Talk:Qi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vitalism?

"Opponents argue that qi is merely a form of vitalism, a theory that was largely abandoned in the early 19th century." Perhaps this argument actually is out there, although I've never heard it. Even so, it should be noted that such an argument is easily argued against, as there is a big difference between vitalism and qi. Specifically, vitalism ONLY pertains to living organisms (see the wikipedia page of vitalism if you doubt it), which is the principal reason that the concept of vitalism was abandoned in the 19th century. Qi is not restricted to living organisms, not in any traditional view of qi. This is why our wikipedia page for "Qi" defines it as something that "is part of everything that exists." Thus, I added this to the vitalism comment.... "However, vitalism specifically pertains to living organisms, while qi is traditionally viewed as something independent of "life" that permeates through both living organisms and nonliving materials." Or should we just delete the vitalism thing altogether?

We can delete it if no sources can be found for the statement. I agree that the two conceptions are somewhat different. However, many school teach that qi is indistinguishable from life. Things alive have more "more alive", dead things have less "less alive". --Fire Star 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK to leave the vitalism thing. It is at least correct in saying Qi is part of all things, alive and dead, according to the Chinese definition.

Using 'Vitalism' as a definition of 'Qi' is akin to defining the 'internet' as the 'blogosphere'. It is a recent way of discussing only small aspects of a larger, much older concept.

David Silver (more below)72.72.47.78 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ħ Very good point. Calling qi theory "vitalism" amounts to setting up a straw man. P0M 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Needles

• "which uses tiny metal spines inserted into the skin to reroute qi flow, among others."

Are the "others" other devices (and surely the usual English term is "needles"? Is needle avoided for a reason?), or effects other than rerouted chi flow? It's not very clear.

Some Chinese healer use thier fingers other than needles. It's called "Qi Needle."

Some use their hands, esp. fingers and knuckles, for acupressure treatments. Sometimes they'll use a species of wooden dowel. See tui na. Fire Star 14:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Commonly, acupuncture uses 'needles'. ..."tiny metal spines" is kinda wacky.

I would say:

"...which uses tiny needles inserted into the skin at specific points, known as cavities, along the pathways, or meridians, of the energetic circulatory system, to redirect or stimulate qi circulation. The human body is thought to be comprised of hundreds of major cavities, and of thousands of minor cavities, which are located along the main vessels and meridians, which are like the reservoirs and rivers respectively, in which Qi circulates throughout the body. Modern scientific study since the 1970's has shown that indeed electric conductivity is higher at these cavities. (ETC. vast subject)

ETC bioelectric research

ETC Qi theory used in hospitals worlwide for healing

ETC (but not until you stop deleting my content. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, that does not justify your deleting the content of others who work and study in the field and have practical experience.)

I would also say:

(but I won't until I know some skeptic won't delete my posts for the 4th time!)

Qi theory was disputed, experimented with, and corroborated from many sources in China for thousands of years; Taoist and Buddhist studies, martial arts and Qigong practitioners, and Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners, including those utilizing acupuncture and acupressure (massage), until a general concensus was reached in about 500 BC. For over 2,500 years the the thoery of Qi and of the energetic circulatrory system has become more detailed and precise.

Thank you, DS (not logged in, more below)72.72.47.78 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ħ I don't really understand the function of all the "ETC" things stuck in above. Probably it's just too late at night.

Ħ If we say "tiny needles" then people will get the idea that they are like the old phonograph needles, maybe 1/3 inch long... Better to say the commonly used ones are basically stainless steel guitar string with a wrapping of heavier wire on one end to give the doctor a better grip on it (and make sure the right person gets stuck). P0M 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ħ Maybe it would be useful to ask what it would actually take to get Western doctors comfortable with using acupuncture. There seem to be at least two big problems involved. (1) People do things in Western medicine because they believe they will possibly be benefitial, but they do not demand 100% efficacy. In fact, lots of progress has been made recently by investigating the ways that people with different genetic constitutions react to certain drugs. What passes for knowledge gives guidance of the form "let's try that medication first since it usually works better for people who are in this patient's population group." But when they don't get reproductibility they don't do what they would in evaluating a new procedure for heart surgery (look at the skill level of the people who are trying it and the level of severity of the original problem). They just say it's unreliable and/or unscientific. (2) People do things in Western medicine without knowing why they work. They are interested in learning why they work because they figure they will possibly be able to figure out more and better treatments. But meanwhile if the drug intended to reduce nail fungus infestations seems to protect people against heart attacks and it's a well tolerated drug, people will start using it just because it has been shown to work.

Ħ I think the main thing that makes people react differently is that the Chinese ideas do not assimilate readily into the Western conceptual system. So we get the reactions, "That's can't work!" "That doesn't make any sense at all!" And so forth.

Ħ A related thing that interferes is that most Western doctors have very little idea of "systems analysis." The idea that dian xue could have any basis in reality would have been very hard to sell to a Western physician until a couple years ago. How could punching somebody relatively lightly kill somebody and do so without producing even as much as a black and blue spot? And to assert that the timing of the blow had something to with explaining why one might try the same thing with a hundred volunteers and never see any bad results. Then somebody noticed young athletes with healthy hearts dying after relatively mild blows to the upper thorax, and people who knew something about the way that one heartbeat sends the electro-chemical signal that initiates the next heartbeat figured out that a jolt to the heart at the right time in that cycle could interrupt the feedback cycle and the next heartbeat would never come unless there was some outside intervention. Then what was "ju-ju" suddenly became acceptable science.

Ħ The key to scientific acceptability will most likely involve getting lots of instrumentation into the works so that when a qualified practitioner performs some procedure the rest of the world will be able to see how s/he changed the operation of the entire system and then how that change proved beneficial to the patient. Meanwhile, we are not here to approve of acupuncture or to disapprove of it. We just need to explain that tuning a human body is a little like tuning a piano, and that you can't just give somebody a tuning hammer and an instruction book and expect good results immediately. P0M 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tai Chi

BF, thanks for adding Tai Chi Chuan.  :-)

If you can find a Chinese calligraphy image of "Tai Chi", email it to someone here( there's a spot someplace on how to link images on Wikipedia), and it will look nice on the Tai Chi page. I keep a book beside my monitor titled "Tai Chi", by Paul Crompton. The 1st page has the Chinese symbol for Tai Chi, verified by a native of China, who pronounces it "djee". I've always been a New Age person and included Eastern thought in my lifestyle, but this book was the first one purchased that started me on my way seriously. My personal form is a ballet/ tai chi mixture which looks like me dancing slowly and breathing. It is allowed to make your own movements, as long as you know the basics. ~BF

you can find the yin yang symbol and all the Yijing trigrams and their corresponding unicode code point in http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf

The symbol commonly referred to as the Tai Chi symbol is the West is in fact known as the yin/yang symbol. The yin/yang pre-dates the existence of Taijiquan, and that of Taiji Philosophy by thousands of years. When applied to Taijiquan (Tai Chi Chuan) is should correctly be referred to as the Taiji Yin/Yang.

You can see Song dynasty charts that show an empty circle above the intertwined "comma-like" figures to represent the Tai-ji. And I think sometimes people put an empty circle right at the center of the big yin-yang drawing, which also represents the Tai-ji. P0M 07:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Taiji translates to 'the grand ultimate'. In the universe, taiji could be considered 'universal conciousness' or 'god' or the creative force that NO ONE can truly put a name on, despite all of our strong opinions. In the human body, taiji is the mind. The mind controls all activity of the body - it is the grand ultimate.

Ħ Can you cite evidence?

The symbol which most accurately defines Taiji is a spiral.

Ħ Evidence? Analysis?

(paraphrase)"Wuji is the mother of taiji. Taiji begets yin/yang which leads to the millions of things in the universe.'

Taiji philosophy is over 5,000 years old. It was adopted into martial arts and the style Taiji Fist, or taijiquan, was created.

Ħ Where is your proof?

Wuji means 'no extremity', infinite singularity. Taiji is the force which initiates changes, or movement. (as in the mind's intention to move the arms into a taiji posture). Once taiji causes a move from wuji, discrimination between yin and yang are created. In any posture, certain parts of the body are yang, certain are yin. In the universe, when matter is created from nothingness, certain matter is visible, certain matter is not. Same thing.

The Qi page should truly reflect the ancient Chinese concept of Qi and its related concepts, NOT SOME WESTERNERS' SKEPTICAL VIEW OF WHAT THEY HEARD FROM COMMON WESTERN (probably incorrect) SOURCES WITHOUT TRULY RESEARCHING THE TOPIC.

