessary to understand

the meanings of qi4. This can be stated with

respect to its usage as a single character

word and as a member of a compound. If you

don't understand it...well, you don't understand it.

 

It seems that we are being seduced into

> the typically Western attempt to find/create an unifying ground

theory

> of reality vis a vis qi, and I'm not sure that this is either

> necessary or useful. Maybe that's exactly what you are getting at.

 

That is exactly what I was getting at by

trying to differentiate between two different

approaches to the study of qi4. The approach

that we have taken in A Brief History of Qi4

is to compile and collate a good deal of source

material that expresses a wide range of view

points and attitudes about the meanings of qi4

by Chinese writers over a span of several thousand

years. We do not claim or presume or even much

address ourselves in the book to advancing any such

theory of a unifying nature other than what emerges from

the composite image created by so many hands

having written so much about it for so many years.

 

But

> I wonder if we're making more of this whole issue than is really

> necessary.

 

I don't know what's really necessary. I just

think that people should have access to what

the Chinese say qi4 is as a prerequisite to

making up their minds about it. This thread

started out with something Todd pointed out

about the equation of qi4 and energy. And

I think what we are witnessing is more or

less exactly the extent to which it is

necessary to deal with the issue in order

to sort it out.

 

 

Further, it is really useful to conflate the meanings of

> the word as used by Cheng Man-ching in terms of tai ji with

> specifically medical usages of this term?

 

This is not my conflation. Prof. Cheng was

a noted doctor of Chinese medicine. He has

written extensively and eloquently on the

subject, and there are a couple of different

translations of some of his medical writings

available. His statements on the subject are

quite enlightening and thought provoking and

I highly recommend them to anyone interested

in developing a better understanding of what

qi4 is and how it functions in human bodies

regardless of what activity those bodies are

engaged in.

 

There seems to be an

> unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as or

> has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine.

 

Well, let's not leave this assumption unspoken.

Let's just say, for arguments sake, that there

are not two different qi4's at play here. Let's

just say, as Zhuang Zi and Meng Zi said, that

throughout the whole universe there is just one

qi4.

 

Although both

> Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate the

qi

> of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such,

their

> technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply a

> single underlying meaning.

 

Not necessarily, but particularly in the writings

of Prof. Cheng as well as others, the meaning is

one and the same.

 

As a clinician, I think we can define terms

> such as spleen qi, great qi, defensive qi, righteous qi, evil qi,

> etc., without getting into abstruse philosophical-philiological

> discussion, and, as a clincian, these are the important terms to me.

 

I'm not suggesting that anyone can't define qi4

or any other word any way that they like and see

fit for any circumstance in which they find themselves.

I'm simply saying that it behooves people who purvey

Chinese medicine to understand what the Chinese have

had to say about qi4 for the past few thousand years.

 

How philosophical, philological or anything

else that anyone wants to get about it is

strictly up to them. I do encourage this

kind of exploration and discussion as it

gives people an opportunity to drag out

their understanding and see how it holds

up under scrutiny.

 

>

> Any insight you might care to share on these issues would be

> appreciated since you've spent so much time and energy trying to

> research all this. Since I've only just begun thinking about all

this,

> I still feel very much in the dark about all the parameters and

> definitions of this discussion.

>

Understood. I actually don't really feel that

I can shed much light on the abstruse philosophical

discussion. Philology is far more concrete, as you

can simply look in books and find a good many of

the data that pertain.

 

I'll look forward to your comments after you've

had a chance to see the book, and then you can

tell me how we've done in terms of presenting

the parameters and definitions of qi4.

 

I'll add just one more comment...why not.

 

All of this talk about language has a decidedly

political dynamic to it. [cf. Chomsky] Lin Yu

Tang, writing not about today's Chinese medicine

environment, but about politics in the Song

dynasty, made some comments that I find

quite thought provoking. This is quoted from:

The Gay Genius, The Life and Times of Su Tung Po,

by Lin Yu Tang.

