PDA

View Full Version : your take on ki



Mollberg
24th June 2000, 20:16
My father(old aikido guy) and I(young aikijujitsu guy) argue constantly about the existence of ki he whole Hartley believes in it, I say he’s full of it, he says im full of it. Whats your take on ki?

Chuck Clark
24th June 2000, 21:37
Listen to your father, you're both "full of it"... ki that is.

Dale
25th June 2000, 02:52
When I think of Ki I think everyone is full of it and those who practice esoteric Bujutsu are usually overflowing.

Listen to your Dad, when he was a 'young Aikido guy' he may have had similar sceptisism

Yours in Budo
Dale
Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu

Joseph Svinth
25th June 2000, 10:37
I have no quantifiable data to prove ki exists (to include Tohei-S's books) except to say that my wife routinely tells me that I'm full of it, and surely ki is the it to which she refers. I also have some scientific articles pooh-poohing the concept. For example, circus performers routinely do the same stunts said to prove its existence without any esoteric explanations, and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories spent billions on discovering ki/intrinsic energy apparently without much effect. Nevertheless I would swear/affirm/say in public that I've felt/experienced/seen physical manifestations of ki. So my suggestion is to continue seeking rational explanations but meanwhile just assume ki exists, that ki works, and then let ki do its thing.

Philosophically, that isn't a copout, either, as it is no different than turning on the light switch or looking at the stars. You don't really know how the electricity got from the power station or how the stars got in the sky, and you really don't care, so long as the lights go on and the stars don't go out.

The poem High Flight -- reach out your hand and touch the face of God.



[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 06-25-2000 at 01:40 AM]

yamatodamashii
26th June 2000, 03:38
The problem with holding a dialogue on "ki" is that you cannot do the most elementary part of a dialogue: define terms. Dr. Yang-Jwing Ming (one of the most respected ji gong practitioners in the world) says that ki (ji) is bioelectricity. I believe that it is the manifest power of intention.
Whatever it is, I remember the warmth on my face when my first real martial arts instructor (a Hwa Rang Do Sabahmnim) projected it at me. From across the room. It exists, whether science can prove it or not.

MarkF
26th June 2000, 13:55
There is an old saying which may fit here: "Some things are true whether you believe it or not." Well, that may well be, but what is it if you don't believe it? I have had experiences on the mat which led me to believe that something very close to that exists, but afterward, that first shot of morphine after arriving at the ER sure came close;)

Gene McGloin
28th June 2000, 17:58
Hi all. One of my teachers is a student of Koichi Tohei sensei from way back when and he ALWAYS uses the term "ki" to explain what is happening to uke. Another teacher who I've trained a bit with is a direct student of Ueshiba O-sensei and this man is adament in his belief that "...ki is bulls**t!" and that aiki teachers use the term "ki" when they cannot explain, in physical or bio-mechanical terms, how or why the technique they have just demonstrated worked. This sensei believes that "ki" is simply one's accumulated, physical knowledge through years of training. These days, I tend to go with this theory as I find this sensei's approach to waza wonderfully accessible for me as well as the fact that nobody has yet to sufficiently explain to me just exactly what "ki" is! However, this view is certainly subject to change!

Tetsutaka
28th June 2000, 18:55
...because I'm always locking my ki in my karma...

...but I know it exists - out there - somewhere

[cue the sound of a 1000 strings playing Barber's Adagio]

yamatodamashii
29th June 2000, 06:11
You know, it wasn't really all that long ago that people couldn't explain why stuff only fell DOWN, either. Just because we don't have a definition yet, doesn't mean that ki does not exist.
Furthermore, if ki does not exist then:

How did my instructor, on several occasions, hold his own in a tug-of-war against 12 students, three of whom were bodybuilders weighing over 200 lbs?

How does Chinese medicine work? Especially acupuncture--is illness just afraid of needles?

How does sakkijutsu work--an aikidoka should be especially interested in this one... How DID Ueshiba sensei dodge those bullets in Mongolia?

Joseph Svinth
29th June 2000, 08:06
Ueshiba's dodging bullets is easy -- the shooters missed. Everybody on horseback shooting broomhandle Mausers at about 100 yards range, and nobody gets hits, is not magic, simply normal handgun accuracy. The Comanche and Confederates used to use sawed-off ten-gauges, and figured ten yards was about maximum effective range; US Army data from the 1910s using .38s and .45s does not significantly differ.

For accuracy with a firearm from horseback, you have to lay the weapon alongside the animal's head and aim the animal at the target, rather as the South Africans and Rhodesians did in the 1970s and 1980s. But this tactic was only developed shortly before the beginning of WWI, and requires specially trained (and probably deaf) horses, so I rather doubt that Mongols would have been using it yet.

A former boxer turned vaudeville performer named Johnny Coulon performed most of the same tricks as Mr. Tohei, and said they were nothing more than leverage.

So, while there are displays said to show ki, these may not be true ki. Instead, they may simply be showmanship. Hard to tell the difference, and as Arthur Clark once said, one man's magic is another man's technology.

yamatodamashii
29th June 2000, 23:02
That only aswers one of my points. Did this boxer also stick needles in people and cure illnesses through "leverage"? Can he make me feel a projection of heat on my face from 10' away? I'm sorry, but if your only exposure to ki is through the techniques of Aikido, then there really is no way to convince you. This forum only allows verbal interaction, and we've already established that English does not have a satisfactory definition of "ki".

