So there’s quite a discussion on this over at Weakness with a Twist. Check out the comments here and here. Dojorat has also chimed in with his thoughts here. As usual, this discussion centers around Joanna Zorya’s writings on this subject over at her Martial Taiji site. My response will be in more general terms than just addressing what she has written.
I wrote a long post on this, but I’ll save it for later. Here’s my short answer.
IMO, the real question here is whether or not taiji and other IMA can be taught without using Chinese terms and cultural paradigms. For me the answer is absolutely not.
Why? Every time this happens I see a gross loss of knowledge. When you take out the Chinese terminology, you take away a lot of information that is contained in the terms. Chinese practitioners have built up a vocabulary that is used to describe IMA training. Without access to that vocab, you’re cutting yourself off from hundreds of years of discussion about IMA. That is NEVER a good thing.
All technical fields have their own vocabulary — IMA among them. You can’t get anywhere without that specialized vocab. It’s like the telephone game: one person at the end of a line of people tells the person next to them a short story, and then that person passes it down the line. By the time it gets to the end, the story is totally different. Without Chinese terms, that’s what IMA is like.
IMA were formed in a cultural context VERY different from what most Americans and Europeans are used to. The “Oriental mindset” may still be an enigma to most foreigners, but understanding its attributes and flaws is part of learning IMA. There’s just no getting around it. You can’t do science without having Western notions of open mindedness and honesty. Like IMA, it just won’t work without the cultural context.
Every time I hear that this or that concept or term needs to be replaced with something else, I always pay close attention to what is substituted in its place. So far, I have been very unimpressed. The substitute terms and concepts are usually either misleading and imprecise, or just flat out wrong. But that won’t be noticed in an overly practical context set up by people who may not be very knowledgeable themselves.
I’ve even seen this tendency sometimes extend to members of these groups writing their own definitions of what Chinese terms are supposed to mean, often without the person even knowing Chinese or having much martial training. It’s unreal. This can result in the blind leading the blind.
Often, these attempts to Westernize the practice are really just attempts by people to cast taiji or another IMA in terms of what they already think they know. In other words, instead of traditional IMA, you get a concoction called “internal strength” or with taiji, you get “martial taiji.” Funny that these pursuits NEVER display the depth and range that are shown by the broader view of IMA in China.
I completely understand the desire for something real. Far too many charlatans and dilettantes are teaching nonsense in Asia and the West. But cutting yourself off from the broader base of knowledge found in CIMA will only lead to practicing empty shells of real IMA.
56 responses so far ↓
1 Ed // Jul 25, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I think that one problem is that “qi” seems to have many unrelated meanings; to me, it seems likely that lots of ancient people simply liked the word “qi” and used it to form lots of compound words like “tianqi” (weather) or “shengqi” (get mad) and so on, confusing the Westerner who is trying to learn what “qi” is supposed to mean. This seems reinforced by many Japanese words as well, such as “ki ga aru” (you like that girl, don’t you?) or “kimochi ga ii” (I sure feel good) - I would guess that the ancient Japanese probably had a less concrete idea of “qi” (even if one assumes that the ancient Chinese had a more concrete idea), but the word was still popular enough to get included in lots of rather imaginative (at best) vocabulary. Unfortunately, people seem to assume that “qi” as an idea is naturally understood by native Chinese (or Japanese) automatically, and that compound words including “qi” in them are all attuned to this clear definition, but I would guess that this isn’t really true.
In the end, one has to learn these things from people with a good understanding of them, instead of just doing a lot of guesswork on your own.
(Also, many well-known masters like Feng Zhiqiang, Ma Chuanxu, and others seem to talk about qi, dantian, and so on a lot; at the least, it must mean something important to them, right? I for one want to know what they know.
)
2 Casey // Jul 25, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hehe… did you see JKZorya’s exchange on MAPlanet in which she expressed her desire to live in a highly-censored, sanitized theocracy? Or the one where she says something to the effect that “now I have rejected the unscientific qi, my experiences with god have become far more frequent.”…it sounds to me like her qigong was the only thing keeping her schizophrenia at bay…
On the other point, I agree with you completely. JKZorya has gotten on my case about using such terms as qi, dantian, jin and so on, saying that I could use a more intelligible western equivalent–but of course, there are no words that equate precisely to these concepts. As I’m sure you know, even “ward off” for peng and “rollback” for lu, though not bad translations, do not fully encompass these concepts. Of course, it’s even worse if you try to translate something even more broad, multi-faceted and nebulous like “jin” or “qi.”
Also, as you say, when people try to use their own translations of these terms, the words they choose almost invariably reflect their own interpretation of what they think they “really” mean.
3 chessman71 // Jul 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Ed,
As a matter of fact, I used several of your examples in my longer post on this subject. Good points.