 

To set the scene: LYT is describing a fellow

named Wang Anshih, who as Prime Minister

during the reign of Shentsung, around the

year 1075 or so, forwarded a program

of economic reforms that brought

the empire to the point of collapse. Through

bitter palace politics Wang first rose to

and then usurped power and finally fell in

disgrace as his draconian policies proved

themselves disastrous. In the following

description we can see a clear reflection

of the value system of Chinese scholars,

the likes of whom have been responsible for

generations for the maintenance and

care of the medical literature and knowledge.

 

" What showed the 'paranoid' character of the man, and what all

historians and critics agree to have been his one inexcusable act,

was not any of his political or socialistic ventures, but his setting

up himself now as the one and only interpreter of the classics. As

Wang Mang re-edited and falsified the ancient classics, so now Wang

Anshih wrote his own interpretation of three Confucian classics and

made it the official guide to thinking, to replace all the great

commentators of the past. Wang was a fairly good scholar, but not

good enough to replace the great masters of the past, such as Cheng

Shuan, Ma Yung, Lu Tehming, and others. To do this was both an abuse

of his official power and an insult to scholarship. The examination

papers were usually upon passges from the classics, and candidates'

interpretations had to conform. Setting up this new standard,

therefore, meant that every scholar of the land had to study and

absorb what Wang Anshih said on every topic, from principles of

government and Buddhist-colored Confucianism to the etymology

for 'quail,' 'owl,' and 'pheasant.' [...]

" Like his philology, Wang's New Commentaries on the Three Classics,

often savoring of Buddhist ideas, showed more originality than sound

scholarship. He believed, however, that in the interpretation of the

ancient ideas and political systems, whatever he thought was so must

therefore be so. These Commentaries were so bad that they were soon

forgotten after his death, and no copy has been preserved. But while

he was in power, they were the bible of the scholar candidates at the

examinations. "

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken - and others......

 

I apologize for the e-maelstrom spewing from my machine. I was in Seattle and contracted something that looks like a childhood infectious condition with papules, fever, (alternating w/ chills), and scarlet skin. I haven't decided whether is Rubella, recurrent adult measles or what. But you must all suffer these posts now.

 

I would imagine you address the issue of character etymology in your book. This would be the first place for me to consider if the presupposition is a single root meaning.

A plot of earth, grain, and movement are what I get when considering the character.

The cross in many cultures is representative of a vortex through which entry into the physical world takes place and vice versa. The indigenous use of symbolic components of the character for Qi from other cultures may prove a fertile ground for comparison and analysis. - maybe it's the fever.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Further, it is really useful to

conflate the meanings of

the word as used by Cheng Man-ching

in terms of tai ji with

specifically medical usages of this term? There seems to be an

unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as

or

has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine. Although both

Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate the

qi

of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such,

their

technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply

a

single underlying

meaning.

 

Something that might be useful here, although maybe straying

to far off the topic, comes from a thread in a internal martial arts

group that I belong to. This was said by a chen taijiquan player

by the name of Mike Sigman. While he is not the ultimate

authority in neijia, his point does reflect something a lot of people

interested in neijia for martial art and not just for well-being have

been thinking - that the word " qi " is being used as a

technical term and means something quite specific in martial

application. It is the potential " jin " pathway set up

by the mind-intent or " yi " for the expression of power in

martial technique. Here's what he said:

 

" The general idea is that you use jin from the ground,

controlled by the waist and expressed by the fingers.

Essentially the formation of the jin (unexpressed jin that is there

only in potential is referred to as " qi " in these usages) is

done because you want it to be done so the " want " or

" desire " or " heart " triggers the mind to form the

qi and the qi is the precursor to the " strength " , the jin.