Mollberg
30th June 2000, 01:02
Originally posted by yamatodamashii
That only aswers one of my points. Did this boxer also stick needles in people and cure illnesses through "leverage"? Can he make me feel a projection of heat on my face from 10' away? I'm sorry, but if your only exposure to ki is through the techniques of Aikido, then there really is no way to convince you. This forum only allows verbal interaction, and we've already established that English does not have a satisfactory definition of "ki". when i fall down it's because my center of gravity gos over my base.....ever herd of a placebo?some times when the body "thinks" it's being healed it will heal itself...ki is it?(im not saying sticking needles in people don't work)

yamatodamashii
30th June 2000, 02:05
Acupuncture is a placebo that uses leverage to heal people that don't believe in it, and Mongols don't know how to shoot from horseback (that's probably why you don't hear about any Mongols trying to conquer the world...).
And, the body CAN heal itself through an unknown modality somehow linked to the mind, but it couldn't POSSIBLY be "ki". That would be silly. Those 3,000 years' worth of the ENTIRE population of East Asia who believed in ki were obviously delusional.

Oh, and what I meant by falling down is, gravity wasn't always defined, either. But that didn't mean that it didn't EXIST, prior to Mr. Newton.

At any rate, the current argument against ki is inherently flawed. Until someone presents an acceptable definition of "ki", it cannot be denied. "I don't know what it is, but I don't believe in it" is not a valid argument.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 06-29-2000 at 10:40 PM]

MarkF
30th June 2000, 09:57
by Jason Diederich:
the current argument against ki is inherently flawed. Until someone presents an acceptable definition of "ki", it cannot be denied

Nor can it be accepted as gospel. I will not say it doesn't exist, but neither am I going to be able to make a good case to prove it exists.

That said, we know definitely that allopathic medicine exists and indeed heals, or do we? "Treat the disease by killing the host." That is allopathic medicine which most medical doctors dispense, but is it really a proven art? No, as in cancer, poisin is used to destroy the immune system so that the body can no longer nourish the cancer, thereby killing by starving it. But what of the host? No immune system, the body acquires a "viral load" which makes the host sick, and then dies along with the cancer. Holistic medicine, on the other hand, is given so that the body's own immune system becomes so strong so as not to allow any organic disease to profit. Does this kill the cancer or other organic disease? Not if you believe the majority of people and practitioners. I would make the argument the same in regard to "ki." someone gets a warm feeling and says he felt ki. Well, how do you know? How do you prove it? You cannot, but yet it works. The allopathic book club (AMA) says that these people are con artists and frauds. Holistic practitioners say allopaths are killing the body to cure a disease. Osteopathic medicine is said to heal much in the same way as holistic approaches, but most MDs will tell you they are full if it. Meanwhile, the osteopath is given license to prescribe and perform surgery, as is any MD. Who is right?

People want to believe so they do. Is the argument against ki flawed? Hardly. There is no proof it exists, yet ki proponents say say no argument or proof exists that it doesn't. Who is right?

Kit LeBlanc
30th June 2000, 11:02
Jason,

You mention in the other thread that you got frustrated with the responses over here. I don't think people are trying to argue with you, just present different points of view RE: ki. Everyone on here has strong opinions, and we share them at the drop of a hat, whether anyone else cares to hear them or not. If you asked, you'll get the opinions! If you saw the old Aikijujutsu threads in E-Budo B.C. (Before the Crash) you would have seen a debate along similar lines, and no one pulled any punches.


Ki(Qi ) has long been a fascination of mine. I trained fairly extensively in Taijiquan both in the States and a little in China, and I trained in Yi Quan, a method which consists almost entirely of so-called "Ki" related practices and free fighting (NOT what is referred to as ling kong jin, or empty force a la throw without touching. That has NO relation to Yi Quan. Several instructors with background in Yi Quan popularized "empty force" and the supposed connection stuck.)

My take on Ki is that it is really a hopeless mess to define. Not just due to the problems with English. In Chinese, and from what I have heard Japanese as well, Ki, Qi, whatever is generally used vaguely, and describes feelings, sensation, mood, "auras" etc. that there may be no real scientific explanation for, but which occur.

Dan Miller, of the Ba Gua Zhang Journal, wrote in the Jan /Feb '95 issue (p. 13) of that magazine that his favorite definition of Qi was one that Steve Rhodes, the publisher of " Qi Magazine" once posited:

"I have always wanted to publish a six-inch thick book on what I think "qi" is. I would leave all the pages blank and a brief paragraph in the beginning would instruct readers to fill in the information as they discovered it within themselves, because this is the only place it exists."

Now, I really respect Dan Miller and what the Ba Gau Zhang Journal was to Chinese martial arts. I hated to see the Journal fold. But this explanation is a bunch of claptrap. Essentially qi means anything by this definition, and so for all intents and purposes it means nothing. This is the politically correct Way of Qi, for everyone is right and no one can question anyone else about what they think Qi is.

I really think when we talk ki in terms of Chinese medical theory/metaphysics, we are talking a sophisticated concept that people came up with in order to explain things that they did not have the science to explain otherwise. I have seen studies (sorry, don't remember the cites) showing accupuncture works. But that it was the accupuncture itself, not the meridien points, because it worked regardless of whether the proper points were used. Ken Fish, a Chinese trained Chinese medical doctor and classical boxer wrote some in Inside Kung Fu, Ba Gua Zhang Journal, and other journals on this subject, and he seemed to state that there was some stuff unexplained, but most was unremarkable common physiological processes. Yeah, you can mentally guide blood to your hands, make them HOT, and even turn them bright red all by "guiding qi." Or are you really just controlling your blood flow? Some people get so hot they seem to radiate heat. People with fever do the same thing. Fish warned against believing too much in the way out theories of medicine and martial artists as being just that, theory over practice. He mentions a split in Chinese medicine between specialists in Chinese medical theory/philosophy and Chinese medical doctors, who did the treating and saw results. The latter were much more practical and their qi descriptions were very matter of fact, used for very matter of fact phenomena.