Casey,
I actually agree with most of what Ms. Zorya says. I agree that martial taiji isn’t practiced enough, there’s entirely too much new age nonsense out there, I have little respect for religious daoism as it’s almost always a cult, and most all qigong is worthless arm-waving. Those are all good points by her.
Having a good argument (or several) is a good thing, but she just takes them WAY too far. Martial taiji is not all taiji has to offer, not all qigong or TCM is BS, etc., etc. She just takes everything too far IMO.
4 Casey // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Yeah, I mean, I’m all for her “putting the ‘quan’ back in Taiji-quan,” it’s just that she’s on a virtual witchhunt for anything related to qigong or Daoism while simultaneously professing her own strange religious agenda, which I’m obviously not chill with.
Plus, I also don’t like that people like her tend to polarize Taiji into the “people who fight” group and the “crazy hippie/wanabee jedi/old people” group. What I’d like to see growth of is the “take both the fighting and qigong aspects of Taiji seriously” group.
As for “qi,” it’s had a wide range of nebulous meaning since The Warring States Period if not earlier. Philosophers clearly use it to encompass a wide range of meanings. However, I don’t think they’re really contradictory–it’s just that their conception of qi was very large–something like “the energy/active principles of the universe.” It makes sense then that weather would be “heaven’s qi,” and so on. They also definitely used in the sense of qigong as various philosophers talk about cultivating “the blood and qi,” etc. Of course, these can all be further subdivided into the qi of the human body, which TCM then divides into “grain qi,” “original qi,” “true qi” and so on. Like I’ve said before, I think the important thing to remember is that the only “qi” that really matters in martial arts is the human body qi of TCM–i.e. the stuff acupuncture is designed to affect. People like JKZorya like to point out how vague, nebulous and open to interpretation the term seems to be, but when you simply narrow it down to TCM qi of the human body, it’s really not that strange or mystical.
5 RobT // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Any technical endevour naturally evolves its own language. I am currently sat at a keyboard and can see a mouse. That sentance would illicit an entirely different response from me were I to be sitting at the piano at home compared to a desk infront of a computer.
Even if we replace the term Yi with “intentional mind” which I take to be at least a fair translation if one understands the definition given by Brentano of “directed towards an object”… but of course we probably don’t - not the least because the theory of mind (western philosophy) has been disccusing that topic since long before Brentano 1874 paper, and continuous to do so. Disagreeing somewhat of course.
That’s just to say (be somewhat convoluted means) that even if we were to translate a technical term from chinese into an english equivalent, we would then have to explain the nunaces of the term in that language.
Quite what has been added by this process above and beyond keeping the term in Chinese and talking around it in english and demonstrating what is meant in physical example is quite beyond me. These things tend to be principles, not simple concepts ammenable to literal )word-for-word) translation.
6 Joanna // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Casey said: “it sounds to me like her qigong was the only thing keeping her schizophrenia at bay…”
Schizophrenia, you say? Is this an accusation you would throw at everyone else in the world who believes in a personal God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
How lucky we are to have a tiny minority of 2.35% enlightened non-schizophrenic atheists in the world to tell us that God is all in our heads. How even luckier we are that of these 2.35% there are a super-enlightened elite of qi-believer “internal” martial artists who can explain to us how theism is irrational but qi is completely real and rational and can give its exponents superhuman powers that “external” martial artists and other mere mortals sadly lack.
I must put it off no longer - where can I get some lithium? Or do “internal alchemists” not need that?
Regarding my taking it too far, what can I say? I hope that one day it will all make sense to you. I know that for many, the realisation comes when their mindset, lifestyle and reputation have too much invested in the qi mythology, so they go on propagating it. Don’t doubt that it is a conspiracy - when you are let in on it, I hope you have the decency to come clean.
7 chessman71 // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“I must put it off no longer - where can I get some lithium? Or do “internal alchemists” not need that?”
It’s formed in your dantian when you concentrate your qi over a period of years.
(Yes, that was a joke)
8 Frédo // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Actually, some of the terms and notion in the Wushu theory are hard to understand, even if Chinese is one person’s mother tongue.
A term like Qi leaves way to different interpretations, especially since there is two way to write it, 氣(気,气)and 炁, and sometimes a third if the teaching is only oral, 汽.
Each of these terms corresponds to different parts of the training, and if the third one has definitively a meaning of its own, the first two are often considered as synonyms though some consider that the first describes how Qi materialize in our world (gas or liquefied gas) while the second talks about its essence (the source of all life).
If the main lines of the different theories are understood, or at least known, a more profound understanding of the meaning of a term and its practical implications in one’s martial art training will depend on the level of each teacher. For this, terms may be interpreted and put into practice in quite some different ways.
Translating, by putting a fixed meaning on some flexible terms with sometimes quite some figurative or hidden meaning, may deprive the Martial Artist of some tools to further understand his art.