This is always said as " heart leads mind, mind leads qi, qi leads

strength " , or you can insert the word " harmonizes " , but

it obscures the idea a little. "

 

-Steve

--

 

Stephen Bonzak

<smb021169

[Guest guest]

Hope you feel better. Are you sure it is not an allergy

Alon

 

-

WMorris116

Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:24 AM

Re: Re: Appropriate language for qi,

Ken - and others...... I apologize for the e-maelstrom spewing from my machine. I was in Seattle and contracted something that looks like a childhood infectious condition with papules, fever, (alternating w/ chills), and scarlet skin. I haven't decided whether is Rubella, recurrent adult measles or what. But you must all suffer these posts now. I would imagine you address the issue of character etymology in your book. This would be the first place for me to consider if the presupposition is a single root meaning. A plot of earth, grain, and movement are what I get when considering the character. The cross in many cultures is representative of a vortex through which entry into the physical world takes place and vice versa. The indigenous use of symbolic components of the character for Qi from other cultures may prove a fertile ground for comparison and analysis. - maybe it's the fever. Will Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, December 9, 2001, at 06:42 PM, dragon90405 wrote:

>

> Everyone develops their own personal map

> based upon those with which they come

> into contact. With respect to coming to

> understand terms such as hun2, I think

> it's important however that we pay

> close attention  to the maps in which

> these terms are used, as their meanings

> derive in important ways from these

> usages.

 

I agree. My post was not written to discourage anyone from studying the

concepts behind hun, po, yi, zhi and shen. Just to illustrate the

difficulty in comprehension from 1) original context and 2) overlaying

our own concepts on the original context. I've seen a lot of

interesting interpretations of this aspect of Chinese medical

literature, and psycho-spiritual stuff is easy to 'riff' on. In other

words, one can elucidate on these concepts and miss the original meaning

at the same time.

>

>

> If we want to understand what qi4 is,

> what hun2 is, or what any other bit

> of knowledge in Chinese medicine is,

> we have to come to know the special

> characteristics of those who have

> created and used them. This is a

> paraphrase of the closing lines of

> Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions,

> in which he equates scientific knowledge

> and language.

 

Agreed. (By the way, thanks for correcting the tone mark).

 

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Will,

 

I hope you're already feeling better.

 

Since the book will be available in a few

days, I'll spare everyone having to deal

any more lengthy posts about it.

 

It does indeed include an extensive look

at the etymology of the word along with

a wide range of its uses in philosophy,

aesthetics, medicine, martial arts, qi4 gong1,

and as a common expression in the daily

lives of Chinese speakers.

 

I'll look forward to hearing what you and

others make of it all.

 

Best,

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

>

> I agree. My post was not written to discourage anyone from

studying the

> concepts behind hun, po, yi, zhi and shen. Just to illustrate the

> difficulty in comprehension from 1) original context and 2)

overlaying

> our own concepts on the original context. I've seen a lot of

> interesting interpretations of this aspect of Chinese medical

> literature, and psycho-spiritual stuff is easy to 'riff' on. In

other

> words, one can elucidate on these concepts and miss the original

meaning

> at the same time.

 

Yes, indeed. As Lin Yu Tang put it with

respect to Wang Anshih, he was long on

originality but short on sound scholarship.

 

There really is no substitute for simply

knowing what you're talking about.

 

K

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. I completely agree that it

is useful for us to know all the various ways the Chinese have and

continue to use the word qi.

 

BTW, did you know or study with Cheng Man-ching?

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

> >

> > I have a question which I'd like to hear your opinion on. Let me

> see

> > if I can cleaqrly and cogently state this question. It's something

> I

> > have never thought about before this morning in quite this way.

>

> Well, that's cool.

> >

> > If a word has several (or many) different meanings (as, seemingly,

> > does the word qi), is it possible for those meanings to each be

> valid

> > in their own context of usage without having to have some common,

> > deeper meaning which somehow unifies or underlies all these other

> > meanings?

>

> Do I understand you correctly to be saying, " Isn't

> it so that... " although the words you've used are,

> " Is it possible... " ? If it's the latter, if you

> are really asking " is it possible, " well, anything

> is possible. Words are our servants and not our

> masters. They take on the meanings that we give

> them. Those who study the usages of words, those

> who write dictionaries, those who read what such

> folks write, all of these also contribute to the

> body of knowledge that accumulates around words

> over the course of their lifetimes.

>

> If you're asking " Isn't it so that... " then I

> guess I'd say, " No. " I to a theory

> of words that suggests that they do grow

> over the course of time from roots which

> may have had one meaning or set of meanings

> in a distant past that may well differ from

> the subsequent meanings of words that derive

> from them. This is not unique with respect

> to Chinese words. I think it's true of words

> in general, and particularly true of words

> in languages that have been around for

> millenia and undergone such extensive and

> continual change.