In terms of feelings/moods etc. you are dealing with Chinese folk belief. Ki means basically air/emotion/spirit. Soda pop in Chinese is Qi Shui (Qi water), to get angry is to sheng qi (produce qi), etc. etc.

Qi is WAY misunderstood in the martial context. Qi means fighting spirit/aggression/anger/courage. I will quote Ralph Sawyers translation of the Wu Jing Qi Shu, the Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, p. 121 wherein he states "The concept of ch'i (qi) appears prominently in the Ssu-ma Fa, with much of the psychology of fear and courage being conceptualized in terms of ch'i For example, in protracted conflicts courage suddenly becomes crucial:

In general, in battle one endures through strength and gains victory through spirit. One can endure with a solid defense but will achieve victory through being endangered. When the heart's foundation is solid, a new surge of ch'i will bring victory. (IV) "

(Note: the Ssu-ma Fa is a classical Chinese military text along the lines of the Art of War.)

This general approach appears throughout ALL the ancient Chinese military classics. As these are the source of Sino-Japanese military theory, I think if we make a mistake by ignoring what they say. The classics also very strongly discourage superstition and impractical ideas. In the military classics, Qi could almost be seen as the elements of combat and performance psychology that we are making a lot of progress in the modern day understanding. A lot of that progress was made by looking at what things like qi theory teaches.

Personal anecdotes.

One of my taiji teachers once, in pushing hands, kept placing his wrist on my wrist to start pushing as he had done many times before. Every time he did on this occasion, I felt a sharp pain, that felt like "nerve pain," and ooh, I hate to say it, like an electric shock. Literally. It went away after a few contacts. Was he striking a nerve in my wrist at just the right angle? Was he sending qi out his arm to hurt me? Either way you slice it, it would be described as qi by those so inclined...

A well known qigong teacher, writer and lecturer did a seminar with my teacher. (I am NOT talking about Yang Jwing ming in case that is who people have in mind.) He stood everyone up in a line and sent his qi through us all (standing pointing his hands at us like in an old Dracula movie). Everyone was instructed to step off the line when they "felt" his qi. Gradually all these Celestial Posturers stepped off the line. Several were giggly and bubbly about how his "qi " felt. I didn't feel a damn thing! I had to step off the line because he was getting frustrated, and I didn't want to embarass him in front of the group. Later that evening, he asked me why I had not felt anything. I told him I did not know. He raised his hand, about a foot away from mine, which was resting on a cool table, and it felt hot! He said "do you feel anything now?" I said "It feels hot.." He said "Yes, that's it! QI!" I said "oh."

Now, before anyone jumps and says "you are just not sensitive enough to qi," this was when I was practicing various standing and other meditations 40 minutes to two hours on an almost daily basis. I had been told I had strong qi by several other teachers, and had one person come up to me after a demo and tell me that she saw "qi" flying out of my hands when I performed a form. Okay, now, some can say that maybe my qi was TOO strong, and you can't feel it from someone else if you qi is too strong. And maybe the latter was just trying to pick me up (a whole different discussion of qi....) but then aren't we really back to square one?

Frankly I think the whole argument got out of hand when someone read the statement "Yi leads Qi" and decided to concentrate on the Qi part. It is the Yi (intent, the mind) that does all the work, Qi just follows.

Kit LeBlanc

yamatodamashii
1st July 2000, 02:57
Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc, for that scholarly rebuttal. I'm afraid I let myself get carried away by my own sarcasm (I guess no one got the "Genghis Khan" reference).
I suppose I get frustrated because the most lucid post supporting my argument was on the line of "yeah, it's there." On the other hand the opposition comes up with arguments that seem very solid, yet I find more than a little fishy.
The Mongols don't know how to shoot from horseback? Hmmm...
Acupuncture is a placebo? I find it difficult to credit that the entire (looking for a more politically correct term than "Asian race") based their entire medical practice on a placebo for over 3000 years and no one caught on. I was surprised, at first, by your acupuncture posting... But tell me: by "wrong" do you mean "not ideal", "not related" or "opposed" meridian points?
A boxer was able to duplicate the feats of an Aikidoka? Hey, there have been chi gong "fakirs" in China for almost as long as there has been chi gong; I'll be the first to admit it.
One of the major problems is this: we as Westerners have a not-always-good habit of breaking things down into their smallest component parts. So now, we can say "That's not ki, that's adrenaline"; "That's not ki, that's a placebo"; etc. I myself have felt and experienced ki; including avoiding an attack once using "sakkijutsu". I KNOW that it exists, but there are currently no instruments capable of measuring it. My final argument still stands, however. Until a satisfactory definition of ki is put forward (you are welcome to forward one here), it CANNOT be categorically denied. You can certainly say "I don't believe that Aikido relies on ki for effectiveness", but you cannot say "I don't know what it is, but it doesn't exist".

ericDZR
1st July 2000, 03:55
in 3,000 years no one has been able to define ki in undisputable concrete terms.

so here's my opion, and i just want to state 2 things for the record 1. i may be a skeptic but i try to keep an open mind, 2. my views can change in a second when given strong proof or justification. the reason ki hasn't been explained in any uncertain terms is because it's an abstract concept, not a physical, metaphysical or spiritual entity. and although i may not believe in it's exsistance as a form of energy i do see it as an extremely effective conceptualization tool. in otherwords it's not ki that's a powerful force, but the minds ability to visualise and focus one's intensions (to heal or to hurt).

if ki was such a force that some claim it to be, then i somehow think that 3000 years of development would have lead us to greater achievements than where we are now. conceptual/creative visualisation on the other hand has lead us to incredible achievements far beyond our expectations.