Yes? thanks, DS, peace.72.72.47.78 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ħ Then I'm sure you will agree that we need to have the correct citations for assertions that we make. I base my understanding on the works of Feng Yu-lan, Qian Mu, Tang Jun-yi, Mou Zong-san, Yan Ling-feng. I worked with all of these people except Feng, and he was my dissertation director's teacher. P0M 07:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Defining Qi

I see that several of us have worked on this definition, and none of them (including my attempt) is adequate. What we really need is simply a longer and more contentful explanation, bearing in mind that the definition shouldn't imply that ch'i actually exists (in other words, it should leave room for the possibility that ch'i very well might not exist). --LMS

My defination of Qi

• Qi: is a air, which can be used to form energy/ and also a energy. Human can use Qi to become stronger and surivive. Without Qi our body won't be able to surivive

><ino 10:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Qi does exist. It would be impossible to practice TCM without the concept of qi. How it exists is up for debate. TCM is about how qi movies through the body and how to improve it's movement. You can't understand or make a TCM diagnosis without qi in it. So lets drop the debate about if it exists and focus on what it is. It may be that it is just a label for something that we already understand or even a group of things but it does exist just as love exist but was not understood in a biological scientific sense for thousands of years.

Let's have a bit of critical thinking here. How can you say something exists if you do not even know what it is?

I found the balance of 'does exist/doesn't exist' pretty good. What I do find missing is maybe a description of the sensations it provokes in the body (and under what circumstances) which, if difficult to pin down to words, might constitute the only 'proof' (to those who are open to the concept) of this - particularly and by its very nature - mysterious pudding. Jigsawpuzzleman 11:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, (my first post)Im glad to see this discussion. I felt that the original article was quite biased toward old skepticism against the existence of Qi. Research in the field of bioelectricity since the 1960's in the West has 'qualified' ancient chinese concepts of Qi. I updated the Qi article three times, without removing anything - simply adding the suggestion that in fact it has been shown that the west talks about bioelectricity, and the East talks about Qi - in fact they are one in the same. Someone deleted my additions three times. Why? (Is Qi against your religion?)

I am a student of Dr Yang Jwing-Ming, and an assistant Instructor of Qigong in YMAA, a well-known chinese martial arts association. Dr Yang has Ph.D's in physics and mechanical engineering: he KNOWS about energy. He and another of my teachers have utilized simple Qigong exercises to cure people of cancer, at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and at Harvard and Tufts Medical Schools. (http://www.ymaa-retreatcenter.org/healing) Surely we can update the QI page to reflect real research, Western scientific data, and measured, recent Western abstracts involving the eastern arts which utilize Qi for healing. You can be skeptical of ancient Chinese claims all you want...but once Western science is involved I hope we can all respect this data. Healthcare is down the tubes in America, it is time for people to take some responsibility for their own health, rather than waiting to BE FIXED by someone else. this information regarding Qi and its study (Qigong) should be widely available to the public, and especially via Wikipedia.

A short simplified article I added as external link, WHICH WAS DELETED:

• http://www.ymaaschool.com/articles/articles.php

About the word Qi:

The ancient characters for the word Qi translate to "No Fire". This was referring to a balance between the Yin (postive,acid) and the Yin (negative, alkaline) states of the body. Over the centuries, as more experimentation and experience was accumulated and passed down from teacher to student, primarily in an oral tradition in Buddhist and Daoist monastaries, of which their were tens of thousands, the characters commonly used for the word Qi changed. Now, the word Qi is generally comprised of the characters for the words "Air and Rice". Otherwise, air and food. Breathing and eating. The metabolism. The bioenergetic activity in every cell of the body exists due to these two things. What is that bioelectric energy, which allows the myriad functions of each cell's many components to take place on a molecular level? Qi. (aka bioelectricity)

We cannot even dispute that Qi does not exist, unless you have another explanation for what exactly the life-force within the body driving the metabolic function is. OK?

Perhaps it's the "I don't want to give China credit for this wisdom that has been passed down for tens of centuries, I want to credit only the West's view of the body from the last couple centuries" syndrome.

Im a skeptical person myself. I agree that Wikipedia should be THE source of verifiable data, for people interested in entirely factual information, without cultural bias. Perhaps the initial author of the Qi article is not an authority on the subject and should not be involved? Thank you, I will watch first, and will author some content when this dispute is resolved. Thank you all very much, David Silver (not logged in) 72.72.47.78

Also, in the first paragraph:

"with some Buddhists in particular tending to believe that matter is an illusion."

This is a misunderstanding, caused by the language barrier and lack of a decent teacher, or decent source of information on the subject.

In fact, the Buddhist belief is that matter is an illusion only as far the 'concepts and words' created by mankind and learned from birth to 'describe' matter. Observing matter, after 'emptying out' all of these concepts and words, to the point of a blank slate, and truly experiencing the present moment and observing matter, is what is expressed as 'an illusion'.

The 'Tao' that can be talked about is not the Tao.

In other words, what was matter called before human beings knew language? Before human beings existed? Our CONCEPT of matter is an illusion. Can you clear your mind to the point to where you can experience matter in that original context? Not easy, especially nowadays. (So, PLEASE stop using the word enlightened. Without this ability, one is not enlightened. WE are not enlightened, but people love to throw that word around lightly in the West.)

ok I'll shut up.

thank you, David Silver

YMAA72.72.47.78 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tonal information

Probably no one cares, but I believe the tonal information is very important for Chinese transliteration. Please give a reason why the information was removed. Don't tell me simply because someone don't know what it is.

FYI, according to my dictionary, there are 22 Chinese characters pronounced as qi(1), there are 42 pronounced as qi(2), 13 as qi(3) and 19 as qi(4). Removing the tonal notation at least quadrupled the ambiguity. Removing the Unicode character doesn't help at all, you are changing a precise origin of word into 96 possible mappings.

Do you want an encyclopedia with precise info or what?

Yes, we absolutely do. I tend to agree with those who have been complaining lately that we have gotten too much into the habit of deleting content we don't like. People, that's not the right way forward. The right way forward is to edit what you don't like; if you can't be bothered to edit it, then unless there is just zero merit to it at all, you might mark the text as in need of editing, but don't delete it. Yes, there are instances where it's completely appropriate simply to delete what someone has written: if it's graffiti, if it's just entirely factually false, if it is merely (no more than) an idiosyncratic statement of opinion. But for everything (or nearly everything) else, if you're going to just delete something, at least give people a chance to defend what they wrote on the /Talk page. --LMS

Subtle energy

What is up with the "subtle energy" addition? It may be fine to provide a link to a page that talks about it, but this page (to my mind) should be about how Chinese traditions view ch'i. If syncretists want to shoehorn it into weird modern metaphors (orgone?) that is fine, but they should create their own pages, because I'll bet that there aren't many Chinese acupuncturists sitting around inside pyramids. Comments? Fire Star 05:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that subtle energy ought to be a separate page, linked from Qi as a See also. Apparently, it was a separate page, but the coding doesn't indicate that on the Qi page. The subtle energy link is redirected to the Qi page, so someone moved the subtle energy text to the qi page and eliminated the subtle energy page. Also, the link QI used here is about a game. This article also needs some serious copy editing. heidimo 18:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Heidimo. I'll give it a few more days to see if there are any additional comments or suggestions, then start editing... Fire Star 20:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Subtle Energy. Same thing as Qi, another way to vaguely discuss the same thing. No reason for it to not be included. It's basically an synonym westerners can wrap our brains around. thanks all, DS 72.72.47.78 14:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please merge

The following was removed from the traditional Chinese medicine article to avoid redundancy. Please merge it into this article as appropriate. heidimo 16:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Qi is typically translated as "vital energy" or "life force." At the simplest level, it is the common Chinese word for "breath" or "to breathe." Therefore, Qi is said to permeate all of life. In the body, Qi pools in certain places called acupuncture points which are generally along interior pathways or channels called meridians which are similar to rivers of Qi. Qi is not considered to be a physical substance, meaning it is not visible or tangible. However, it is somehow necessary for life.

Whatever Qi is, one basic notion of Chinese medicine is that living organisms must possess it. To maintain life, Qi must circulate, and when this circulation is impeded, disease results. Many of the rudimentary treatments of Chinese medicine are to get Qi to flow, and to prevent Qi from being "blocked".

The translation of "Qi" as "energy" has caused much consternation among skeptics and Western scientists, who hold that any form of energy flowing though the body must be amenable to reductionist analysis, and that no such energy has been observed. However, neither ancient nor modern Chinese texts discuss what Qi is, but emphasize the function of Qi.