My 0.0000000000005 Hongkies
9 RobT // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Joana -
FWIW I’m a member of my local CofE church where I am on the PCC, standing and stewardship committees… my wife is the children’s minister.
This having been said, I usually choose not to rise to direct religious attackes or to ad hominem comments… instead I believe the main topic of conversation here is the necessity (or not) or translating (or not) Chinesse concepts into appropriate (or not) western-scientific concepts.
Oh, and also FWIW I frequently use sports science and biomechanics to explain structure and the effects of various training methods on the body when I teach… I also use words such as Peng, Qi, Yi, Kai-He etc.
That quite appart from whether I teach “martially” or not… though also FWIW the other club I train at is competitive muay thai.
I beleive we were in the middle of discussing something? Apologies for sustaining an interruption.
10 Casey // Jul 25, 2007 at 11:00 pm
But Joanna, you are claiming to have actual religious experiences in which God shows you the way a la Joanne of Arc. Most of the theists in the world don’t claim to have had such experiences.
Conspiracy, huh? Pretty long-running conspiracy considering I’m currently reading about it in texts that predate Jesus by 300 years or more.
As far as I’m concerned, qigong is just a form of exercise that is not yet well-understood. It’s pretty simple if you think about it–we control the body with the mind but have a difficult time controlling the mind. So how can we control our mind? By sending it the right signals via the body (i.e. breathing, stretching, massage, intent, position-holding and all the other clever methods qigong practitioners have developed). If it is dismissed as superstition as you would have it, then I think humanity will suffer a great loss. It could be centuries before modern exercise catches up to some of these body-mind concepts the Chinese have worked for generations to pass down to us. I find it down-right offensive that we should try to discard all their hard work and its potential benefits to humanity. What’s worse, your reasoning for discarding it is based on the argument that it may be misleading to some–i.e. the lowest-common denominator argument. (Which I disagree with vehemently).
Now, I’m not saying we should all swallow everything we hear from qigong and Daoism wholesale–I’m all for researching into it, finding out what works and what doesn’t, etc… but I also know that there ’s too much of value in there for us to just throw it out.
11 Joanna // Jul 25, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Firstly, there are several branches of religion that communicate directly to God and experience answers. This does not make me Joan of Arc - ask any Sikh or Quaker, or many Christian nuns and monks etc. And if one is going to predate Jesus by 300 years, why not predate him by 2000 years and think of Abraham or by 1000+ years back to Moses. The Bible is full of people having very real experiences of God, and that is precisely because he does talk to those who believe in Him. Many believers of many faiths still experience this direct communication today.
Regarding Western science having yet to catch up with Chinese pseudoscience, I believe that qi theories are outdated attempts to explain things we have better anatomical and psychological explanations for now, and any areas that seem to remain unexplained are down to stubborn adherence and literal interpretation of those outdated concepts. I believe that when qigong is fully tested and compared like with like with other forms of exercise, it will ultimately be discovered that qi was an erroneous (and hazardous) concept. Qi remains unproven, and people know it.
12 RobT // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:02 am
Joana -
Qi remains unproven… true
time remains unproven… true
space remains unproven… true
mind as more than brain remains unproven… true
you should stretch before doing exercise is unproven… true
At the end of the day, all of those types of things are merely how we express something that makes sense within everyday experience. Like God, there is no deductive argument that can “prove” one way or the other. If someone gets a “feeling” that they want to describe as Qi, and someone else wants to describe as reflex potentiation…
13 Joanna // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:16 am
“Now, I’m not saying we should all swallow everything we hear from qigong and Daoism wholesale–I’m all for researching into it, finding out what works and what doesn’t, etc… but I also know that there ’s too much of value in there for us to just throw it out.”
I also believe in research and testing, but as with an untested drug, I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone taking any more qi until its effects and side effects have been thoroughly investigated and the science is fully understood.
14 RobT // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:45 am
Medicine may be a bad example… recent British Medical Journal articles have described up to 80% of therapeutic effect as being “mere placebo”.
Personally, if placebo were 80% effective I’d be really interested in investigating it some more and working out how to make it more so rather than dissmissing it.
All testing occurs within a paradigm… why should an eastern term necessarily be tested within the western world-view. Objective test might be “does this kind of way of thinking and training develop skill”. Numerous students can attest that it can do… others will however have developed little skill. NB this tells you little about the underlying paradigm, and more about the teacher’s skill in communication within it.
15 Dojo Rat // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:52 am
I’ll say this Joanna, you do stick to your guns.
I’m still waiting for science to tell me how and why my dowsing rods work.
A skeptic might say; “They don’t work, it’s a trick or illusion”
Then I say: “Try it for yourself”
As far as the Jesus people, I have no problem with them as long as they don’t try to control other peoples morality. Perhaps I will believe in Jesus as omnipotent God when he comes down in his flying saucer and hands out mushrooms or something..:)
D.R.