-eric sterner

Joseph Svinth
1st July 2000, 08:28
The Mongol bow used from horseback was not the big thing that punched through armor but instead a lighter recurved weapon whose maximum effective range was about 30 yards. During the 1930s these weapons were still used for hunting, but whenever possible they had been replaced by firearms for military purposes. Available firearms included Winchester rifles purchased by the Imperial dynasty and an assortment of WWI-surplus Russian rifles. Being about six feet long, the latter were ill-suited for use on foot, let alone horseback.

The favorite weapon of the cavalryman of this period was the self-loading (semi-automatic) pistol, the reason being that it could be reloaded while mounted. However, revolvers were also carried.

A significant problem in this era was that Remington had only recently introduced smokeless propellants that had long shelf life. Thus W.E. Fairbairn in Shanghai recommended discarding all ammunition that had been carried longer than six months or stored longer than two years. Discarding in this case meant selling to people in the Chinese or Indochinese hinterlands at grossly inflated prices. Since the merchants usually failed to mention that their ammunition was surplus, misfires were common.

Probably the most popular and reliable pistol in China during this period was the Broomhandle Mauser. Chambered in 7.65mm Kurz, it was very reliable but maximum effective range against heavily dressed human targets or horses would not be more than 50 yards. Stopping power, however, was minimal at any range, as the cartridges were copper-jacketed rather than hollow-point.

If you read Ueshiba's descriptions, you discover that he and his party were pursued by Mongols and the lads beat feet as fast as their ponies would go. The whole thing is thus something out of a Tom Mix movie, and even there the bad guys generally don't hit very many of the men in white hats. Later, Ueshiba told his stories about dodging bullets to people at the Nakano School for spies, but about 1942 even the Nakano school changed from aikido to karate for its H2H program because while Ueshiba might have been able to dodge bullets in Manchuouko, his military students were not having so much luck in the Pacific.

As for my opposing the idea of ki, if you would go back a few entries, you will note that I said that ki is a concept best believed than quantified. In fact, my exact words were "Reach out your hand and touch the face of God." For myself, that seems as good a short explanation as any. Furthermore, the word "ki" seems as good a catch-all term for some phenomena that I cannot otherwise explain as any, and therefore I see no problem with using it.

Thank you, though, for assuming that someone here on E-budo would have a one-paragraph answer to a question that has to date resisted quantification by the combined black research budgets of the US, USSR, and the PRC and the lifetime researches of philosophers such as Jung. In truth we are nowhere near that level of sophistication, but it is nice to fantasize about someday achieving it.

Gene McGloin
1st July 2000, 13:09
After reading most of the posts, I think that my own wasn't all that clear in making my point. While I do believe that ki, chi, qi (whatever) exsists, and yes, Chinese medicine has worked for some ailments and injuries I've had in the past, not all, but some. The only problem I have is when the term "ki" is used as a means of understanding how one can effect or affect another person through the means of martial arts techniques. While "ki" is certainly involved in the interaction, I feel that there are better ways of defining what is happening through an understanding of bio-mechanics and basic movement (taisabaki). I believe that there is a gamut of other factors involved, such as timing, distance, and breaking balance! With regards to Chinese medicine, I'd like to mention that my accupuncturist, formerly a cardiologist in Canton, China, is very skeptical of chi gung arts and their claims to being a method of healing.

I don't refute the existence of ki, I just don't believe it is the one factor which I must always focus on in order to execute effective technique. !

Gene

Mollberg
1st July 2000, 17:37
Originally posted by yamatodamashii
Acupuncture is a placebo that uses leverage to heal people that don't believe in it, and Mongols don't know how to shoot from horseback (that's probably why you don't hear about any Mongols trying to conquer the world...).
And, the body CAN heal itself through an unknown modality somehow linked to the mind, but it couldn't POSSIBLY be "ki". That would be silly. Those 3,000 years' worth of the ENTIRE population of East Asia who believed in ki were obviously delusional.

Oh, and what I meant by falling down is, gravity wasn't always defined, either. But that didn't mean that it didn't EXIST, prior to Mr. Newton.

At any rate, the current argument against ki is inherently flawed. Until someone presents an acceptable definition of "ki", it cannot be denied. "I don't know what it is, but I don't believe in it" is not a valid argument.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 06-29-2000 at 10:40 PM] Your argument reminds me greatly of the augment about religion there are a lot of people who believe in it but not a lot that can provide any answer besides “have faith” they think just because everyone else believes in it it must be true. Just like with god and Santa claws (I believed in him for the longest time). If they were true also wouldn’t it be a much happier and easier world to live in…but sadly its not. In the end yamatodamashii the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

yamatodamashii
1st July 2000, 22:08
"That's not ki, it's creative visualization".... (sigh)
Very well. Creative Visualization IS a great tool for realizing human capabilities... but HOW? How does it work, please? "Ki follows intention". Unless you know of another mechanic?

For that matter, how do you get your arm to move? I'm certain that we could all sit around and have a very educated discussion about axons, dendrites, neurotransmitters, myofibrils...blah, blah, blah. But what causes that FIRST neuron in the series to fire? How is your immaterial will imposed on the material universe? "Ki follows intention". And Chi Gong, whether practiced in the classical Chinese exercise, or by "Creative Visualization" with your sports coach, is nothing more than a tool to help you realize your intentions more fully. Can it heal? That depends on the practitioner, and on the patient.