Some practitioners treat Qi as a form of electromagnetic or biological energy. Feeling for temperature differences from place to place in the body is used by practitioners for diagnostic purposes, for example. Others hold that if Qi is to be understood as energy, it is in the sense of that which is present when we say "I feel full of energy today!", not in the sense of the chemical energy of a chemical battery, or the kinetic energy of a falling rock. (When a person in Japan asks the common greeting question "O-genki desu ka?" ("How is your Qi?") the expected answer is not given in joules.)

Another idea is that Qi is best translated as "potential": where Qi is present, there are many different possible actions that an organism or system may take, while where it is absent there are few. This idea has interesting parallels with the concept of information entropy.)

None of these explanations fully describe what Qi is or what it does. Such concepts are almost impossible to disseminate in anything less than esoteric language that would make little sense to lay people, especially when worded in English.

---

Scientific viewpoint

JC 27 April 06: People, people. The 'qi' part in 'Tai-Qi' or 'Tai-Chi' is a different word to the 'qi' here 'translated' as 'energy'. The 'qi' as in taiqi means the 'extreme point'. The word is used in the Chinese word for the poles as in the North Pole and the South Pole. So the word taiqi could mean the 'very extreme' or the 'ultimate'. The 'qi' in taiqi is pronounced 'gik'(hard g) in Cantonese. The word 'qi' translated here as energy is pronounced 'hey' in Cantonese. The 2 words are completely different words.

Nope - you're getting confused with the transliteration - which is fairly easy. The "chi" in Tai Chi is not "qi" in pinyin, its "ji" so "t'ai Chi" becomes "tai ji". "Taiji" is the name of what we call the yin yang, so while the literal meaning of "Taiji quan" could be "ultimate boxing" what it really means is more like "yin yang boxing".

I think I agree here. One translation of Tai-Chi-Chuan, the full title of the art, I heard was grand ultimate fist.

The concept of 'Qi' was also used in western medical terminology upto about 200 years ago. I am not going to tell you what the word is, since you guys are so interested, you can research it yourselves.

Go on do tell. Wikipedia works by everyone adding what they know.

So as a concept, qi is not unique to the Orient. The concept of 'qi' as energy is fairly clear to the Chinese and to Europeans upto about 200 years ago, not that they understood what qi was, if indeed it really had any meaning, just that they thought they knew what it was, before the age of western science took over. The present western view of the Chinese word 'qi' among the general populus is clouded by translations/ mistranslations and from a romantic view of Oriental philosophy, and the wish to commercialise this idea.

This bits a little more debatable. We would need some good references to establish this. --Salix alba (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have altered the statement that "orthodox science has tested the claims of Qi...." to say something along the lines of "modern science rejects the existance of qi as pseudoscience...". I have done this because I am unaware of any honest double blind tests of Qi. There are tests of things like "laying on of hads" or "theraputic touch" famously done in the mid nineties by a child (Emily Rosa) clearly disproving their efficacy, but none of Qi specifically. --Deglr6328 06:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I understand science, it is about disproving a hypothesis. That qi exists can never be proven by science. It can only be shown that some test of it does not test positive. Absence of a positive test does not show something to be false and thus unscientific. I love science and am an acupuncturist, the two are not opposite but only different ways to interact with the world. Science has never shown qi to not exist nor does science say that we should stop looking at qi or stop trying to understand it with science. Science also does not say not to use something that works but is not yet understood. Even if science shows qi to be something else that what TCM people believe it to be, TCM will still need to use qi as it understands it. TCM is a system that works within it own world of concepts and does not need the outside concepts to work.t exist.

This sentence "modern science rejects the existance of qi as pseudoscience..." is entirely incorrect, and is CERTAINLY not neutral. It is an assumption by someone clearly not involved in the field, and furthermore, it suggests an agenda toward blindly disproving the entire concept.

I also disagree that "That qi exists can never be proven by science." I believe scientific instruments will be created to do exactly that, within our lifetime. People are working on this all over the world, and it is only a matter of time.

The entire culture of China, which is over 10,000 years old is based on common knowledge of the exisitence of Qi and practical application of its various aspects. Are you saying that they are wrong? This page is seriously blowing my mind, and also making me very depressed. Is their a Catholic agenda at work or somesuch deliberate attempt to disprove the existence of Qi because "its not normal, its not in my 1960's science text book, its not in my version of the bible" Deglr6328?

I posted above, and will post again: I am a Qigong instructor, and my teachers utilize Qi energy exercises to heal cancer patients, in work with patients at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and at Harvard and Tufts medical centers. Boston is considered by some to be the world headquarters of "modern science", and certainly modern medical science. These Qigong, Qi energy exercises; Im not talking about fluffy, new-age, mystical exercises - Im talking about practical exercises based on solid theoretical concepts which have repeatable results.

Thousands of scientific researchers, investigators, practitioners, doctors, and nurses, as well as thousands of patients practicing various eastern arts to improve their quality of life and in some cases to heal terminal cancer -COUNT ON THE EXISTENCE OF QI. Skin conductivity is higher at the acupressure/acupuncure points, or cavities, measurable with MODERN SCIENTIFIC equipment. Ancient chinese practitioners discovered these points by sitting, and observing, often in Buddhist and Daoist monasteries. Fortunately, there is a solid oral and written tradition which documents these discoveries.

Modern Western science defines Qi as bioelectricity. it is real. it is why you are alive. Not a ridiculous, mysterious, mystical, imaginary force. (unless you really think about it, haha) It is the energy driving the metabolic function within the body.

ALSO! The word Qi is a very general term, and in fact, is used in discussion in China of any and all energy, including that of inanimate objects. All matter is comprised of an electromagnetic field. Qi.

Thank you all, David Silver (waiting to author content until this is resolved...) 72.72.47.78 14:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Western reductionism misses one important thing

Namely that it's stupid to restrict one's spirituality to the comprehensible or well-understood. What does it matter whether Qi exists or whether it can be explained by plain old biochemistry, when the notion of it flowing through your body gives you strength? What was that old Blaise Pascal quote?:

"Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism."

Some things never change, obviously. Aragorn2 20:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice. In fact, if you train with a Chinese qigong master for a while, you can experience this yourself, and have a BASIS FOR YOUR OPINION, rather than posting misinformation, essentially just repeated from some antiquated conservative, skeptical, not-knowing source. Thanks, DS72.72.47.78 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk page

Traditional Asian martial arts also discuss qi. For instance, internal systems attempt to cultivate and direct qi during combat as well as to ensure proper health. Many other martial arts include some concept of qi in their philosophies.

The above is incorrect. All systems of martial arts cultivate qi all the while developing control of yi, which translates to "intention", which is what is used to direct qi throughout the body. The difference between internal and external martial arts is that internal puts more emphasis on using qi, while external puts more emphasis on using phsycial force and strength, but both styles still cultivate qi. It is like 2 different paths leading to the same destination.

Offensively, qi can be directed into attacks such as punches, while defensively, if your opponent has caught you off guard and an attack is about to strike your body, qi will move to and gather (using yi) at the place of impact to protect the body from the blow. This concept forms the basis of styles such as FanziQuan, in which many "fake" or decoy attacks are thrown to draw the defender's qi away from where they will actually be struck.

I moved this here because, while it isn't necessarily wrong, a debate like this needs to be hashed out here, not on the article. The article should be a coherent whole, and these paragraphs have to be re-written to express that. Fire Star 03:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it! :)

I hope there are some people who can better explain what I'm trying to express.

The above isn't exactly incorrect, just incomplete. Firestar, I think its ok to leave. But I would be more informative.

Internal martial arts styles, such as Tai Chi Chuan, train "from internal to external", meaning they train to utilize the maximum amount of Qi with as little muscular strength as possible. External styles, such as Shaolin Kung Fu, train from "external to internal", meaning they develop the physical body quickly, and later train to use more Qi to support muscular force, Li, to create Jing (emitting power). At the higher levels of training, both approaches become very similar in their balance of internal energy and external muscular force. DS72.72.47.78 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, my bit didn't last too long. In fact, I was surprised it lasted as long as it did. Scientific analysis rather than user experience wins through, I guess. The problem is, science only sees from the outside, whilst the user experiences it. The sceptism about Qi is actually mind-boggling. Do you think this stuff has lasted so long because it's nonsense? Thousands of years.... Or are the races that use/believe in it seen as 'inferior' by Westerners? Really, there should be a non-scientific area for any subject that's inexplicable to the average scientist type. Not that scientists can't experience Qi of course. The professiorial, detailed knowledge seen here reminds me of endless classes where the professorial types stand around discussing/alaysing Qi, whereas the rest of the class gets on with learning about it. But I tried! What's interesting is that the bit about the axe, the most minor bit of a relatively long essay, still remains! Weird!241

Greetings 241. I actually don't have a problem with what was put there as much as how it was put. The problem with personal experience is that it is anecdotal bordering on original research, and the encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia shouldn't express itself that way. I'm a T'ai Chi Ch'uan instructor for one of the largest and oldest schools in the world, and I use the term qi (although not as much as some) quite happily in my classes, and I can show it to people who ask for a demonstration. Not everyone wants to call what I am showing them "qi" however, but that's not my problem. Reproducible results, such as the medical studies reported on the T'ai Chi page, or reports of the notable, well-reported experiences of others are what will last in an article here, and the information should be presented in an NPOV manner, not presented as a foregone conclusion. I hope this helps. Fire Star 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Firestar. I would suggest that the concept behind the encyclopeaidea needs looking at. Reproducible results are not the be-all and end-all of life. Emotions, for example, can probably trigger machines to pinpoint areas of the brain, but I wouldn't say that the science of that is so advanced that they can be defined in strictly machine/science terms. But emotions are thought to exist. Art is certainly open to interpretation - paintings, etc. etc. History, politics all have various viewpoints as well. None of it reproducible, none of it machine-defined, none of it fixed as far as interpretations are concerned.

