Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Hi Jim, I understand that qi is such a rich part of Asian everyday thinking.... for instance I think barometer is literally 'qi pressure'. So I tried reading through some writing on qi and replaced qi with the English word 'stuff'. I used the word stuff as a non-descript way of not defining a notion of qi cluttered with all the meanings I have acquired. I suppose in acknowledging the black box of the pressure gauge but without understanding it or letting the lack of working detail clutter its usefulness. This worked quite well, until the idea of qi as describing the intangible relationship between two tangible things. I suspect because it was a shift from naming the thing ie say pressure qi to a relationship between two things.. this might be (in my brain) a shift from the concrete to the abstract; the quantitative to the qualitative. So calling it relationship stuff didn't allow me to move on with my reading. So please explain/ explore what you are seeing as another major paradigm shift. Are we using the same word but our understanding is shifting? Or are we leaving qi to what you describe from superstition, to metaphysics, to [now] scientific world views of Chinese medicine; on to some other frame of reference? And how do you see metaphysics being different to the scientific world view of CM? Is this a Newtonian vs. Quantum thing? Sharon Sharon: We may be seeing another major paradigm shift in the concept of " qi " now. Since no one has scientifically demonstrated the existence of qi, many authors (Kendall, Mann, etc.) say qi is no more than " air " circulating in the blood vessels. So we've gone from superstition, to metaphysics, to [now] scientific world views of Chinese medicine. Jim Ramholz - <Chinese Medicine > <Chinese Medicine > Monday, September 22, 2003 7:45 AM Digest Number 201 Chinese Medicine , Sharon wrote: > In Birch and Felt, Understanding Acupuncture is quite a bit of work on the history of qi. They too start with the idea of vapour clouds. > > Also from memory, they speak that the introduction of the Qi paradigm hearld a new era; prior to this the rationalisation for illness or anything had to do with superstition... wind was literally moved by Spirit as in I think they implied what we might call ghost. So whilst superstition probably still reigns, in some thinking this concept of Qi matrix (my word) was quite revolutionary. > > The introduction of Qi into conceptual thinking, I think occured with the overall systemisation of Han periods... but I am no scholar, just a reader and you offered to tell the story..... >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 This worked quite well, until the idea of qi as describing the intangible relationship between two tangible things. I suspect because it was a shift from naming the thing ie say pressure qi to a relationship between two things.. this might be (in my brain) a shift from the concrete to the abstract; the quantitative to the qualitative. So calling it relationship stuff didn't allow me to move on with my reading. >>>>Sharon i did the same when we first learned in class that cars if i remember correctly are called wheal Qi or something like that. At that moment i realized that the words i am learning are concepts and lingo. I think that is why i never had the need for " standardized " terms and easily excepted various translations. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Chinese Medicine , Sharon wrote: > Are we using the same word but our understanding is shifting? Or are we leaving qi to what you describe from superstition, to metaphysics, to [now] scientific world views of Chinese medicine; on to some other frame of reference? And how do you see metaphysics being different to the scientific world view of CM? Is this a Newtonian vs. Quantum thing? >>>> Sharon: My remark was a reference to those like Kendell, Mann, and medical acupuncturists who would like to reinterpret all the CM phenomena in contemporary Western scientific terms. This historical change sounds similar to the shift from time when demons and spirits were thought to create disorders to the---then--- " newer " sense of qi whose imbalance created disorders. In their minds, things like qi and meridians can not be proved scientifically to exist. So those terms and concepts are becoming obsolete as such. In the future, I think there will be a better explanation and " fit " of CM in the Western scientific framework when Complexity Theory becomes more established in mainstream science. In many cases, they seem a paraphrase of each other because they are both trying to describing living systems. In articles and my seminars, I always like to mention the interesting parallels between the two. For example, in Complexity & Postmodernism (Routledge, 1998)Paul Cilliers writes: " At least three levels of organization are required to describe living biological systems (just as three terms are needed to describe fundamental physical forces) with a degree of detail and richness that approximates the behavior of real systems. A minimum of three levels (the task or goal level as a special kind of boundary constraint, collective variable level, and component level) is required to provide a complete understanding of any single level of description. Patterns at all levels are governed by the dynamics of collective variables. In this sense, no single level is any more important or fundamental than any other. Boundary constraints, at least in complex biological systems, necessarily mean that the coordination dynamics are context or task dependent. I take this to be another major distinction between the usual conception of physical law (as purely syntactic, nonsemantic statements) and the self-organized, semantically meaningful laws of biological coordination. Order parameters and their dynamics are always functionally defined in biological systems. They therefore exist only as meaningful characteristic quantities, unique and specific to tasks. " [end quote] Consider how often we find this three-fold symmetry in Chinese medicine and Taoist philosophy. We have heaven, earth, and man; qi, jing, and shen; the trigrams of the I Ching; the three yin and three yang of the Six Qi Theory (Liu qi); and the three jiaos of the body. When we examine three discrete levels in the pulse diagnosis we can find and appreciate the complexity and richness of living systems. By comparison, if we use only one or two levels, we develop a somewhat perfunctory model that largely ignored the extensive details found in the Nan Jing and Mai Jing. In biological systems as well as pulses, one level interacts with the environment, a middle level involves the dynamics and maintenance of homeostasis, and the third level consists of the physical constitution of the organism. The parallel to the Nan Jing and the Dong Han pulse system's use of three depths is clear and direct. Some biological examples in humans would be gestures and words for the first level; blood sugar, electrolyte balance, and lung capacity for the second level; and the chemical composition of bone or how one molecule's geometry fits like a key into a lock with another molecule at the third level. As in complexity theory, so in pulses. We can see that properties of the system as a whole emerge from the interaction of all three levels, as opposed to viewing the action of the parts as being imposed by a dominant central source. It's part of the Chinese curse of living in interesting times. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 i think like someone else has mentioned in the past week, maybe we are getting carried away with the minor details. why cannot we just lave it as qi & understand what it is as is. accept its dimensions & work with it. after all not all things in western medicine can be explained. eg: they did not know how aspirin works for upto 60 eyasr but they still used it s a symptomatic relief & went ahead with research. similarly there are lots of things they also do not know about the human body. in india we refer to prana according to yoga & ayurveda. we know it has alot of meaning more than breath. but we know we cannot dissect it any further as otherwise the esence of the prana will be lost & oit will not be whole anymore. same is with qi. so all the WM should try & keep away & NEITHER SHOULD WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO THINK ALONG THOSE LINES. anand --- James Ramholz <jramholz wrote: > --- In Chinese Medicine , > Sharon wrote: > > Are we using the same word but our understanding > is shifting? Or > are we leaving qi to what you describe from > superstition, to > metaphysics, to [now] scientific world views of > Chinese medicine; on > to some other frame of reference? And how do you see > metaphysics > being different to the scientific world view of CM? > Is this a > Newtonian vs. Quantum thing? >>>> > > > Sharon: > > My remark was a reference to those like Kendell, > Mann, and medical > acupuncturists who would like to reinterpret all the > CM phenomena in > contemporary Western scientific terms. This > historical change sounds > similar to the shift from time when demons and > spirits were thought > to create disorders to the---then--- " newer " sense of > qi whose > imbalance created disorders. > > In their minds, things like qi and meridians can not > be proved > scientifically to exist. So those terms and concepts > are becoming > obsolete as such. > > In the future, I think there will be a better > explanation and " fit " > of CM in the Western scientific framework when > Complexity Theory > becomes more established in mainstream science. In > many cases, they > seem a paraphrase of each other because they are > both trying to > describing living systems. In articles and my > seminars, I always > like to mention the interesting parallels between > the two. > > For example, in Complexity & Postmodernism > (Routledge, 1998)Paul > Cilliers writes: " At least three levels of > organization are required > to describe living biological systems (just as three > terms are > needed to describe fundamental physical forces) with > a degree of > detail and richness that approximates the behavior > of real systems. > A minimum of three levels (the task or goal > level as a special > kind of boundary constraint, collective variable > level, and > component level) is required to provide a complete > understanding of > any single level of description. > Patterns at all levels are governed by the > dynamics of > collective variables. In this sense, no single level > is any more > important or fundamental than any other. > Boundary constraints, at least in complex > biological systems, > necessarily mean that the coordination dynamics are > context or task > dependent. I take this to be another major > distinction between the > usual conception of physical law (as purely > syntactic, nonsemantic > statements) and the self-organized, semantically > meaningful laws of > biological coordination. Order parameters and their > dynamics are > always functionally defined in biological systems. > They therefore > exist only as meaningful characteristic quantities, > unique and > specific to tasks. " [end quote] > > Consider how often we find this three-fold symmetry > in Chinese > medicine and Taoist philosophy. We have heaven, > earth, and man; qi, > jing, and shen; the trigrams of the I Ching; the > three yin and three > yang of the Six Qi Theory (Liu qi); and the three > jiaos of the body. > When we examine three discrete levels in the pulse > diagnosis we can > find and appreciate the complexity and richness of > living systems. > By comparison, if we use only one or two levels, we > develop a > somewhat perfunctory model that largely ignored the > extensive > details found in the Nan Jing and Mai Jing. > > In biological systems as well as pulses, one level > interacts with > the environment, a middle level involves the > dynamics and > maintenance of homeostasis, and the third level > consists of the > physical constitution of the organism. The parallel > to the Nan Jing > and the Dong Han pulse system's use of three depths > is clear and > direct. > > Some biological examples in humans would be gestures > and words for > the first level; blood sugar, electrolyte balance, > and lung capacity > for the second level; and the chemical composition > of bone or how > one molecule's geometry fits like a key into a lock > with another > molecule at the third level. > > As in complexity theory, so in pulses. We can see > that properties of > the system as a whole emerge from the interaction of > all three > levels, as opposed to viewing the action of the > parts as being > imposed by a dominant central source. > > It's part of the Chinese curse of living in > interesting times. > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Chinese Medicine , anand bapat <acubapat> wrote: > i think like someone else has mentioned in the past > week, maybe we are getting carried away with the minor > details. why cannot we just lave it as qi & understand > what it is as is. accept its dimensions & work with > it. I don't see any problem with that. It's a trend that bears watching because it could have political and social consequences for the ways we work. Perhaps qi can be better thought of in terms of complexity theory as an emergent property of a system. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.