Qi, again, (was Acupuncture May Aid Cancer)

[Guest guest]

Stephen, and All,

 

> > After all the CHA discussion about the unworthiness of the word

> " energy " in

> > the context of TCM did anyone ever come up with a better word

> suggestion for

> > use in a context such as was required by the author of the Reuters

> article

> > and the many other articles like it?

> >

> > Stephen

> >

>

> I guess the question in my mind would be how does it benefit us for

> the reuters journalist to use a term that

>

> 1. is ludicrous in this context to any modern scientist

>

> 2. is not justifiable from a sinological perspective

 

And we have to add: 3. is used by the majority of Chinese

medical students and professionals

 

I asked myself for years why people persist in

conventions that clearly make no sense. When you

stop and think about it, the misuse of words

doesn't seem all that important, certainly not

to most people, who probably think of all the

attention paid to words as some sort of morbid

fixation of people with too much time on their

hands.

 

Had we but world enough, and time...

 

Misusing words certainly can't compare with

the kind of abuse to which humans subject themselves

and one another with deadly regularity. As

Tom Lehr put it in that great song National

Brotherhood Week, " O the Catholics hate the

Protestants and the Protestants hate the

Catholics; and the Hindus hate the Muslims;

and everbody hates the Jews! "

 

But when I continue to examine the causes of

such craziness I find a common factor, namely

communication. One of the things that tends to

happen some time before the killing begins is

a breakdown in communication.

 

Perhaps a little more attention to what people

mean when they say things could save lives.

 

Certainly if we're putting tools into the

hands of doctors with which we expect them

to, if not save, at least improve people's

lives, then we bear the responsibility

to see to it that the proper usage of

these tools is conveyed to those doctors

as part of their training.

 

The reason why the Reuters story

says " energy " when it should say " qi "

is because the majority of people

in the profession, one or more of

whom the reporter spoke with during

the course of putting the story

together no doubt, would answer

" Energy " in response to the question,

" What is qi? "

 

The reporter probably didn't just

take anybody's word for it. The equation

of energy with qi4 no doubt came from

an expert.

 

It is highly unlikely that anybody

could succeed at correcting misuse of a term

in the media when the field of special

usage in which that term is found misuses

the term in precisely the same way that

the media misuses it. Moreover, such a

change would be meaningless as it would

only create further disonance in an already

chaotically noisy system and contribute

to the rather conventional notion that

all Chinese medicine is is a bunch of

mumbo jumbo.

 

If we want and seriously expect the

media to use terms such as qi4 in their

integral and original sense, we had better

get to work on our own usage of the word.

If we use it correctly then when the media

show up to find out what's going on they

will report it that way. This actually does

happen in a surprisingly high percentage

of instances: the media calls it like it is.

 

For the community of Chinese medicine to

use the word qi4 correctly requires a certain

basic level...standard if you will...of

understanding of the Chinese language,

Chinese medical terminology in general,

and yes, even Chinese philosophy. In

order to understand what qi4 is, one

has to have a grasp of the traditional

Chinese notion about the origins of

the universe. We deal with a complex

and cumbersome subject. It's relatively

difficult to study, compared to many

other subjects.

 

 

>

> I think I would rather have no press at all.

 

That won't happen. The tide in the media continues

to rise. I tried tracking stories with a clipping

service and soon couldn't afford the bills!

 

The journalist no doubt

> just parroted something he read or heard from someone whom he

trusted

> knew something about the subject.

 

Agreed, as above.

 

I doubt he read Ken's book first.

 

 

> I certainly would rather he spoke of pathways of connectivity than

> energy flow. While perhaps equally nebulous to the layperson, at

> least it does not smack of discredited pseudoscience to the more

> discerning reader.

 

When the meanings of words are clear and

commonly understood, communication just

happens. When words are poorly understood

or not understood, communications break

down. Once that happens, we seem to be

at the whim of urges that arise from other

parts of our extremely nervous systems.

 

I don't think it's such a bad idea after

all to spend the time and attention required

to look after and care for the meanings of

words. People who are talking about the

meanings of words seldom, if ever, actually

shoot each other.

 

 

Ken