I am suggesting that other viewpoints rather than the strictly scientific one be allowed at Wiki.

Would the 'subconscious' that was first (I believe) formulated by Freud/Jung have any place here unless someone had written loads of books on it and made many (now seen as definitely dodgy) studies on it? But the subconscious was always there, it's just that no one had conceived of it. Does that mean that a load of books by people like Mantak Chia or all the others out there are necessary before the concept of Chi (accepted by however many billion people live in China, plus the Phillipines, plus India) gets more than a skeptical look in here? I have not said Qi is a foregone conclusion. I made sure to put it in terms that allow for doubt. But there ought to be room in an encyclopaedia for personal experience or different viewpoints, or it becomes a dry place based on Western sciemtifoc analysis.241

I do believe the different aspects should be reported, but they should be reported in accord with general academic Wikipedia policy or some scientifically minded editor will simply remove them. So we have to have the wingnuts from both ends of the spectrum in the article and everything in between for completeness' sake. The good news is, that for the scientific criticism of a given phenomena we can also mention notable criticisms of the scientific method. a typical example, from the article:

"The consensus among scientists is that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes and usually amount to little more than magic tricks or sleight of hand. In answer, most proponents of the effects of the cultivation of qi maintain that since modern scientific technologies have to this point been unable to create life out of organic chemicals in their laboratories, and that as qi is a metaphor for the energy of life itself, it is to be thereby demonstrated that the mechanisms of how the subject of such a metaphor would work so far elude the abilities of the scientific community to describe."

Which has problem right away because there isn't a citation for any "consensus among scientists" so such a statement may be safely removed. However, the paragraph shows both sides of the issue, if the intro is a little weasel wordy. Cheers, Fire Star 16:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no point but malicious intent to say something like:

"The consensus among scientists is that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes and usually amount to little more than magic tricks or sleight of hand.

It is not true. Thousands of scientists worldwide are studying Qi and the methodology of TCM and are finding very solid data for how and why this concept should be integrated into the Western view of the body. You may not be aware of this paradigm change in medical society, but that doesn't mean you should misinform the masses (who could seriously use some preventative medicine rather than surgery nowadays). please do more research and learn about what is really currently happening in the scientific community before speaking for it.

Also, in your vast research, have you not also seen that the more modern physics studies the universe, especially in the last 5 years, the more they talk like Taoists? -- DS 72.72.47.78 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Odic force

I reverted the link mostly because there is a difference of degree, to my mind. Odic force is a universal concept, 氣 is a specific concept, IME, that is based on larger concepts of Taoism and Neo-confucianism, at least in conservative Chinese conceptions. The theory of Odic force, for example, doesn't seem to be specifically breath based, as 氣 is supposed to be. So, in that sense, Odic force seems to be more appropriate a link to larger Western concepts such as Neo-paganism, alchemy or astrology, but not as much (at least it seems to me) as specific concepts that posit an observable mechanism, like Four humours or Moon (astrology). Most practical theories of 氣 are based on observations of the various parameters of breathing, Odic force seems based on more larger, abstract categorizations of opposites. If it is to be linked to an Eastern article, perhaps it would be better for larger concepts such as Yin and yang or Taoism? Fire Star 00:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's the "see also" section; it doesn't have to be equivalent. "Odic force" seems to be a similar, although certainly not identical, concept. If "The Force" from Star Wars (very similar to Odic force in concept) deserves a mention in the article, Odic force at least deserves a link. It doesn't refer to breath specifically, but that's specific to the idea of qi. — Gwalla | Talk 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"odic force", "bioelectric magnetic field", "the Force", indian "prana", greek 'pneuma', Polynesia "mana", Hebrew "ruah".

See a pattern? Same thing. 'Breath of life.' This doesn't mean only the breathing process, it is the life-force, "breathed into" all things.

Qi is the "largest" Chinese concept. Yin and Yang are the discrimination within all things. All things are comprised of Qi. Superstring theory, same thing.

I think Odic force can stay as another culture's way of discussing the same vital energy within all things. The Qi page should be the root of all the other, less ancient, concepts which discuss this same energy, as it is the oldest documented.

DS 72.72.47.78 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

New to "qi"

I read the article. Didn't understand a couple points. Googled. I'm now going to add a few quotes that helped me. Please don't delete them just cause they aren't helpful to you experts who already get it. Move to a main section. Add context. Whatever. But quotes are better than a rewrite for purposes of documented reliability and verifyability, not to mention greater proof against editorial creep from numerous small changes over time. 4.250.27.24 02:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd expand a little for anyone who thinks, "We said that already!" Sometimes hearing a thing said a different way makes clear something an expert wouldn't have questioned in the first place. I read qi was breath and in "everything". I took that to mean "everything (living)" with living being provided by the context. In the definition I quote it is clear that I misunderstood and it really is everything (living, dead, photons, everything). Then again maybe I'm still getting it wrong. Also I read about the romanization and I figure that's all in the past. Another quote shows me there are many current other English spellings for qi. And so on. 4.250.27.24 03:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm a little unclear on the the pronunciation of this. I'm referring particularly to the Western pronunciations, not Chinese tonal structure. Originally I pronounced it as 'chee' (I don't know any of the fancy methods for expressing sounds as text), and the Japanese version as 'key'. Since then, whenever I've heard it pronounced, it's been pronounced 'kai'. The MUD Achaea actually makes me even more confused by calling it Kai, presumably to make it easier to pronounce...?

"Chee" and "key" it is, I've never heard it pronounced "kai"... Fire Star 13:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand where some of the confusion originated now. The Greek letter 'chi' is (assuming my near non existant knowledge of Greek is correct) pronounced 'kai', and thus the examples of chi pronounced as kai were probably uses of the actual Greek letter, or simply those more familiar with the Greek pronouncing the Chinese as such. --Made2Fade 19:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese word Qi (pinyin) is pronounced CHEE. Once the concept was assimilated by the Japanese, it was pronounced KEE. Of course, they pronounced it wrong. Pronounce it CHEE. -- DS 72.72.47.78 14:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Qi is a sound that we don't distinguish in English. When you say the "Ch" in "Cheese", the part of the top of your mouth that your tongue touches is called the alvelor ridge. Notice that for "cheese" the tip or near-tip of your tonuge touches the alvelor ridge. Now, try making the same "ch" sound, but having a point further towards the back of your tongue touch a point higher on your alvelor ridge, and thats "qi". So "Ch" and Qi" are two distinct sounds in Chinese. Of course, if you don't want to go through the time and energy of figuring that out, just read it "Ch" as in "Cheese" without the "se" and you'll be fine.

This Article is not neutral

This article about qi is kind of strange. it is - in my opinion - not neutral because it focuses to much of the scientific proof of the existence of qi . it should rather explain what the (chinese!) concept of qi is. i think it could be more than just an anti-new-age statement - maybe some chinese people could get into this?

Actually, if you look at my user page, you'll see that I work with the concept of qi everyday, and since it is over 3,000 years old, there really isn't much "New" Age about it. Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy, and all verifiable sides of an argument have to be presented, with all the necessary conditioning language. Myself, I feel capable of answering sceptical questions about what I do, and a "healer" who can't is little better than a snake oil salesman, to that end. There are many hundreds of frauds, charlatans and incompetents in the alternative medicine racket, and solid, responsible reporting here could perhaps help (one hopes) their potential victimes show them up for what they are if they've seen our articles. --Fire Star 21:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Having had a year of mandarin Chinese, I can state that a native English speaker using any of these spellings has about as much chance of a Chinese person understanding you speak as you have of a rooster understanding you if you say cock-a-doodle-do to it. It is just a group of English letters to let us talk about a concept from China. Each spelling has a different sub-meaning. For example qi is from communist China, ki is from Japan but all are taking about the same thing.

