what is qi

[Guest guest]

Ken, Jim, Alon and All,

 

This seems like the perfect place to jump in. I wanted to address this issue

since yesterday or the day before Alon brought the topic of " fundamentalism " .

While Jim's thought of energy as an expression of work feels quite reasonable to

my mind as a physiologist, it also begs the question of what qi and CM is in

it's own paradigm. In response to Alon, first of all, I sense that

fundamentalism is the insistence on interpreting all things rigidly from a

single point of view. In religion it occurs from a rigid interpretation

utilizing the liturgy of that religion. If you insist rigidly on using double

blind studies and other Western science tools to prove or disprove the integrity

of CM, then this, too, is fundamentalism.

 

A more obvious example is when two artists make inappropriate demands of one

another (I invoke Robert Newman's comments on appropriateness.) A painter

demands that the musical composer write some music in vivid reds with highlights

of teal and canary yellow. The musical composer agrees and says she will

proceed if only the painter would kindly paint something in the key of C.

 

While it's possible to have both Western science and Chinese medicine in one's

mind at the same time, it should become obvious that they more appropriately

" inform " and " inspire " one another rather than " test " one another. They can

also be mutually supportive if one can seem them following parallel (yet

different) pathways to the same goal.

 

I can find thousands of papers at this moment on Medline in which Western

scientists test CM herbal formulas for some Western diagnostic feature or for

some pharmaceutical molecule of interest. In either case, how does this Western

methodology support or refute anything about CM theory? To imagine that any of

these articles or group of articles can support or refute CM theory is to my

mind an act of fundamentalism of the highest order. These articles support and

refute Western science. Music and painting may be parallel processes, but it's

a bit challenging to make music with watercolors or oils ... tough to paint with

the neck of your guitar.

 

I believe Ken was making this point below in a far more carefully " ineffable "

way as compared to my blunt, verbal stomping around.

 

In gratitude for your careful consideration,

Emmanuel Segmen

-

kenrose2008

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:35 PM

Re: what is qi

 

 

Jim,

 

Clearly there are various aspects of normal

physiology as well as pathological conditions

that can be described to various degrees of

clarity and usefulness using the words " energy "

and " qi " .

 

I think I've already noted that energy can certainly

be understood as a kind of or aspect of qi.

 

I'm not saying that there is no relationship

between the two words and the concepts

related to them.

 

What I am saying is that qi is not energy.

 

Qi does indeed do the things that you mention...

 

...among other things.

 

And even though we may be able to speak

about any and all of these things with the

word energy, that does not suggest to me

that what Chinese 2,000 years or more ago

had in mind when they wrote or said the

word " qi " is what you or I or other contemporary

English speakers think of and mean when we

write and say the word " energy. "

 

There are other problems as well with the

commonly encountered equivalence of

qi and energy, having to do with the

imprecision of the term " energy " in

scientific vernacular.

 

Ask a physicist what energy is and

see what happens.

 

In seeking ideal equivalents I always

wonder what can be gained from the

association of words in different languages

that can or should be taken to mean " the

same thing. "

 

So what do we gain by equating qi and

energy?

 

Why work to sustain this equivalence

when I believe it can and has been

adequately demonstrated that no

such equivalence actually exists?

 

Just take a look at the evidence contained

in A Brief History of Qi. In no way do I

consider it to be an exhaustive treatment

of the subject of what qi means and has

meant throughout the past few thousand

years. But I believe that the material in

that book more or less demonstrates

that qi is not energy and that to assert

that it is forwards a long standing

misunderstanding.

 

Ken

>

>

> Ken:

>

> If " qi " bears upward, downward, inward and outward, carrying blood and

fluids with it isn't that an example of the capacity for work and, therefore, at

least in part, can be defined as energy?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I can find thousands of papers at this moment on Medline in which Western

scientists test CM herbal formulas for some Western diagnostic feature or for

some pharmaceutical molecule of interest. In either case, how does this Western

methodology support or refute anything about CM theory?

 

>>>>You are assuming that one needs to use a certain let say " RTC " to test CM or

gather evidence. I am not saying that, although clearly it has many advantages

and can be adopted for example to evaluate multifactorial systems such as CM. I

am saying however that fundamentalism is continuing a belief system without or

regardless of evidence. I do believe in testing beyond personal feelings and

experience. CM has never formed a formal testing ground and relied of empirical

statements. I think that has many pit falls. I am sure for example that every

soldier for many thousand of years was convinced (and their empirical daily

experience confirmed) that when one drops a ball over a wall to hit an invading

soldier the bigger the ball the faster it fell. However, only when Galileo came

around this has changed, and even then it took a long time for people (and

especially the church) to except the obvious.

So for me fundamentalism is the belief that truth is already known (i.e.,

traditionalism), regardless of, or no clear evidence. Being insistent on

methodology and evidence gathering is not fundamentalism.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Being insistent on methodology and evidence gathering is not fundamentalism.

>>>> Then again, it is depending on how that insistence is insisted upon:-) And

around and around it goes...

Marco

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marco, Alon, Emmanuel, Friends, Romans, Countryfolk, and Everyone

Else,

 

Jung said that the mere use of words

is futile if you do not know what

they mean. Yet beyond what they

mean we find what they are intended

to do.

 

Using words to " call names " is

not that interesting, when all is

said and done, because it de-evolves

pretty straight away into the

condition that Marco has now

described.

 

But there is a reason to engage

in these discussions...probably

more than one. We need to cultivate

and refine our capabilities at communicating

about what we are thinking and doing

with our patients and students.

 

Humans tend to get good at what they

practice. And what I suggest we practice

is working towards a clarity of

expression that relates known ideas

with well defined terms...and thereby

helps us identify those things that

we know less well, with less certainty

or with greater confusions or whatever.

 

 

Ken