Qi, again, (was Acupuncture May Aid Cancer)

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I agree that members of our profession need to employ terminology in

our language that properly represents the meaning of qi. Particularly,

when used in literature written by those within our field.

 

In regards to the media in general, I wonder, whether explaining the

meaning of qi to a reporter, from the various perspectives that have

been discussed on this list on the last couple of months such as

information theory, would have any meaningful value to someone who is

writing for a target population whose reading skills are of an

eighth-grade level? What is the reading level for most major

newspapers in the States? If I recall correctly, one of the highest

level, the New York Times, is 11-12 grade reading skill.

 

How would you explain qi to a reporter so that when his/her article is

printed, readers won't have to put on their thinking cap?

 

As someone stated on an earlier post " we still see through a glass

darkly " . Todd's recent question regarding the meaning of qi among

qi-gong masters, shows that he continues to search for clearer meaning

of the word qi; and he's not alone. Can it be explained with two

words, or even three or four? Is Pneuma wind or spirit? is Prana

energy or breath? Is qi....?

 

Fernando

 

 

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

 

> 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