Firestar - the taijiquan teacher...thank you for at least supporting the concept of Qi. I think however more research may be neccesary...There is a great deal of current Western scientific data available in support of Qi/bioelectricity, and it is very important that this information be available widely to the general public, whose general health is generally dismal, as Im sure you see regularly in your Taiji classes. Let's post the DATA and stop arguing. I think it is important to speak more to the fact that there are also MANY more people in the alternative health field who are NOT snake charmers. I have abstracts from reasearch in hospitals in America during this decade - can't get more 'qualified' or verifiable than that.

ALSO, It's important to mention that in fact COMMUNIST China has done a great deal of damage to the pro-Qi society in the last 100 years. The concept of Qi pre-dates Communism by many moons, thousands of years. The communists killed and tortured tens of thousands of buddhists, Taoists, martial artists, and others who trained Qi Gong or "energy work" as part of its anti-religious agenda. DS, thanks. -- 72.72.47.78 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, all of the above being said, this article is horribly written, and makes little sense. That is, the scientific basis for Qi is interesting as a small section. Clearly there is no scientific consensus one way or the other, so most of the statements in the current article make the whole subject look absurd. What the article should include is what Qi is thought to be from the point of view of those who believe/practice with it, how they relate to the meridians, what the classification schemes are, what the differences in classification schemes are, what the nuances are, etc. Then there can be a short section about how qi practitioners relate science to qi, how they think EM may be a source, or even that it might be some more subtle energy form such as "casimir" etc ... whatever. Then we can have a skeptics section, where it can be emphasized that there is no scientific consensus on what qi is, how to MEASURE or quantify its existence; and thus many in the scientific community remain extremely skepticial, and await emperical evidence, etc. All of which should be written from the point of view that one should not "care" if qi exists or doesn't, but rather, it is interesting and informative to understand what hundreds of millions of people believe in across the world, how those things have been related to other ideas, elan vitae, etc, and why there remains scepticism from science. IT shoudl not be so difficult to write a neutral article. Science skeptics and qi-masters alike, let's make the article more informative! IF the section on opinions can't be expanded in some coherent way, I am of the opinion that it should be removed altogether. 71.145.213.215 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

MERGE ALL CHI PAGES

What the hell is all this? what is all this pages? First of all the main name is "Chi", not "Qi", people even the Japs don't really use that word "Qi" You need/ we need to merge this Qi article to Chi and Ki, because, all words are the thing, and have the same meaning

Changes that need to be MADE!

In this article, there should be a page, for Japanese Chi, about how to regain your chi back,

Where to find chi, like in movies, music ect

While you people are at it, can you find out how to unlock/unleash your chi, becuase that is why i search for this page in the first place.

I have been trying to find information of how to unlock your chi, and also information about

Thank you>:D><ino 10:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not able to provide you with the answers you seek. On the longest day of the year you must travel to deepest Tibet, climb the highest mountain, and speak with the Qi master who lives atop it. He will grant you with the knowledge of how to unlock your Qi, just like in the movies, music etc.

"climb the mountain..." Very cynical.

...or you could go to a chinese martial arts school just about anywhere in the world. For instance, PLEASE come to YMAA Headquarters or any branch school and learn to experience your own Qi firsthand, rather than all of this blithering and negativity. It is not a mystical and ridiculous force as some may wish to portray it. It is the bioelectricity in the body. And it can be harnessed, increased, utilized very simply for healing or martial arts. Simple.

No, really, come to class and LEARN BEFORE YOU TRY TO TEACH. If you are not neutral on this subject, and/or a scholar involved in the field, why would you author content on the page?

DS, thank you. -- 72.72.47.78 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood?

The pocket Kenkyusha dictionary defines Chi as 1) blood or family relation or 2) the ground. Relevant? Should it be added? 81.79.183.112

Ch'i is a Chinese word for breathing and a host of disciplines associated with breathing. You've probably got a completely unrelated Japanese word there, so there isn't a point to add it unless as a disambiguation to clear up any separate article link to the Japanese word, if such an article existed. --Fire Star 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a Chinese saying, "where there is blood, there is Qi. They cannot be separated.'

this refers only to human Qi, within the body.

DS 72.72.47.78 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Is qi "controversial"?

In the section entitled Views and opinions of qi is found the following statement:

"The nature of qi is highly controversial, and the old controversy in Chinese philosophy as to the nature of qi still exists."

It may be a matter of controversy between the scientific community and the world of alternative medicine, but it should also be made clear that there is no controversy within the scientific community on the matter. To them it is an unscientific and non-falsifiable concept. They have no use for it, and it has no part in normal scientific or medical matters. It is only among rogue MDs and alternative medical practitioners (including those MDs) that it finds any support. -- Fyslee 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is only among rogue MDs and alternative medical practitioners (including those MDs) that it finds any support." - Voilà; it is controversial. Jigsawpuzzleman 11:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but to be fair, shouldn't you also note that there is no controversy within the alternative community over the matter? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Over a thousand million (that's a "billion" in North America) Chinese throughout history down to the present time (and God knows how many East Indians) make a case that we could just as well call western medicine "alternative" by numbers alone. There is indeed controversy, and interest, within the scientific community (see below) and controversy within the "alternative" community, such as it is. There is quite a bit of controversy within the traditional Asian communities and between them and the New Age "alternative" community about what qi actually is and how it works, even if they may all agree that it exists. Indeed, the most traditional of those communities ironically agree with the most sceptical of scientists by warning that the absolute nature of the beastie is ineffable and our attempts to describe our conceptions of it are immediately and fatally flawed.

Calling any MD who is interested in the concept "rogue" because all true scientists pooh-pooh the notion is a classic no true Scotsman, and won't wash for an encyclopaedia article. What we need are citations for any studies or polls done which may show percentages of scientists who are interested in researching qi and who are not, without our imposing value judgments on them. It is possible to be interested and sceptical at the same time, after all. --Fire Star 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what you said. To me the word controversy implies we can't assume scientists are against QI. But, if that's what we are trying to say, we should simply say that. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well expressed Fire Star. Also, I wonder what the 'Scientific Community' is. It's made up of people, I believe. Jigsawpuzzleman 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed firestar...

To the original...in fact there is a great deal of controversy in the western scientific community regarding this, but it is slowly being resolved as people realize that Qi is the same thing known in the West as bioelectricity. --72.72.47.78 (David Silver) 21:54, 24 March 2006 Please sign your posts using four tildes.

This thing? Sorry, didn't know that. Oh, I see. -- 72.72.47.78 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)?

Original:

"The nature of qi is controversial between many groups, both among people who accept the concept and those who dismiss it."

Suggested improvement:

"The nature of qi is a matter of controversy among those who accept it as a valid concept, while those who dismiss its very existence ignore it, except for purposes of discussion with its adherents."

Does this make it more clear? -- Fyslee 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say still that this is more about the point of "ignoring its very existence" (why?), and less about the actual vast subject of the ancient concept of Qi.

When one 'ignores the concept of Qi, what do they then replace this intrinsic force within all things with? I think it is important if you are so compelled to discuss this skepticism within the Qi page, that you inform us what exactly these disbelievers say is within all things, if not Qi?

If Qi does not exist, how does ANYTHING exist? (ps- if you are a proponent of the Christian bible, and you believe taoism, buddhism to be "pagan", it is clear you may not be the appropriate person to be discussing this topic of Qi in a public encyclopedia in a neutral manner.)

Thanks,DS -- 72.72.47.78 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion pages aren't primarily to be used as discussion groups, but as a place for working on editing the article, and discussing those edits. (Some discussion does occur anyway....;-)

The NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be presented, but in such a way as to not take sides (which also means that editors must allow opposing viewpoints to be presented). IOW no selling or promoting, but simply presenting. This means that obviously promotional ideas need to be accompanied by qualifiers that neutralize the selling tone. Claims must not be allowed to stand alone as if they are legitimate, but must be labeled as "claims," or some other qualifier. Therefore claims must often be accompanied by identifying their adherents, so readers know who believes the claim. Since claims have adherents and detractors, both viewpoints must be presented and labeled. My suggestion above does that by using the labels "those who accept" and "those who dismiss." Those labels are neutral descriptions (not pejoratives). I believe this is factual, and therefore adheres to the NPOV policy. -- Fyslee 10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Personally I would just set the other page as an Article for deletion taking out anything of intrest. Its only author is an anon IP so doubt theirs much :( -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 01:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, an AFD might sort out where to merge the information, here or into Qigong. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

UNAGREED. The concept of Qi is vast and clearly deserves its own page. I will be happy to generate a lot of content, with Western scientific data, once I know a troll will not delete it for Jesus.  ;) -- DS 72.72.47.78

Just to be clear. I'm talking about merging the Bioelectromagnetic page, not this one. So agreed. The concept of Qi is vast and clearly deserves it's own page. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think that since Bioelectric research has become such an exciting new field of research in the West and specifally in America, which will only continue to develop, it should have its own page, just as, say, kinesiology, or chiropractor, or molecular biology has thier pages. Just so people can see the topic from both the ancient Eastern view, and from the modern Western view - though they are essentially the same.