16 Chris @ Martial Development // Jul 26, 2007 at 4:08 am
LOL, I think I get it…
God: good
Chi: bad
Evidence: Respected when convenient, ignored otherwise
Thanks for the online education, folks, but I think I was better served by inner-city public schools!
17 Chad // Jul 26, 2007 at 6:14 am
Lol Chris. I fnd it hilarious that there is an argument over which ill-defined term is true or not. God and qi are the same thing in this respect; an explaination of something that needs to be explained. But common, I think we can all do better with the “x number of people can’t be wrong” logic.
As far as the language issue. The thing is, words have no real inherent meaning. Each word is specific to the language it is from and the rules of morphology that govern its semantics. Context is everything. The idea that seems to be bouncing around out there is using chinese words gives you more information. It doesn’t. Not unless you understand the language better than English (or what ever your main language is).
So, the fact of that matter is, if you don’t understand the chinese language, the term is going to have to be explained to you in the language you understand. How then, is a non native speaker to get these “hundreds of years” of information? The fact that this information doesn’t really exisit in the word but in the entire concept being expressed (be it in one word or many, English or mandarin) not withstanding, words are words and every language can express exactly what another can. It might take more words, it might take less, but every language can express anything that comes to the speakers mind. If you get a crappy teacher, it doesn’t matter what language they are speaking.
As far as cultural context, idioms and such, a non native speaker just needs to be taught what the connections are, they will have no direct access to that cultural experience. One can live in another culture, but no one can grow u in a culture other than the one they grew up in. Period.
18 Joanna // Jul 26, 2007 at 7:18 am
Casey wrote: “Conspiracy, huh? Pretty long-running conspiracy considering I’m currently reading about it in texts that predate Jesus by 300 years or more.”
I just wanted to pick up on this by saying that the desire by some people to get the edge over others through occult lore, sorcery, druidry, invoking spirits, charlatanism and deception is indeed a timeless conspiracy - it is as old as history. The histories of the great monotheisms are littered with people sliding back into esoteric, exploitative and decadent ways. The awakening requires constant effort and constant commitment to benevolent and egalitarian ideals. All “inner door” elites, sects and illuminoid methodologies must be abolished. There are no masters, enlightened ones or special powers.
Yes, I know it’s a rant and one that some people will find baffling, but it will make sense to some.
19 Casey // Jul 26, 2007 at 8:59 am
But there’s nothing inherently exploitative or even religious about qigong. Like I said, my qigong is just another type of exercise to me. It has no spiritual component, though I think it does affect my brain chemistry. If I really wanted to use it as a secret tool for gaining advantage over others then why would I always be talking it up on the internet? I should say “qi, qi? what qi?”
I guess lifting weights is just a conspiracy to make yourself stronger than God intended?
20 Robert // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Joanna, why mention ancient Abe? Why not go back even further and go back to Adam and Eve? Then we could say the earth was also made in six days. We could also say that Adam and Eve’s children must have inter bred from each other and we all came from incest….. But to sum it up, we all know the bible, like many Mideast religious texts, are outdated and disproved by science.
21 RobT // Jul 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Sigh, there was a time when this site was a bastion of intelligent comment amidst seas of internet nonsense.
22 Joanna // Jul 26, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Casey wrote:
“But there’s nothing inherently exploitative or even religious about qigong. Like I said, my qigong is just another type of exercise to me. It has no spiritual component, though I think it does affect my brain chemistry.”
To a great many practitioners, qi is spiritual and that makes it a religious concern. Qi as some kind of universal life force is an innately spiritual idea. Qi is a lie. To perpetuate it is to deceive.
“Sigh, there was a time when this site was a bastion of intelligent comment amidst seas of internet nonsense.”
If people are going to discuss my articles, there are going to be debates on their content, in which I may exercise a right of reply. If you don’t want such debates to happen, it might be better not to get involved and if others agree with your sentiments, it might be better if they did not discuss my articles on public forums and blogs.
23 omni // Jul 26, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“Qi is a lie. To perpetuate it is to deceive.”
Since some people believe in Qi without scienfic proof (which is impossible to prove, presently…), it is a faith-based belief.
Since some people believe in God without scienfic proof (which is impossible to prove), it is a faith-based belief.
Therefore by drawing on this parallel, we cannot go around arguing something faith based is a lie.
24 chessman71 // Jul 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“Sigh, there was a time when this site was a bastion of intelligent comment amidst seas of internet nonsense.”
Rob,
I’m actually thinking of deleting this post and the comments attached to it. Most of these comments have nothing to do with the points I raised in the post.
People seem determined to bring in arguments from elsewhere.
I certainly have no interest in debating whether or not God exists on the blog.