>

> Despite the differences in specific meaning

> between a later word and the root from which

> it derives, I believe there is often a great

> deal to be learned by an understanding of

> this root meaning and comparison of it to

> the later sense. Regardless of whether or

> not some sort of " unification " of idea

> occurs, I believe that the process of

> investigation is, in and of itself, a

> valuable experience for those engaged in

> the study of subjects like Chinese medical

> terminology and the theories in which the

> terms are employed.

>

> Let me know if I've misunderstood your

> question.

> >

> > I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although, you and

> your

> > lovely wife have not been able to come up with a single definition

> of

> > the word qi, is that really necessary to understand the usage of

> this

> > word in individual instances where, especially in medicine, it

> tends

> > to occur as a compound term?

>

> Yes. It is really necessary to understand

> the meanings of qi4. This can be stated with

> respect to its usage as a single character

> word and as a member of a compound. If you

> don't understand it...well, you don't understand it.

>

> It seems that we are being seduced into

> > the typically Western attempt to find/create an unifying ground

> theory

> > of reality vis a vis qi, and I'm not sure that this is either

> > necessary or useful. Maybe that's exactly what you are getting at.

>

> That is exactly what I was getting at by

> trying to differentiate between two different

> approaches to the study of qi4. The approach

> that we have taken in A Brief History of Qi4

> is to compile and collate a good deal of source

> material that expresses a wide range of view

> points and attitudes about the meanings of qi4

> by Chinese writers over a span of several thousand

> years. We do not claim or presume or even much

> address ourselves in the book to advancing any such

> theory of a unifying nature other than what emerges from

> the composite image created by so many hands

> having written so much about it for so many years.

>

> But

> > I wonder if we're making more of this whole issue than is really

> > necessary.

>

> I don't know what's really necessary. I just

> think that people should have access to what

> the Chinese say qi4 is as a prerequisite to

> making up their minds about it. This thread

> started out with something Todd pointed out

> about the equation of qi4 and energy. And

> I think what we are witnessing is more or

> less exactly the extent to which it is

> necessary to deal with the issue in order

> to sort it out.

>

>

> Further, it is really useful to conflate the meanings of

> > the word as used by Cheng Man-ching in terms of tai ji with

> > specifically medical usages of this term?

>

> This is not my conflation. Prof. Cheng was

> a noted doctor of Chinese medicine. He has

> written extensively and eloquently on the

> subject, and there are a couple of different

> translations of some of his medical writings

> available. His statements on the subject are

> quite enlightening and thought provoking and

> I highly recommend them to anyone interested

> in developing a better understanding of what

> qi4 is and how it functions in human bodies

> regardless of what activity those bodies are

> engaged in.

>

> There seems to be an

> > unpsoken assumption that the qi of tai ji players is the same as

or

> > has something to do with the qi of Chinese medicine.

>

> Well, let's not leave this assumption unspoken.

> Let's just say, for arguments sake, that there

> are not two different qi4's at play here. Let's

> just say, as Zhuang Zi and Meng Zi said, that

> throughout the whole universe there is just one

> qi4.

>

> Although both

> > Chinese medicine and tai ji seek to work with and/or manipulate

the

> qi

> > of the human body, these are two specialty fields, and, as such,

> their

> > technical use of a single, common term does not necessarily imply

a

> > single underlying meaning.

>

> Not necessarily, but particularly in the writings

> of Prof. Cheng as well as others, the meaning is

> one and the same.

>

> As a clinician, I think we can define terms

> > such as spleen qi, great qi, defensive qi, righteous qi, evil qi,

> > etc., without getting into abstruse philosophical-philiological

> > discussion, and, as a clincian, these are the important terms to

me.

>

> I'm not suggesting that anyone can't define qi4

> or any other word any way that they like and see

> fit for any circumstance in which they find themselves.

> I'm simply saying that it behooves people who purvey

> Chinese medicine to understand what the Chinese have

> had to say about qi4 for the past few thousand years.