There is a great deal of info on the subject which would not be appropriately merged here, since the language is all western scientific data, Thanks DS 72.72.47.78

PS - OK, so I just read the original bioelectromagnetic page, that is just silly. I have edited it, please get involved over on that page, folks, if you have knowledge of this scientific field.72.72.47.78 15:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Maybe it's notable. I have no opinion on the matter. However, we cannot have someone WP:COPYVIO pasting the article from another source. Please remove this and any other copyright violations you did in writing the article and replace them with your own wording. There's no need to panic about the article disappearing just yet. Discussion is still open. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you don't fix it up, you're almost guaranteed someone will come along and speedy delete the article without any discussion whatsoever. Your choice. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wrote the entire top half, researched from many sources, but then added quoted sections (with quotes) in the latter half to demonstrate an array of topics of discussion from various people in the field. Is that not allowed? Scientific discussion of that caliber id beyond my ability to paraphrase I think. Suggestions? Should it be discussed on THAT page? Thanks.206.40.162.218 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps find someone on wikipedia of the calibre you suggest and invite them to expand the article. Hope that helps. Here's the WP:C Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Wikipedia:Fair_use Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations copyright policies. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, don't merge Bioelectromagnetic with this page. Qi is a concept derived from a different cultural paradigm. There exist many opinions (those being as abundant as the lower yin orifices) but no consensus on what (if anything) Qi means outside that paradigm. Ya gotta keep 'em separated. -Jim Butler 04:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with not merging the two articles as they come from different paradigms. I would even venture to say that bioelectromagnetic sounds like an attempt to explain Qi using Western concepts. However, Qi has different connotations and cannot be reduced to bioelectromagnetic energy. Qi is considered to be part of the whole universe, not only living beings, as it is seen in Chinese geomancy and astrology. TeoDut 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Qi is not bioEM, they have similarities in interpretation, but clearly there is a rich eastern tradition, which certinaly deserves its own article, and this one currently needs alot of work. 71.145.213.215 01:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I have now gone through the whole talk page and added formatting to increase readability. I may have made some mistakes, for which I apologize and hope whoever is affected will correct it. Let's try to be more careful with formatting and let's remember to add signatures (four tildes). Thanks. -- Fyslee 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Query re "yuan chi"

Yuan chi is one of the "missing encyclopedic topics" listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Hot/Y. I believe Yuan chi is a particular sort of chi/qi. Is that true? Do we already have an article on the topic? Is the material included in this article? Many thanks, Pcb21 Pete 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yuán qì 元氣 is most often described as "Inborn Constitutional Qi" or "Pre-natal Qi" to distinguish it from "Acquired" or "Post-natal Qi". Porkert's The Theoretical Foundations of Chinese Medicine MIT Press (1974) ISBN: 0262160587 distinguishes them as follows:

Acquired Ch'i Since Yuan times a metaphorical name for the acquired constitution or momentary condition of the body.

Ch'i Nativum or Inborn Constitutional Ch'i Since Yuan times a metaphorical designation of the inborn constitution, the vital potential that is gradually used up in the course of life. It may be conserved but never replenished.

also:

Ch'i Cardinale Energy Moving through the meridians and integrated into a physiological cycle.

Ch'i Frumentarium Energy derived and assimilated from food.

Ch'i Magnum The energy derived through breathing, or that cosmic energy that has been assimilated by breathing (similar to the Indian definition of prana).

Ch'i Genuinum the physiological motion of the organism resulting from the concurrence of Ch'i Magnum and Ch'i Frumentarium.

Ch'i Mersum The ch'i manifested in the pulses.

"Yuan" also refers to the Mongol dynasty (the characters are the same, meaning "first" or "original"). There doesn't seem to be a mention made of these distinctions in this article. We use the term in Taijiquan theory, but I don't know myself how widespread it is in other forms of traditional Chinese medicine. --Fire Star 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful information. In order to push the hotlist topics along I'll try to create a stub using it. Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub started - see Yuán qì. Pcb21 Pete 08:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics and adherents

Dear Metta,

The changes you have made to a sentence here are somewhat debatable and I'd like to discuss them with you here. I'll number the parts of the sentence for the purposes of this discussion:

Original:

• (1) Skeptics and other adherents of the scientific method
• (2) usually state that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients .....

Your revision:

• (1) Adherents of the scientific method
• (2) often claim the results obtained by martial arts students and patients ......

My analysis:

(1) The first part about "skeptics and other adherents:"

Not all skeptics are that interested in science, and not all adherents of the scientific method are skeptics. While your edits may not be satisfactory for someone else at a later time, they are still okay with me (right now....;-). The meaning is not changed enough that I want to bother with it now.

Yes, you correctly guessed what I was thinking when I changed it. I think the wording I came up with was a little clumsy in this case, but it was more like a bandage. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(2) The second part actually makes a significant change of meaning:

Original:

• (2) usually state that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients .....

Your revision:

• (2) often claim the results obtained by martial arts students and patients ......

One can discuss whether skeptics "state" or "claim." In this case "state" is a neutral word, and one avoids any discussion.

OTOH, there is a significant difference between "results claimed" and "results obtained". Using the word "claimed" removes any real right to demand proof. Using the word "obtained" immediately provides (demands!) the right for skeptics to demand proof for the claimed results, and I'm not sure that is necessary for this article. A complete analysis of each and every possible claim, with any evidence for and against it, would be far too much here.

To avoid continual reversions of the sentence, I suggest a compromise, especially in light of the sentence being written from the POV of skeptics and adherents of the scientific method (a skeptic or scientist wouldn't say that the results were "obtained,", but rather that they were "claimed":

• "Adherents of the scientific method usually state that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients ....."

What do you think? Is that satisfactory? -- Fyslee 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be improved. In fact, I guess I should confess I wasn't really serious with the neutrality of that edit. I was hoping my edit would make it clear that it cuts both ways. If you think stating results claimed by martial arts... sets a neutral tone, you should also believe that science adherents claim is a neutral tone. It's "claim" versus "claim". Since we aren't looking for a perfect Scientific Viewpoint on Wikipedia we don't tip the scale in favour of science adherents. Especially on topics that are popularly outside of the domain of science. I suggest we pick one of the following:

• "Adherents of the scientific method claim that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients ....."

or

• "Adherents of the scientific method usually state that the results obtained by martial arts students and patients ....."

For me, it's simply a matter of using equally neutral or non-neutral language. I'm open to more suggestions. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fyslee. I accept also. I guess this issue is closed for now. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlock

How do I unlock my damn chi!? >:@ >x<ino 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Relax, open up, feel in detail. Oh, and try to reduce the exclamation marks in life.

Given the (wholly legitimate and laudible - IMHO) enquiries of this sort cropping up on this discussion page, might it be worthwhile/valid having some external links on the article page to point people some right directions? Mantak Chia & Barefoot Doctor spring to my tiny mind but maybe some of the heavyweight chi-chuckers here have some good signposts for seekers. Jigsawpuzzleman 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual. As an encyclopaedia we are here to give people, sceptics and believers alike, a basic introduction to the major theories and criticisms and our links a jumping off place for further research. For us to actually recommend teachers could even expose us to liability if the teachers end up ripping off or hurting their students (which is very common nowadays, unfortunately). --Fire Star 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this Fire Star but your suggestion is preposterous. Wikipedia is not liabel for the information contained on external websites, and providing links is in no way an endorsement of the sites. This is all covered in Wikipedia's disclaimer statements. I will search for some realitively sanitary external links that may satisfy those seeking further information. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimers are one thing, reality is another. Have you ever worked in insurance? At any rate, I do agree we probably won't be liable for external websites unless we start recommending them, if we try "to point people some right directions" which is the bit I was responding to. If we start becoming an advertising service for New Age teachers, which we currently are not (and why our disclaimers may hold water in court), we could expose ourselves to their problems. People can and will sue for anything. I know one relatively well respected T'ai Chi teacher from another school who is being sued for touching a student when giving a correction in class, a class that students have to sign a waiver for! So, Wikipedia's neutrality policy tries to minimize exposure. --Fire Star 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some links that I believe are both diverse and relatively sanitised. It might be tempting for someone to remove some of them but I think that could comprimise the diversity. I removed one previous link that had no information about Qi at all. I hope you all find some worth in the new links. I left the original links at the top. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A simple listing of links (as long as they have some articles) is fine, lots of our articles do that. The only one I am tempted to change is the last one, and that would be to bypass his advertising and link right to his introductory articles. We also have some sceptical or critical links in there, so I'm happy. --Fire Star 05:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm happy too. There seemed to be a few Qi related pages on the last one, but I'm happy if you find a highly relevant subpage. I was a little dubious about the Chiherbal site. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Martial Arts

I've added quite a bit on the use of qi in martial arts. I've tried to keep it as neutral as posible.

