Qi, again, (was Acupuncture May Aid Cancer)

[Guest guest]

If we want and seriously expect themedia to use terms such as qi4 in theirintegral and original sense, we had betterget to work on our own usage of the word.>>>>I think you will wait a long time before a main media outlet will use the word Qi on it own

Alon

[Guest guest]

Ken:

 

Have you sent the Reuter's author a note about this concern and copy

of your Qi book?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

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

> 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