And Relativity wasn’t an idea? Evolution through natural selection wasn’t an idea or rather a hypothesis? The difference is that certain people went ahead and did the hard work to support that hypothesis into a theory (a theory being a hypothesis well-supported by evidence not the lay person’s definition.) Nobody has been able to do that with Qi/Chi/Ki because it does not exist.
We might want to clarify the idea of something's existing or not.
Yes, qi doesn't exist as a thing or an object, but it exists as a construct. Keep in mind that waves or fields don't exist as things either: they're patterns, constructs. A wave is a pattern of motion or change, and a field is a pattern of action, where a bunch of things move predictably. The patterns respond to stimuli, but they are patterns, not things.
But they are useful constructs. Remember the adage, "all models are wrong, but some are useful?" There are a lot of (broadly defined) things that are actually constructs or models, rather than objects.
Qi is a construct, blood is an object. Can we agree on that?
I'm not arguing that Qi is a theory like special/general relativity, accompanied by reliable observations and consistent framework. That argument cannot be made, because even if some effects can be observed and measured, there are way too many confounding variables to attribute the effects to intention (yi) or qi.
If the word theory can be associated with a discussion of qi, I support the idea that it's meant generally, as in music theory or literary theory: a discussion aside from practice or action, e.g. discussion of altered chord extensions versus actually playing them in a piece.
Power? Energy? You’re adding ‘woo woo’ onto ‘woo woo’ to get woo woo squared!
That depends on how we define energy and power. If we dig into classical definitions of energy, work, and power, we'd find they're basically "the ability to do stuff." Their reliability lies in their unit definitions' being based on the definition of scalar measurements such as a kilogram and a metre (and a second, such as it is). If you want to figure out what energy or power is beyond those definitions, well, you can't. It's basically "doing stuff" of "the capacity to do stuff." Is (scientific) energy a "thing" outside of those definitions, or outside of its effects? Nope.
Yers, it gets "woo" if we mean zapping people or Jedi Force stuff, but I wouldn't rush to assume that everyone who uses the word is talking about that sort of nonexistent magic. They might just be talking about energy transfer being "this happens here, then that happens there." It's not trying to be a scientific claim of fact, just a shorthand.
We can remember that Chinese culture privileges the wholistic over the atomistic (forest over trees), and associated with that is a focus (or awareness) of the "in-between." When they describe cause and effect (speaking broadly), they mention that which is between. In the case of a martial action, the qi moves between the striker and the defender.
It's just a paradigm.
Ah…a feeling…a subjective phenomenon not an objective phenomenon. I’m happy with it being subjective but it is not real, it’s a personal feeling.
Subjective meaning can be individualistic or consensual, right? If not for consensual meaning, we could not communicate.
I believe that the meaning of the concept of qi is more consensual among Chinese-cultured martial artists than among western-cultured martial artists. We try to understand it using western paradigms, and we have trouble, sometimes resorting to the experimenter effect and participant bias, as you mentioned, in order to "square that circle."
No it can’t because if it could, it’d be quantifiable. You mean you think it can be expressed.
Yes, I'd be hesitant to
attribute an action to qi.
However, if using the concept of qi to
describe what happens between intention and effect, if the model of qi is
useful, then I'm fine with accepting a master's use of it when describing the transfer from intention to effect.
But, not having grown up in a Chinese culture, not being a master, I don't feel qualified to use it myself in class. But I think I'd know what the master would be talking about.
Thank you, it’s as I generously said, the levers of biomechanics, experimenter effect and participant bias.
I think that latter two only apply to those who think qi is a thing; not those who think it's a concept/model/metaphor/shorthand descriptor.
I’m glad I’ve persuaded you to my rationalist way of thinking
Not sure if being rationalist is useful here, if it's about privileging reason over experience as a determinant of certainty. Sense experience is paramount when training, and not all understanding of this experience can be rationalized: after enough repetitions and refinement, you just "get it". One could say it's more
gestalt than algorithmic, both of which are valid ways of understanding phenomena. Rationalizing it doesn't necessarily lead to better performance, as with athletics. This is when masters say, "enough talking: back to training."
I'm not saying that "zapping qi or qi balls exist, and you won't know unless you've felt it," I'm saying that (for example) if we push someone with distributed effort, and
we know what that feels like, that direct experience supplies the meaning to the phrase "I used my qi." We get it, because we've done it. More words about what qi "is" cannot improve that meaning. There are other fields, such as music and athletic performance where this applies: where meaning is derived through direct experience.
It’s just a descriptive word now?
Model/concept/useful descriptor, but only if you have the direct experience to give it meaning. Again, I'm talking about something like distributed effort, not qi zapping or whatever.
The ‘ancients’ used names and descriptions for phenomenon that they couldn’t explain…but we can now. The Germ theory of disease, magnetism etc. So far this quantification of Ki has not happened and no credible person is attempting to…it’d be career ending
We might be on the same page: neither of us believes that when a (good) martial artist talks about qi, they're talking about a natural phenomenon
other than those that naturally mediate the process from intention to action (broadly, synapse to efferent neuron to muscle).
I and others think that they're just using a different word or phrase to describe that process, maybe in a broader sense. In particular, as I wrote, qi and li might describe that natural process above, but qi when it's distributed between structures, li when it's focused on one structure or muscle.
My opinion, again, is that qi is not an object like blood, nor a mystical Force. When applied to a specific context in a phrase, it's a concept, or a word, or a descriptor, or a model used to describe complex natural processes simply, focusing on the whole rather than the parts.
I recommend Nisbett's book
The Geography of Thought as a study of the cultural differences between "western" and "eastern" thought, and their atomistic vs. wholistic paradigms. It's not perfect, but its ideas could be relevant to individuals reading this forum.
Thanks for reading.
as he had to deal with the pain, and his arm numbing up, causing him to drop it.