For what its worth I've seen the action from a distance stunt. And yes the master did make the student fall over. How I do not know (well not in any way.

As for refences, the books are added are really references to backup statments in the article rather than sugestions for further reading. Not a big deal. The Columbia University reference is really very poor, only a few paragraphs on the subject, no link to other material, there has to be way better references to this. It might be worth investigating the bibliography of the MSc dissertation I just added, there are a number of interesting papers mentioned there. --Salix alba (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

APT

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Article standards

Neutral point of view Include only verifiable information - no original research Citing sources What Wikipedia is not

Working with others

Assume good faith Civility and etiquette Work towards consensus No personal attacks Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Resolving disputes

I've just reverted the new section on Qi and APT. For includion in an established article there are several conditions which must be met as indicated by the box on the right. In addition it should link to appropriate term, what is APT refering to.

I've no particular exception to a section on qi and APT if Wikipedia:Reliable sources can be found and it is properly linked and formatted. It might be best if just a short paragraph on the subject is included. --Salix alba (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Point by point

There are several shortcomings in the current article. I will address them one by one.

Point one

Near the beginning the text says:

One of the important early figures in Chinese mythology is Huang Di or the Yellow Emperor. He is often considered a culture hero who collected and formalized much of what subsequently became known as traditional Chinese medicine. Although the concept of qi has been very important within all Chinese philosophies, their descriptions of qi have been varied and conflicting.

The intent of the author of this passage would seem to be to allege some connection between Huang Di and qi. But the text doesn't actually say that, so I can't say that the text is wrong.

If it was the intent of the author to allege a connection, then I have to object that "Huang Di" is a mythical character who first appears in written records far later than the extant texts that do make use of the concept of qi. The earliest mention I have found so far is in the Lù shì chūn-qīu, the author of which died in 235 B.C., i.e., after the end of the Zhou dynasty.

We should not begin an article by grounding it in the authority of a myth.P0M 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Point two

The article states:

The etymological meaning of the qi ideogram in its traditional form 氣 is “steam (气) rising from rice (米) as it cooks”.

That statement does not jibe with current research (i.e., research done after the oracle bones were discovered). Originally, the character 气 depicted vapor, steam, etc., and 氣 meant prepared foodstuffs offered to other people. Then for whatever reason people started to write the second character in place of the first character -- perhaps because the handwritten form was easy to write so it might be misinterpreted, perhaps because calligraphers thought the second character looked better. But the result was that when somebody really wanted to talk about the foodstuffs being offered they risked getting people mixed so. So a third character was invented to use in place of the original meaning of the second character: 餼. That's not the only time something like that has happened, by the way. (See 高樹藩, 形音義宗合大字典, p. 804.) P0M 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Point three

The article states:

One significant difference has been the question of whether qi exists as a force separate from matter, if qi arises from matter, or if matter arises from qi. Some Buddhists and Taoists have tended toward the second belief, with some Buddhists in particular tending to believe that matter is an illusion.

The problem with discussing Chinese philosophical concepts in English is that while both systems of thought attempt to describe and explain the same world of experience, the concepts they use are free creations of the human mind and once we humans depart from the concrete we generally go different ways. (Even in the case of concrete things such as sheep and goats, they can get categorized in different ways in different systems of thought.) Western technical and/or philosophical terms like matter often have extremely long histories, and we have no grounds for presuming that the Chinese (or any other such isolated culture) would have evolved the same models for understanding the world. Chinese did not have the concept of "matter" before it was introduced from the West. Down to the seventeenth century thinkers still used the old concepts li, 'qi, xing, qi-zhi, etc., that were crafted by Song dynasty philosophers out of words and concepts used by Mencius and succeeding generations of Chinese thinkers.

The part about some Buddhists believing that matter is an illusion also sweeps a couple of thousand years of complexities under the rug, ignores the development from Theravada Buddhism to Mahayana Buddhism, etc. etc. Moreover, the assertions that some Buddhists and some Taoists believe that matter arises from qi is unsourced. In fact, I believe it is incorrect. First, this assertion depends on the belief that the word "matter" would find a correct translation in pre-modern China. Second, it implies that qi is something other than "matter," but leaves the reader guessing as to what this "immaterial" "substance" might be.

Greek metaphysical thought began by taking models of the world and its formation from the activities of artisans. The existence of particulars in the world was believed to occur through some process roughly analogous to the way an artisan crafts a bowl, a building, or a statue from raw materials. Aristotle's hylemorphic theory involves hyle (building timbers) and morphe (forms, plans, etc. which guide the artisan in making a suitable product). Our idea of matter evolved out of this Greek foundation. The Chinese had nothing at all like that in mind when they started to explain their world.

The way to explain qi is to start where the Chinese thinkers started and explain to the reader how they elaborated on the original "commonsense" ideas about their world to develop a metaphysics that has only the barest connections with our own. To do so will require a fair amount of writing, and I don't look forward to going through the process.

The earliest credible use of the word qi (at least in anything long enough to give us a context to work with) is in the Analects of Confucius. When Confucius is being philosophical he always couples the mention of qi with blood, i.e., he always mentions xue-qi." He uses this concept to explain the motivational and characterological aspects of human beings. There is no direct proof of it within the limited context provided by the Analects, but what he says is at least consonant with the later view that qi is a phase of blood, in much the same way that water vapor is a phase of water. The kind of xue-qi that an individual possesses determines his level of motivation, his power in interpersonal as well as what we would call physical interactions, his possessing life. To Confucius, that's just the way it is. He uses "xue-qi" in much the same way we would use the expression "life blood" (He spilled his life blood on the field of battle.) He does not attempt to explain this idea, presumably because he knew that the people he was speaking to spoke the same language and shared the same concept.

Already at this point we can be prepared to see that qi will come close to what we might call a "bio-plasm" in English. (I think some people have already used this term for it.) For later Chinese, qi is something that can condense. It can even condense to form what we in the West would call solids. It is not what we would call "energy" in modern physics, because for us energy is a very abstract concept, an immaterial something or other that people have fits trying to conceptualize properly. But it is not a fluid that could be captured by a doctor through "cupping." Nevertheless, qi is energetic, i.e., our having qi is what explains our ability to lift bar bells, hammer spikes, etc.

The big argument in Chinese philsophy, which remains unresolved down to the present, is (1) what accounts for what we in the West would call the material aspect of the Universe, (2) what accounts for what we would call the formal aspect of the universe, and (3) whether the universe in monistic (i.e., (1) and (2) can be reduced to one thing in a Chinese version of the Grand Theory of Everything) or dualistic (i.e., the universe started with qi and with the formal aspect (which is li 理).

Well, enough of this for right now. Suffice it to say I have the research in hand to take the development of the qi concept far enough to give the general reader a clear idea of what is really going on, and I can do it by quoting the Chinese texts and just putting them in their proper sequence. P0M 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. IMO, your proposals are sound. The current article is the product of many years of bits being added in and snipped out by various editors, and consistency is lacking.

Especially interesting is the blood-qi relationship you've mentioned. There are 2 chapters from the set of Taijiquan classics that the Yang family gave to the Wu that talk about a more recent conception of blood and qi:

26. An Explanation of the Fundamentals of Blood and Ch’i in T’ai Chi

In human physiology, blood has a nutritive function and ch’i a defensive function. The blood circulates in the flesh, membranes and limbs; the ch’i circulates in the bones, sinews and blood vessels. The sinews and nails are the superfluity of the bones; the head and body hair are the superfluity of the ch’i. When the blood is abundant, the head and body hair flourish; when the ch’i is sufficient, the sinews and nails are strong. Therefore, the courage and strength of the blood and ch’i express themselves in the external strength of the bones, skin and hair; the essence and function of the ch’i and blood express themselves in the internal strength of the flesh, sinews and nails. The ch’i depends upon the fullness or deficiency of the blood; the blood depends on the rise and fall of the ch’i. Round and round without end, the body can never exhaust these processes.