I do not believe that acupuncture itself works on the placebo effect, but I believe that ki is the force BEHIND the placebo effect. Ki is what allows people do to unusual things under hypnosis. Ki is what enables people to improve performance by simply "visualizing" it... Ki cannot be broken down into these component parts and still recognized as "ki". That is why the Chinese identified it, while in the reductionistic West, we simply toyed around with different things it could do. "That's not the forest, it's a red oak. That's not the forest, it's a maple. Where is this forest everyone keeps telling me about?"

Great post on Mongolian firearms, by the way (wink)

Also, this is off the general topic of my post, but I just went back and re-read the first page of our thread and found Mr. Bergstroms edited reply. Very well put! One more semi-koan for you to ponder:
"This flashlight is really great, but I don't believe in all that "electricity" bunk. I opened it up and there's just two little cylinders in there."

Pax Nobiscum

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 07-01-2000 at 04:33 PM]

Kit LeBlanc
3rd July 2000, 02:20
I think we are getting to the meat of the matter. So much about qi and qigong is based on faith in the phenomena, that really it is difficult if not impossible to define it. Also what gets in the way is that different people have used it for different purposes, and created very different paradigms( religious, health, combative etc.) for what "it" is.



In essence, yeah, I guess by my definition accupuncture is a "placebo" effect. Where I come at it from is like this:

The Chinese (well, we should probably go back to the Ayurvedic tradition) knew the power of the mind in healing. A system based on the practice of guiding the mind in healing (creative visualization; intent, qi follows yi etc.) develops into the meridiens, most of which have a close correspondence with neural pathways. It further develops into sticking needles into points and burning moxa, etc. but what ultimately is important in the whole process is the mind. The meridiens are a way to better guide the mind (intent), but it is the intent which is doing the work. In essence, if themind is right, you can do away with the meridiens, etc. as qi naturally seeks to "get through" where it cannot.

We know that some people have brought cancer into remission by using a focussed mind without benefit of Chinese medical theory. Western medical research has shown that prayer, and patient's attitude toward the illness and recovery are a lot more vital than the drugs and surgical procedures that we have. I think the same thing is happening here.

Wang Xiangzhai, in his qigong practice, abandoned the micro- and macro-cosmic orbits for simply practicing with a quiet and composed mind. The philosophy was that qi seeks to balance itself. Other teachers have said the same thing (Read Xing Yi Nei Gong by Miller and Cartmell, for example.) Some even argue against the excessive practice of visualization exercises, or jumping too early into certain visualization practice because it will have a negative affect on the practitioner mentally (the old teachers called this "seeing demons," etc.)

I also agree that qi is not some mystical power, but a pretty mundane thing which almost anyone can tap into if the mind and the circumstances are right. I think a lot of stuff like deja vu, the weird pre-cognition we humans sometimes experience, sensing something is "wrong," being in "the zone" and all that are manifestations of what one could call qi. I think we are picking up unconscious cues from our environment that are very noticeable once we have been instructed in what is going on.

I would point to the Reid Method of interrogation and deception detection for some of this. They took what a lot of people do unconsciously in figuring out someone is lying, studied it and found that there are a lot of non-verbal cues happening that are easy to spot if you are aware of them. There was just no way to explain all this kind of stuff in 5th century China or 10th century Japan, say, so it is "ki." Much of this became esoteric teaching or gokui in older martial arts styles.

I do not believe in throwing people without touching them, or a lot of the so called combative use of qi. I think some is just plain physics that people do not understand (unbendable arm, the whole "taiji withstanding the push of ten men" stuff) . A lot is being "in the zone," in a martial arts context.

Some of it is blatant tanking for a teacher, or a conditioned response in students (I go in, teacher throws, eventually no matter how I go in, teacher will throw me, so I go in already thrown...) It was said sometimes in taiji circles that so and so did qi throws, but he could only do it with HIS OWN STUDENTS.

Kit LeBlanc

To Mollberg :

Santa CLAWS??? uh, I know you probably meant Claus, but for a minute I had a weird vision of what your Christmasses were like.... heh heh heh.



[Edited by Kit LeBlanc on 07-02-2000 at 08:25 PM]

yamatodamashii
6th July 2000, 23:05
I just had an interesting conversation on this point with a very old friend of mine. He has much the same background in martial arts that I do, but he is more of a scholar than I (I hope to get him posting here soon). He pointed out some things which in retrospect seem very obvious to me.
First: It is the absolute HEIGHT of arrogance to study someone else's constructs and call them "wrong" because they don't fit your own ideology. How long was Galileo excommunicated because of his idea of an heliocentric solar system?
Second: (and this has been mentioned before) Just because we can't see or touch or measure something, that does NOT mean that it does not exist. Does the soul exist? I'm not really sure that I'm ready to accept that I'm nothing more than a sac of blood and excrement whose sole purpose is to create more such sacs and pass on chromosomes. What about love? How do you touch, or quantify it? Can it be seen, or only felt by the person in love? I have had several conversations such as this with people who believe that they have never felt love, and thus have decided that it does not exist. And there is certainly no "undeniable proof" that I could present to them, until they actually decided to fall in love.

M.C. Busman
7th July 2000, 01:14
Here's a link that explains the concept of Ki--what the Chinese have thought it is, traditionally.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/

(look under March 2000 articles)
Air. Traditionally, "Chi" was thought to have been air which flowed through (ready for this) the veins & arteries--later, just the arteries.

Of course in our present era the term has been redefined. For instance, in the Aiki arts, it tends to refer to the connection & relationship between body & controlling mind. But if you want the real, "traditional" understanding of Qi/Chi/Ki that spread from China to Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, and recently Aaaalll Points West, realize that you are espousing a belief which would cause most people to ignore what science tells us about the human body--that our arteries are filled with moving air (and not blood).