WARNING: Further comments will be restricted to the post I wrote above or they will be deleted!
25 RobT // Jul 26, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Back on topic…
“The thing is, words have no real inherent meaning. Each word is specific to the language it is from and the rules of morphology that govern its semantics. Context is everything”
Philosophy of language is still an actively debated topic. Words as signifier vs language as “game” etc.
If one agrees that even the term in english needs to be understood within the technical context of taiji, then what actually is gained from translating from Chinese? And does not the understanding of how to explain and demonstrate within the context of taiji rely on fully understanding the concept - which (as Chinese is pictographic and highly inventive in how words accrue meanings) rely ultimately on a pretty thorough understanding there?
26 Joanna // Jul 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm
If we are talking only of the problems of translation, I’m sure no one would be against attempts to explain yi or peng in English terms. It is when people attempt to quantify, rationalise and explain qi that arguments errupt as there is no consensus and many of its exponents are actively resistant to such attempts.
27 chessman71 // Jul 26, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Joanna,
So I’m curious: all you ever mention is qi. Are you also against any attempt to explain taiji and the other IMA using Chinese terminology like jin, peng, yi, etc.?
28 Joanna // Jul 26, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I believe most concepts can be explained into English. I’ve tried to do this on my Taiji Concepts DVD by breaking down the eight methods into a discussion of their purpose, quality of movement, and direction. But I do use the eight methods names as shorthand sometimes. Jin is a term I see no real use for as I would translate it simply as skillfully applied physical force / optimal force. On the same DVD I discuss some general qualities of movement that characterise Taijiquan, namely rotation / reeling silk, undulation and expansiveness.
Yi I would normally translate simply as intention (having a clear martial purpose and staying focussed), xin as fighting spirit / morale, li as strength etc. I would generally only mention them in the context of a discussion where I would also explain the concepts in English. But I don’t find myself needing to discuss such ideas during teaching as often as physical adjustments.
In terms of the six harmonies I would consider qi in the chain to be translatable as momentum - your own and that of your opponent. This must be harmonious with your muscle use so that nothing contracts innapropriately thereby hindering the flow of momentum out to your fist, for example. You could also translate qi as breath in the six harmonies, which should also be in harmony with what you are doing, but I think it is probably useful to differentiate between the two things as breath is not the same thing as physical momentum. But again, I wouldn’t discuss the six harmonies very much. I tend to think that students need only to be introduced to the idea and then they can give it as much credence as they see fit. If I think a specific student might benefit from being reminded of a specific concept, I’ll discuss it.
So I don’t talk about qi (apart from pejoratively) as I think discussing breath specifically or momentum specifically is conceptually a lot clearer. I also think qigong is unnecessary and much of it combines warming up and stretching in a way that is not terribly anatomically informed, so I think much of it can be improved on. Standing practice can also be useful, but I don’t think physical sensations are relevant - I think rather that they are an undesirable side effect of being unaturally still. One day I tired doing cloud hands with very overtly expressed rotation in the movements and felt very little tingling. Then some tingling appeared and I found I could increase it by reducing the amount that my arms were rotating (around their long axes). The more I focussed on the tingling, the less the movement was correct as all the reeling silk in the movements died. A consequence was that the technique was a lot less effective when applied. My conclusion was simple - focussing on physical sensation was detrimental to martial training.
29 Casey // Jul 26, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I’m sorry for derailing the comments by bringing up an MAPlanet argument. I’ll try not to do it again in the future.
Re. the original post, I just think there’s nothing to be gained and a significant amount to be lost by taking the Chinese terminology out of Chinese martial arts. They are, after all, CHINESE martial arts, so Chinese conception of strategy, philosophy and the human body played important roles in their formation. If you take out the qi and meridians you effectively remove TCM from the picture. If you take out the Daoism then you have to take out the Yin-yang, and so on.
I like on Adam Hsu’s blog he has a motto “chuantong-xing, fei chongbai-xing; xiandai-hua, fei xifang-hua; duanlian-shi, fei lundao-shi.” (Traditionalism, but not “worshipfulness”; modernization, not westernization; training, not philosophizing.)
I think this a good motto for putting CMA on the right track. I think the point most relevant to this discussion is that modernization =/= westernization. TCM, including its conception of qi, jing, shen and so on should be modernized and upgraded, but they should not be discarded wholesale.
30 Joanna // Jul 27, 2007 at 12:01 am
Hi Casey - I think we can still have the Taiji concept (Yin and Yang) without Daoism as the idea is not an exclusively Daoist one. I just don’t know how qi meridians are relevant to Chinese Boxing. Chen Zhenglei specifically said that you do not need to be aware of them.