27. An Explanation of Strength and Ch’i in T’ai Chi

Ch’i travels in the membranes, bones, sinews and blood vessels; strength issues from the blood, flesh, skin and bones. Therefore, those with great brute force have external strength in their skin and bones, or physical form. Those with great ch’i have internal strength in their sinews and blood vessels, or physical image. The ch’i-blood expresses itself in internal strength; the blood-ch’i expresses itself in external strength. If you understand the function of ch’i and blood, you will naturally understand the source of strength and ch’i. If you understand the nature of ch’i and strength, you will naturally grasp the distinction between using strength and circulating ch’i. Circulating the ch’i in the sinews and blood vessels and using strength in the skin and bones are very different.

Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 13:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The development of the concept is fairly clear and consistent at the beginning, but after a few (hundred) years of development the rope begins to fray out into multiple accounts. Even so, as you point out, the basic account doesn't get lost. In practice what often happpens is that somebody like Confucius or Mencius will say something which comes to be taken as canonical. Later figures are restricted in the ways they can innovate by the need not to contradict the sayings of the masters. So what you have brought into the description may represent an elaboration of the original insight.

I like your second quotation as it seems to me to fit closely with my own experience of and explanation of qi. There is one kind of strength that is directly correlated to muscle mass. If we know the muscle/fat ratio and the total weights of a couple people we can tell how well they would do at a simple task like pushing a jeep or a humvee. But if we increase the number of factors there are many other kinds of interactions involved in things like hand-to-hand combat that involve what we in the West might call "mobilization of energy." What we term various kinds of energy may relate to what martial artists speak of as qi. For example, the energy in chemical bonds, the energy manifested in the contraction of muscles, the energies that add to our effectiveness when we move in a coordinated way or detract from it when we do things like retreating with our feet while trying to strike with our fists, the energies that are mustered over time when we build up momentum and delivered when we efficiently exchange momentum with a target etc. P0M 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Trivia

'Qi' is in the UK dictionary, but not the US. It is a commonly-used word in UK Scrabble, as it uses a Q without a U.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese

I've removed a bunch of stuff where somebody went off the deep end interpreting the phoneme "ki" as having deeper significance than it does in Japanese. It's just a word root that has different connotations depending on context, but usually related to feeling or energy. To tease out the root meanings and call it a literal meaning is something of a stretch. The Crow 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Martial arts

Ther old section was a combination of several different versions and was mostly unsourced anecdote. To make things worse, there was a bit earlier in the article which also mentioned martial applications of the principle. I realise that I've pared it back somewhat drastically, but the links to Chinese martial arts and Japanese martial arts should allow people to follow up effectively without making this article overly tendentious {or mercenary). --Fire Star 火星 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

I just removed one commercial link. There appear to be lots of others, and it would be good to click through the list and remove any links to sites that promote businesses. P0M 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

fundamental sources

I've started to put the fundamental references to qi in Chinese philosophical writings on the following sites:

1.

2.

3.

I think that when it is all available it will make it easier for everyone to improve the Wikipedia article. P0M 06:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added material. Most of the basic ideas regarding qi in philosophy texts are included in these three groups of quotations. P0M 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And a deletion

I've deleted the following passage:

By contrast to some earlier thinkers, the Neo-Confucians criticized the notion that qi exists as something distinct from matter, and viewed qi as arising from the properties of matter. Most of the theories of qi as a metaphor for the fundamental physical properties of the universe that we are familiar with today were systematized and promulgated in the last thousand years or so by the Neo-Confucians. Knowledge of the theories they espoused was eventually required by subsequent Chinese dynasties to pass their civil service examinations.

There are lots of Neo-Confucians, so there might be some basis for the above statement. However, anything that speaks of "matter" at this early time in Chinese history is anachronistic. The issue that the Neo-Confucians talked about a lot was, "What is the relationship between 理 li, and 氣 qi, and that (dragged by force into Western terminology) is a contrast between form and substance. If this article were to get into the technicalities of Neo-Confucian thought, then it would try to answer the question, "What did the Neo-Confucians claim the relationship between li and qi to be? Were they mutually aspective, did one create the other, or were they ab initio two separate orders of existence in the Universe that were brought together by some (unspecified) third factor?" The people who devote themselves professionally to the history of Chines philosophy have not been able to settle the argument of whether Zhu Xi was a monist or a dualist, so it would be difficult to discuss the matter in any article limited to 32k. The best we could do would be to find some quotations that clearly state the dilemma that the Song dynasty thinkers faced. P0M 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Confucianism?

The text asserts that "a traditional Neo-Confucian explanation of the principle is given in most martial art schools." There are two huge problems with that assertion:

• Most people who teach in martial arts schools have done no direct research into Neo-Confucian texts, and secondary texts will not provide them with a treatment of the "traditional Neo-Confucian explanation." The main reason that the secondary texts don't do that is due to the need to keep their explanations relatively short, and to the following consideration.

• Neo-Confucian scholars such as Zhu Xi take the idea of qi as a given. Furthermore, when they have anything to say about it they try to ground everything in the ancient texts, texts that are not necessarily even Confucian. In fact, as the materials added at the top of the article show, the "metaphysical" treatments of qi tend to be found in the Daoist texts.

The effort of the Neo-Confucians is, in general, a synthetic one. They are trying to bring together challenging non-Confucian ideas that challenge Confucianism since those ideas provide explanations for things that traditional Confucianism does not talk about and combine them with fundamental ideas from Confucius and Mencius in such a way that they can explain new things without denying the validity of what the masters of their school had to say. Anything new that they had to say about qi lay in their development of the concept of 氣質 qi zhi or "materialized qi" and their use of this new concept to explain how people could have the fundamentally good nature ascribed to all human beings by Mencius and yet be born with stubborn tendencies to do anti-social things. I have been in lots of martial arts classes taught by very good people, and I've never heard any discussion of qi that went beyond the experiential. For instance, I recall clearly one teacher explaining why a particular wrist grip could unobtrusively rob one's opponent of enough of his power to give one a tactical advantage. "It cuts off the flow of qi," was all the explanation that was needed or given.

So can anybody explain where this idea of the Neo-Confucian traditional explanation of qi comes from? Give me a citation if possible. In all the books I have on the martial arts the only place where Neo-Confucianism is mentioned are those regarding the indoctrination that samurai were subjected to in Japan. P0M 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought: Could people have been thinking about Taiji quan and linking the idea in that school (and also in Aikido) that one can "link up" with the Taiji and gain its power? P0M 19:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion?

Um...The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy has an entry for ch'i ("Chinese term for ether, air, corporeal vital energy, and the "atmosphere" of a season, person, event or work."), and a definition for two words both given as chih ("Chinese term roughly corresponding to 'knowledge'"; "Chinese term often translated as 'will'"). Both of these spellings redirect here, but this entry seems to only capture the first one. Could someone who knows Chinese fix this problem? Should chih just be made a separate page, or does it already exist somewhere under some other spelling? - KSchutte 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do they redirect from? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Chinese characters with that pronunciation. The two mentioned above are 智, knowledge, wisdom, and 志, will, or somewhat better, aspirations. Neither of those two have much to do with qi. The word that is connected with qi in the philosophy of the Neo-Confucians is 質, which is second tone. (The other two happen to be fourth tone words.) This one means something that can best, but ineloquently, be translated as "stuff."

I'll have a look around. Maybe I can fix whatever the problem is. P0M 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, until somebody objects to a stub I think I've fixed the problem. I've created a brief article on "chih" and a redirect from "zhi" to "chih." I guess somebody thought "chih" was close enough to "ch'i" to be the same thing... P0M 03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Really needs citations

The current text has "Theories of traditional Chinese medicine assert that the body has natural patterns of qi that circulate in channels called meridians in English." That idea seems to be a commonplace among Western thinkers who are interested in acupuncture, but the idea does not seem to come up in Manfred Porkert's vast attempt to translate acupuncture ideas into English, nor can I find it in my Chinese acupuncture text. So I am wondering whether this is an idea that has come about because of mistranslation or misunderstanding of something that has another explanation. It would be very helpful if the authors would supply citations that go beyond popularization in English. P0M 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wolf ticket on references

The notice at the top of the article, claiming it lacks adequate references, has been there for quite a while now. Are there still claims for which references are actually needed? Did whoever put that notice up get specific or just do the usual thing and complain in a general way? P0M 02:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are no longer any complaints about paucity of references, why not remove that notice? P0M 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)