'Course, this is a free country, people may believe whatever they wish (and then pass it on to their children as fact). That is what makes life here so interesting. So, who here defines Ki in the traditional way, and who is into new-age Ki?

M.C. Busman

yamatodamashii
7th July 2000, 02:23
I find that article to be filled to the bursting with history, and absolutely devoid of understanding. First of all, for the sake of my sanity, I won't even MENTION the chi gong charlatans beyond this sentence--just read my previous.

Secondly--yes, it is true that TCM physicians knew very little about anatomy until the 20th century. I was unaware of this belief that arteries were filled with air, but I DO know that it wasn't until about 1950 that they finally decided which side of the body that the liver was on. And remember, Chinese medicine recognizes ONLY five internal organs.
Is this a problem? No--it is a limitation, but not a problem. Chinese medicine does not deal with anatomy, it deals with chi. For the Chinese physician, the "five organs" were physical embodiments of the five elements--stages through which all things pass.
(Wood: Ascension, Fire: Expansion, Earth: Balance, Metal: Descension, Water: Contraction)
It was not important to the Chinese to know how digestion, respiration, circulation, etc., occurred. What they focused upon, and spent thousands of years observing, was under what conditions these things happened best--this became the five element theory.

Let's use color as an example. The old (read: pre-Communist) Chinese system recognized five primary colors, one for each element. If a person (in a simple example) had too much fire, his skin would be red. This person should avoid red foods, which would feed the fire (red meat, red wine, etc.). Hmmm... sound familiar? Beyond that, an excess of fire would cause damage to the heart, small intestine, and blood vessels.
I see a familiar pattern here.

As for Mr. Yang, the medical philosopher: The PRC does not practice TCM. It still uses acupuncture, but mostly for anaesthesia. All of the philosophy behind TCM was thrown out along with martial arts and everything else of cultural significance when the Communists were on their book burning/slaughter spree. Some of it is slowly coming back; however, they do not even recognize the five element theory, which is one of the most useful concepts in Chinese philosophy.

Further, about the Daoist sect claiming "spiritual revelations" from Laotze. This was standard practice at the time. Most Chinese inventions are attributed to some miraculous/spiritual inspiration, to lend authority to the discovery. Were we really THAT different in Europe at the time?

yamatodamashii
7th July 2000, 03:05
"Qi" does NOT mean "air". "Air" is ONE POSSIBLE TRANSLATION of "Qi"; and not a useful one in the discussion we are having (although it would certainly solve my problems; you surely won't deny that AIR exists, will you?). I defy you to find a single pair of languages where words can be translated exactly on a one-for-one basis. You won't. If it were possible, there wouldn't be both languages.
This is even true among the Romance Languages; imagine how true it is between entities so dissimilar as English and Chinese. Be vary cautious of someone who says "this Chinese character" means "exactly this" in English.

I tentatively put forth this definition of chi, in order to get a more concrete argument: Chi is the (as yet unquantified) force which allows the immaterial will to interact with the material universe. As an example, I refer back to my earlier post about moving your arm.
I look forward to your ideas on how valid this definition is, and any new discussions which might arise from it.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 07-06-2000 at 09:52 PM]

M.C. Busman
7th July 2000, 21:28
Didn't mean to imply that there was only one meaning for this kanji. I know better, too. But facts now allow us to recognize that aong at least a portion of traditional diagnostic practitioners in China, the concept of "chi" (ki) was considered something of a moving, breathing thing based more upon the concrete than mystical.

This suggests that more modern ideas of what ki is have been very recent developments, adapted to fit other concepts we have such as religion and science. Since most people now know that the old definition of "ki" is no longer scientifically viable, all sorts of new metaphysical and philosophical ways of explaining and understanding it have popped up. Since Ki can't be "A", it must be "B". This seems to be mostly a war of definitions and the desire to hold the idea of ki as an added spiritual benefit. On one hand, people no longer accept the Traditional Chinese idea for what ki was (a moving, circulating air-like substance). But still many want to hold on to the mythological concepts explaining how ki functions. Sure it can't hurt to try to understand how ancients thought. But when the eyes of teacher & student meet, and a cold chill runs up ones back or a feeling of warmth spreads over one, is it a chemical reaction, or something incredible and unexplainable--"ki" (or is ki just a lable for any sort of feeling, regardless of its cause now)? Or humors out of balance, perhaps...

Happy Trails,
M.C. Busman

yamatodamashii
8th July 2000, 00:47
I'm not sure that I follow your final paragraph. Are you disparaging Chinese medicine because it has changed it's beliefs when presented with new knowledge (as Western medicine did after IT was finally allowed by the Church to study anatomy); or because of beliefs it held in the middle ages? What do humors have to do with Chinese medicine? It almost seems that we are dismissing Chinese medicine simply because it's not Western medicine.
About the "chi" flowing through the arteries... I think that that probably WAS air-- I mean, the acupuncture meridians were mapped out a LONG time ago. The understanding that the arteries carried blood instead of air really didn't affect the understanding of the nature of chi, although it DID affect the understanding of blood, which was one of the five substances of the body (potential(jin), mind (shen), blood (shi), chi, and "fluids" (hsueh)).
Chinese medicine is NOT Western medicine. It does not separate mind from body, nor break the body down into component parts. It treats the person as an entity.
It does not see a symptom and treat the symptom. It sees a symptom, finds the "pattern of disharmony", and seeks to return the person to balance.