Regarding the motto, I think my methods are traditional rather than worshipful as they focus on function, rather than aggrandising irrelevant Chinese cultural concpets needlessly; I think they are modernised in that I am unafraid to utilise scientific advancement and knowledge of anatomy - this does embrace Western concepts though, as do the majority of modern Chinese people. Training rather than philosophising is again something I am all for. Martial purpose is all - we should avoid metaphysics and irrelevant cultural baggage. This is why I am trying to do my bit to eradicate superstition and embellishment from the arts I teach.
31 Chad // Jul 27, 2007 at 1:30 am
Rob T,
If we are speaking of the philosophy of language and not linguistics or morphology, we would be talking really only about ultimate meaning. The actual mechanics of language are fairly well understood- although you are correct that it is a ever evolving feild of knowledge.
As far as semantics and translation goes, yes, every system of information has it’s broadcast and narrow cast codes. If you take the sign as more important than the signified you run into trouble. Thats what I’m talking about. oftem people talk about words per se and forget that narrowcast readings, morophological and idomatic contexts and the place a lexical unit holds in an utterance play a far greater role in the meaning of the word it’s self. Language does not work soly on a lexicon and rule book. Distributed morphology has borne out alot of great new discoveries and the X0 hypothesis is promising to be an exciting leap forward in the marraige of the two.
Basically it is this. It is the knowledge and experience of the speaker, the context that it is presented in , and the access the listener has to the conceptual information being presented-not the words or what language the communication is being presented in.
32 Chris @ Martial Development // Jul 27, 2007 at 3:58 am
“I just don’t know how qi meridians are relevant to Chinese Boxing.”
And how would you? Who trained you in TCM, feng shui, or any related discipline other than martial arts?
“Qi is a lie. To perpetuate it is to deceive.”
Martial artists: please stick to your knitting.
33 Joanna // Jul 27, 2007 at 6:43 am
Chris @ Martial Development wrote: “And how would you? Who trained you in TCM, feng shui, or any related discipline other than martial arts?”
No one - why would they? More to the point, as a martial artist, why should I be remotely interested? If a Chinese person went to the US to study Western boxing, would you expect him to also study baseball and Christianity?
34 Chris @ Martial Development // Jul 27, 2007 at 6:59 am
I have an answer to your question–but I will withhold it for publishing on my own blog.
(evil grin)
35 cmc // Jul 27, 2007 at 10:02 am
If a word has an English equivalent, Why not use it? Often it is just an affectation to use a Chinese word in place of the English. The same is done with French, Spanish and words and phrases from other languages. It makes the speaker feel smarter. I’ve seen laoshi used instead of teacher and taolu used instead of form.
Of course, if their is no English equivalent, then go ahead and use the Chinese term. However, I don’t think the terms related to TCM or fengshui have any relevance to someone studying martial arts.
36 chessman71 // Jul 27, 2007 at 11:05 am
“I believe most concepts can be explained into English…”
Joanna,
That was a good response. I agree with most of what you’re saying, and I think it’s fine for a basic level. But for some things, jin works a lot better than trained skill, although I use that explanation too. Basically, I won’t throw anything out that has explanatory value. This stuff is hard enough as it is.
But sometimes the Chinese terms help because students need to learn complex things experientially. Too often they think they’ve “got it” because they think they understand the terms. This can lead to an empty intellectual understanding of IMA, but then using Chinese terms doesn’t always solve that problem. Just another tool in the toolchest.
37 Joanna // Jul 27, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Sure, but I think I is important not to become contemptuous of students - they can only be expected to understand the things a teacher is prepared to work hard to explain.
I think the term jin has a lot of baggage so I’m wary of using it - could you try to explain to me what instances you would need to use the term, or where, when and why you think an English term such as “trained skill”, “holistic force” or “grounded strength” would be unsuitable?
A term I use a fair bit is “whole body connected power” which I think I picked up from my first teacher. Sometimes, instead of using any of those terms, I remind students to make sure that “the foot and the fist finish together” or “when you move, the whole body moves” or “make sure you are connected rather than just synchronised - when you are connected, each muscle is pushed into place by the one beneath it, like a string of railway carriages being pushed forwards by an engine at the back. When you are only synchronised, it is more like each carriage is moving under its own steam - it might look the same, but it is different.”
I think it is important to explain ideas in a bit of depth, because from my experience, whenever you do rely on a Chinese term, students often don’t really understand what makes the movement have that name. For example, I might have taught some students a kinetic principle such as “peng” and the next time they encounter a peng action they might say “but I thought this was peng” adopting a specific shape - because they haven’t understood that the thing that makes it peng is how the arms arrived in their finished position. It seems to be a common error for newer students to be posture rather than movement focussed and for a while, unable to control their actions sufficiently to bring out specific force vectors and movement qualities when transitioning from one shape to another. There can be a time delay in understanding the concept of intention and being able to make the body move accurately enough to express it.
Anyway, I’d appreciate your feedback on the jin thing.