>

> How philosophical, philological or anything

> else that anyone wants to get about it is

> strictly up to them. I do encourage this

> kind of exploration and discussion as it

> gives people an opportunity to drag out

> their understanding and see how it holds

> up under scrutiny.

>

> >

> > Any insight you might care to share on these issues would be

> > appreciated since you've spent so much time and energy trying to

> > research all this. Since I've only just begun thinking about all

> this,

> > I still feel very much in the dark about all the parameters and

> > definitions of this discussion.

> >

> Understood. I actually don't really feel that

> I can shed much light on the abstruse philosophical

> discussion. Philology is far more concrete, as you

> can simply look in books and find a good many of

> the data that pertain.

>

> I'll look forward to your comments after you've

> had a chance to see the book, and then you can

> tell me how we've done in terms of presenting

> the parameters and definitions of qi4.

>

> I'll add just one more comment...why not.

>

> All of this talk about language has a decidedly

> political dynamic to it. [cf. Chomsky] Lin Yu

> Tang, writing not about today's Chinese medicine

> environment, but about politics in the Song

> dynasty, made some comments that I find

> quite thought provoking. This is quoted from:

> The Gay Genius, The Life and Times of Su Tung Po,

> by Lin Yu Tang.

>

> To set the scene: LYT is describing a fellow

> named Wang Anshih, who as Prime Minister

> during the reign of Shentsung, around the

> year 1075 or so, forwarded a program

> of economic reforms that brought

> the empire to the point of collapse. Through

> bitter palace politics Wang first rose to

> and then usurped power and finally fell in

> disgrace as his draconian policies proved

> themselves disastrous. In the following

> description we can see a clear reflection

> of the value system of Chinese scholars,

> the likes of whom have been responsible for

> generations for the maintenance and

> care of the medical literature and knowledge.

>

> " What showed the 'paranoid' character of the man, and what all

> historians and critics agree to have been his one inexcusable act,

> was not any of his political or socialistic ventures, but his

setting

> up himself now as the one and only interpreter of the classics. As

> Wang Mang re-edited and falsified the ancient classics, so now Wang

> Anshih wrote his own interpretation of three Confucian classics and

> made it the official guide to thinking, to replace all the great

> commentators of the past. Wang was a fairly good scholar, but not

> good enough to replace the great masters of the past, such as Cheng

> Shuan, Ma Yung, Lu Tehming, and others. To do this was both an abuse

> of his official power and an insult to scholarship. The examination

> papers were usually upon passges from the classics, and candidates'

> interpretations had to conform. Setting up this new standard,

> therefore, meant that every scholar of the land had to study and

> absorb what Wang Anshih said on every topic, from principles of

> government and Buddhist-colored Confucianism to the etymology

> for 'quail,' 'owl,' and 'pheasant.' [...]

> " Like his philology, Wang's New Commentaries on the Three

Classics,

> often savoring of Buddhist ideas, showed more originality than sound

> scholarship. He believed, however, that in the interpretation of the

> ancient ideas and political systems, whatever he thought was so must

> therefore be so. These Commentaries were so bad that they were soon

> forgotten after his death, and no copy has been preserved. But while

> he was in power, they were the bible of the scholar candidates at

the

> examinations. "

>

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

>

> BTW, did you know or study with Cheng Man-ching?

 

I never met him, but he taught me an

important lesson. I was in NYC in the early

1970's for several months while he was still

there teaching. I knew who he was,

had been taught his style of Tai4 ji2

and had decided to go to his school

and take some classes. But I was busy

and kept putting it off in favor of

various work-related projects.

 

I left town without having made it

to class. I'd kept telling myself that

there would be plenty of time to go

and visit the Professor. The next thing

knew he'd returned to Taiwan and then,

suddenly, he was gone.

 

I've met and studied with a number of

his students, and as I said before, studied

his published works on various subjects.

Are you familiar with them? He was, perhaps,

first and foremost a poet, in the manner

of the great poets of the past like Su Tung Po,

who was also an acknowledged expert on Chinese

medicine and particularly Daoist practices of

life extension, yang3 sheng1.

 

His literary style and expressions are

quite wonderful, both instructive and

inspiring.

 

Ken