Also, on Chinese "herbs". This is another loose translation. What we call "Chinese herbology" actually encompasses the use of plant, animal, and mineral material. Some of them are very...well, smelly. Others are not. All are filled with "chi"--that is not their medicinal value. Their value depends on the QUALITY of that chi--how it relates to the five elemental theory, and how it is used by the patient.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 07-08-2000 at 03:45 PM]

Dale
9th July 2000, 13:50
Originally posted by M.C. Busman
Air.

"Traditionally, "Chi" was thought to have been air which flowed through (ready for this) the veins & arteries--later, just the arteries.

Of course in our present era the term has been redefined. For instance, in the Aiki arts, it tends to refer to the connection & relationship between body & controlling mind." "realize that you are espousing a belief which would cause most people to ignore what science tells us about the human body--that our arteries are filled with moving air (and not blood)."

M.C. Busman


I find it incredible that the chinese realised the link between arteries and viens and thier respective roles in transporting oxygenated blood and deoxygenated blood through the body such a long time ago.
I may have misinterpreted the translation but I don't know where the idea of having air not blood flowing through our body came from. call me radical but I think there may have been some conection between the two!
If this is really the traditional definition then I am also amazed at how one definition of something so difficult to translate was formed. Maybe it was simplified due to the reluctance of "westerners" to accept "Eastern" ideas.
If that is the true definition then I am extremelly confussed as to what exactly was it that I have been experimenting with for so long, judging by the other responses on this thread I am certain I am not the one who discovered this and I am certianly not the only one who has experienced it.
I have always thought of Ki as nothing extraordinary as we all use it to type our responses on this forum. I have always known it as "life energy", so yes it is certainly a fundamental part of my training and living for that matter. I don't see the difference between 'believing' in Ki and 'believing' in auras. Are they not both simply life energy?


By the way Mr Busman What do you think the role of blood/arteries/viens (cardiovascular system) is in our bodies?

Yours in Budo
Dale Elsdon

Joseph Svinth
9th July 2000, 14:33
These ideas were not exclusively East Asian. For example, in 1628 William Harvey wrote that blood circulated through the body. Specifically, said Harvey, the blood carried the soul and the heat, and that the heat was caused by the blood fermenting in the heart. This was ground-breaking stuff, quite contradictory to the conventional wisdom that had been in places since Galen in the first century CE.

Now, a question I have that is germane. Who was the first to divide things into fire, water, air, etc.? There are some who say it was Thales ca. 585 BCE and others say the Zoroastrians a century later (a real good case for that, actually). Or was it someone else altogether? And when did the Chinese start using this system, and who is credited with its invention there? (It was clearly in place by Sun Tzu's day, as Sun divided the cosmos that way, but was this independent invention or something the Chinese picked up from the Turkic traders? Or did the Chinese invent it first, pre-Thales/Zoroaster, and send the information the other way? I honestly don't know, but figure I really should find out.

M.C. Busman
9th July 2000, 19:51
Dale Wrote: "I find it incredible that the chinese realised the link between arteries and viens and thier respective roles in transporting oxygenated blood and deoxygenated blood through the body such a long time ago." [....]

I didn't see a reference to the ancient Chinese knowing that arteries carried oxygenated blood (you got this from "air"? Wow.) anywhere in the article, or in any other writing on the subject--in my library at least. Your progression is another good example of how we change our theories (adopt & adapt) to fit the times. Earth is flat! O.K., we can prove mathematically it is a 3-d sphere. But from where we are the earth LOOKS flat, so it's flat AND round! The ancients were right!!! (parody)

The idea of Chi, Qi, Ki is based upon ancient observation. So was dowsing, palm reading, divining with bones..."Chi", like "God", can be adapted to fit the lifestyle and comfort zone of the individual. Chi is everything/God is everything, etc.

What we are missing with Chi is any scientific data which might class it as a separate, quantifiable force or substance apart from forces and substances of which biology already knows (such as say, the cardiovascular system). Is chi blood? Or is chi in blood? Can it be measured in or separately from blood? Until we can prove the existence of chi (assuming one is not simply using the term as a philosophical --as opposed to scientific-- metaphore for "power" or "substance" of any sort), it will remain little more than a concept based upon faith. And while there's nothing wrong with personal faith (testemony), it doesn't make for very good hard evidence.

Dale also asked: "By the way Mr Busman What do you think the role of blood/arteries/viens (cardiovascular system) is in our bodies?"

Umm. . .the heart & its accoutrements--"beats" having a diesel engine in my chest? :)

(just) M.C. Busman

yamatodamashii
9th July 2000, 21:57
I am fairly certain (but not 100%) that the four elemental theory is Aristotle's. It's been a long time since I did research along those lines, however.
As for the five elements of the Chinese system: unfortunately, it's origins are lost to antiquity. Or possibly a Communist book burning. Either way, we don't know.

Also, Mr. Busman, please realize that according to your most recent post--we'll have to throw out the entire science of astrophysics. How many controlled, repeatable experiments do you think that astrophysicists have performed? Evolutionary biologists? Archaeologists--hell, most of the field of anthropology (don't forget that for over 30 years it was "scientifically proven" that entire tribes in Africa were afflicted with speaking disorders... Then someone finally realized that those sounds were PART of the language...). The list goes on...

About your references to "the Ancients"... While the Christians of Columbus' day may have believed the world flat, the Greeks knew it was round 3,000 years ago. So the TRUE ancients had it right; it was their more technologically advanced descendants who got it wrong. Chi is only observation? What is science, if not observation?
As for proving chi is a separate, identifiable entity... I don't see that as viable. Chi is understood through a Chinese paradigm; it does not "fit" into the Western physical paradigm any more than "the oxidation of matter" would substitute for "fire" in the Chinese five element theory.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 07-10-2000 at 03:36 AM]

Gil Gillespie
10th July 2000, 17:13
There's a whole host of very knowledgable folks on this thread arguing the number of angels on a pin. And that's not a bad thing! Simply because ki is undefinable and unmeasurable! To insist on it being otherwise is to superimpose a set of parameters that will always miss the forest while in search of the trees. I like the analogy of ki to aura.