38 What Every Martial Artist Should Know About Chi and TCM // Jul 30, 2007 at 7:21 am
[…] kung fu forums. Most recently, Joanna Zorya of the Martial Tai Chi Association argues against the practice. She invokes the names of famous instructors—Tim Cartmell, Chen Zhenglei, and Hong Junsheng, to […]
39 marnix wells // Jul 30, 2007 at 5:37 pm
At a basic level I don’t think anyone can deny qi is ‘energy’. Like Sanskrit prana and Greek pneuma it is primarily associated in the body with breathing i.e. ingestion of oxygen which makes burning possible. It allows fat reserves in the body and muscles to be burned and generate power (fajing).
As regards meridians, I pointed out in Scholar Boxer (North Atlantic Books, 2005) there is a correlation between the inner and outer sides (yin-yang = ’shady-sunny’) of the body and limbs with muscles contractor and extensor pairs. Thus they are relevant to the circulation of breath and energy. There is nothing ‘unscientific’ here, or even ‘religious’, I believe… I stand to be corrected.
40 chessman71 // Jul 30, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Marnix,
I’d be curious as to your thoughts on Nigel Wiseman’s view that qi implies both matter AND energy:
http://formosaneijia.com/2007/nigel-wiseman-on-qi/
41 Joanna // Jul 30, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hi Marnix,
The problem is that we certainly can deny what you have said - that there exists some kind of qi / prana / pneuma energy. This is by no means a universally accepted viewpoint and not one it is necessary to subscribe to in order to practice martial arts. I no more need to believe in qi to practice Tai Chi, than I would need to believe in kami to practice Karate or Tenaga Dalam to practice silat.
42 Sammy // Jul 30, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Joanna,
Have you had the chance to visit Tim Cartmell’s Shen Wu school in Southern California? I notice that both you and Tim have the same kind of demystifying qi ideas and practical fighting applications to Taiji. You both seem to focus on the martial aspects.
Even though Mr. Cartmell is very much into BJJ groundfighting and MMA fighting nowadays, he still has the best Sun Style Taiji form I have ever seen. Very connected and smooth with evident power as well. Do you also do Sun style as well as Yang style?
I saw you Youtube clip on “Martial Rotation” and liked it very much. Very smart applications too.
43 Joanna // Jul 31, 2007 at 5:41 am
Hi Sammy,
I haven’t visited Tim Cartmell, but I’ve trained with two of his Kung Fu brothers - both also students of Luo Dexiu.
I’ve done some Sun style Taiji form and applications, but it isn’t a style I focus on. My Taiji is more Zheng Manqing with some Yang and Dong style influences, and I’ve done some Chen style too for about 3 years, but it was mostly just forms.
Thanks for your comments
44 marnix wells // Jul 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Hi, Chessman, Joanna
Certainly energy, qi, implies matter, qizhi.
This is true in Chinese as in English (Einstein).
Do we have to be mystics to fill our cars with petrol (qiyou, ‘qi oil’), hopefully the most energy-efficient and lead-, carbon-free?
To eat, drink and breathe?
Rather would it be truly mystical if we did not and survived to post our experience!
45 chessman71 // Jul 31, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Exactly. This is what i’ve been trying to get at. In Chinese this stuff isn’t mystical, it’s just ordinary as all the words that use “qi” imply. Only when it gets used in a Western context does it get esoteric because the context is different.
If the question is how to avoid words like qi from becoming esoteric, my answer would be to import the Chinese paradigm that keeps the notion of qi in its proper place. I really don’t think the arts can be learned any other way.
Obviously others will disagree and that’s okay. But it needs to be made CLEAR that those of us using the WHOLE paradigm are likely not being mystical about the training.
That’s what I was trying to show in these posts.
46 Sammy // Jul 31, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Joanna,
Who cares about Chi??
More importantly, is your training partner, Julie Hinder single??
47 RobT // Jul 31, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Joanna -
“The problem is that we certainly can deny what you have said - that there exists some kind of qi / prana / pneuma energy”
an interesting view given the above discussion that strayed into Christian belief.
Qi, the Greek “pneuma” and the Latin “spiritus” can all be translated as “breath”. So too, for example, the Hebrew ruach which is otherwise seen in Genesis 1 as “the spirit of God was moving on the waters”. The original has “the ruach of God was moving”. The Pentautech (the Greek translation of the first five books of the OT for use BC by Greek Jews) has “the pneuma of God was moving”.
When God breathes life into Adam… again it is pneuma.
48 Joanna // Aug 1, 2007 at 12:53 am
I think the implication that there is nothing spiritual about the concept of qi when it is within its Chinese cultural context is false. Within folk religion and Religious Daoism, qi takes on all kinds of spiritual meaning.