I most definitely believe in the existence of ki. As uke I have felt it; I have experienced it. As nage I have yet to be able to successfully "call on it," if that is correct. I have had my training partners refer to more or less of it in me on a given night, and the closest I could come to understanding was my energy level. I'm still with the Moody Blues singing "I know you're out there somewhere-----somewhere." (Or is it IN there?. . .)

Basically I have found that in observing the people who maintain the exhistence of ki I find myself wanting to be like them. To be with them. Re: those I hear refuting it and maintaining "it's all a myth," etc. I find my visceral reaction less than reinforcing. Just an observation that's held true for years. It's all I really know about ki.

M.C. Busman
11th July 2000, 04:14
Jason Diedrich wrote: ~~"Also, Mr. Busman, please realize that according to your most recent post--we'll have to throw out the entire science of astrophysics. How many controlled, repeatable experiments do you think that astrophysicists have performed? Evolutionary biologists? Archaeologists--hell, most of the field of anthropology (don't forget that for over 30 years it was "scientifically proven" that entire tribes in Africa were afflicted with speaking disorders... Then someone finally realized that those sounds were PART of the language...). The list goes on..."~~

Not Quite. We've been throwing around the term science here, it might help to explain something. While the scientific method deals with observation, the criterion for Hard Science (say, physics, mathematics, chemestry, etc--even astrophysics is based upon older, sounder proven theories) differs from that of the so-called "soft sciences" (anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc.). Why? Well, one uses sound scientific formulas for determining conclusions in the hard sciences (the weight of a fe atom, calculating mass, and so on), while the soft sciences tend to obseration and evaluation based upon non-mathematical/physical theories, such as interpreting variant statistics.

It is easy for an anthropologist or sociologist to err when observing groups of people. The "human element" comes into play--biases, misunderstandings, misinterpretation (as with the original mistaken beliefs about the !'Gung tribe's linguistics). A Chemist or a biologist can err, too--but usually this is simply making a mistake in a calculation, or forgetting a step in the lab and is usually uncovered during the course of a 2nd or 3rd check (recalculating to make sure you didn't biff it), and almost certainly during the critical presentation and publication. The neat thing about hard science is that most of our basic formulae can be tested in the lab. It either works, or it don't. The ONLY portion of the soft sciences which might qualify as hard science is the actual processing (calculation) of the statistics. Even interpretation of the statistical results is soft science (explaining what the results "mean" in a certain context).

So, is Chi a hard science, or a soft science? Can it be measured using any known method--has it ever been measured via a hard, scientific method? Do we know what chi is, other than a vague description of "energy" (again, the "God is everywhere" description, which really isn't that helpful in understanding the specifics). All of the books I have on Chi which try to prove its existence use different devices to measure or photograph the warmth of the body, and then label it as "chi". If Chi=body heat (and nothing more), then this might be worthwhile doing. I haven't yet read anything that supports an "other" called chi. If you can point me to a source which uses failsafe, scientific methods, I'd be happy to look it over. I'm not saying it isn't possible--just that it hasn't been done yet, and I personally find it Highly improbable that we will ever discover anything known as "chi". Unless again, you simply wish to use "chi" as a catch-all with dual philosophical/theological meaning for things which have already been recognized by members of the scientific biological community (such as say, the circulatory system, or arteries, etc.).

There is nothing wrong with believing in chi as a "faith", but difficulties arise when folks try to make it fit the strict criterion expected from the scientific community. It can't. People who know science want to know what, why, and how. If chi can't be studied and can't be verified or quantified, then chi probably isn't something which hard science has to worry about.

Not a personal attack on anyone, just the cut and dried "how it is" of science vs. pseudoscience.

Concerning believing in chi. I think there is a very basic element in human nature which causes us all to long for the best of things. By the best of things, I don't mean wealth, but the basics, such as health, happiness, security. Faith in chi, god, magic, afterlife or other form of immortality help meet the needs we have for being able to hold onto those desires at all times. These concepts give comfort, even in times of terrible injustice or suffering. Sometimes, they also convey feelings of power. Who doesn't want to be able to resist fearsom violent attacks or heal horrible afflictions with a sort of magical force called chi? Wouldn't it be great!

Heck, believe me, I wish chi existed. There would be nothing better than seeing an entire cancer ward of children packing to leave--cured, regenerating and playing, making plans for their new future. But no chi master, doctor or priest in the world can do that, and even the most popular faiths and the sincerest labors of hard science too often fall short of the sickest little baby.

Let me try my own hand at writing a new, modern definition for an old concept. Maybe chi is merely a state of mind, a positive thinking, an unwillingness to give up ever, a strength of mind. After all, this is what is behind so many so-called miraculous recoveries, the spirit of fight, fight, fight on. We humans really are capable of incredible things, and also can fall victim at times to incredible tragedies from which we cannot escape. It is the human condition. Ya win some, ya lose some. In the meantime, fight on.

Happy Monday, All!

M.C. Busman

yamatodamashii
11th July 2000, 22:11
Gentlemen:

I have enjoyed this conversation immensly (especially with Mr. Busman). However, to continue further would require us to digress into the relative merits of the scientific method as a means of learning truth; which is *WAY* off-topic. I suggest, therefore, that we adjourn; unless anyone would like to continue via e-mail?