49 chessman71 // Aug 1, 2007 at 1:58 am
“I think the implication that there is nothing spiritual about the concept of qi when it is within its Chinese cultural context is false. Within folk religion and Religious Daoism, qi takes on all kinds of spiritual meaning.”
Joanna,
What I and several other people are trying to tell you is that you’re wrong about this. The larger Chinese cultural context ITSELF is NOT Daoist. You’re confusing the two. Chinese culture =/= religious Daoism. The word qi is just part of the Chinese language and culture.
The fact that you find spiritual meaning for the term in religious discussions DOES NOT mean it will have the same connotations in other discussions.
Can’t you see that not every Chinese person is some dyed in the wool, fanatical Daoist?
Do you know how many common words have qi in them?
Here’s a short list:
qiqiu — balloon
qiwen — temperature
qitong — air pump
qixi — breath
qixiang baogao — weather report
qizhi — temperament
qipao — air bubble
qiguan — trachea
qikong — skin pores
qisiren– infuriating
qihou — climate
qifen — mood
qichuan — to pant
qishu — destiny
qiliang — tolerance
Do you honestly believe that the words balloon, skin pore, and air pump have religious connotations?
Here’s how the Far East Chinese-English dictionary defines qi: 1. air, gas, vapor; the atmosphere 2. breath 3. spirit;morale 4. influence 5. bearing 6. smells; odors 7. to be angry; rage 8. to provoke 9. weather
Do you see any religious daoist related definitions here? I don’t.
I don’t mean to be uncharitable to you, but do you see how absurd this is?
50 Joanna // Aug 1, 2007 at 6:11 am
That is not what I said. I know that not all Chinese people are immersed in Religious Daoist ideas, but a number of them are, increasingly so in recent years, and many Westerners drawn to the arts are too. These people frequently promote a distinctly spiritual perspective on qi, agreed?
So it is not true to imply that qi only takes on a spiritual dimension when misunderstood by Westerners. The spiritual ideas themselves come out of China. As I said “WITHIN FOLK RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS DAOISM, qi takes on all kinds of spiritual meaning.”
Seriously, visit the MAP forums and ask people there what they think qi is about. A number of them will have studied under Chinese teachers and they will be utterly convinced that qi is a spiritual idea. How many Chinese teachers do “empty force” style demonstrations? How many do buqi? Charlatanism is not unique to the West.
I am well aware of the definitions of qi and have argued myself many times over its meaning. But whereas definition 3 in your list above might not mean spirit in anything other than a “morale” kind of way to you or I, even with that connection explained, that is in itself a spiritual concept to others.
51 The Secret of Chi « 仁力的網頁 // Aug 2, 2007 at 2:28 pm
[…] I’ve been reading some of the concepts in blogland such as Formosa Neijia’s “Taiji without the Qi” and “100% Qi Free” , which is a Weakness with a Twist comment on Joanna’s […]
52 renli // Aug 2, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Ed said:
“I think that one problem is that “qi” seems to have many unrelated meanings; to me, it seems likely that lots of ancient people simply liked the word “qi” and used it to form lots of compound words like “tianqi” (weather) or “shengqi” (get mad) and so on, confusing the Westerner who is trying to learn what “qi” is supposed to mean.”
This is exactly true ed. Please visit my blog where I am working on a document titled “the Chi FAQ”. I am inviting submissions from anyone. I have two or three submissions to incorporate, I’m being really lazy about it, but if you make a submission I gurantee it will go in eventually (before christmas :))
-
53 Robert J // Aug 4, 2007 at 4:16 am
Just practice like a savage monkey!
You can feel the true definitions of all these expressions DEEP in your bones!!!!
HOOPA HOOPA HOOPA!
54 Joanna // Aug 17, 2007 at 6:24 am
I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Scott Phillips over on his “Weakness with a Twist” blog has edited one of my posts on the thread “A Parade in India 15 Miles Long” adding a paragraph of his own and thereby completely changing the spirit of what I was saying. He also edited out a comment by another person along with my reply to it. I thought you’d be interested in case he did it to anyone who reads this blog. Of all the sneaky, dishonourable tricks I’ve come across on forums and blogs, this was the lowest.
55 Hermann // Aug 17, 2007 at 8:23 am
Hi Dave, back from Germany and 3 weeks intensiv training, I find your blog alive and full of new entries.
The topic seems not well enough researched by most writers, it is a pity that the best academic work on Qi is written only in German, still here the bibliographic info:
Kuby, Manfred (1995): Qi - Lebenskraftkonzepte in China, HAUG, ISBN3-7760-1492-X
(584 pages, a sinological dissertation)
Do your homework, folks!
56 Qi Debate #861a « 仁力的網頁 // Sep 4, 2007 at 10:24 am
[…] something else to disagree on. Some of it has to do with stuff she has said in the past too, on “Taiji without the Qi”, and “100% Qi Free” as well as other articles […]
Leave a Comment