Gord:
> The characters used to write the two versions of the word are similar, of
> course. One is just a kind of cascading/breath type of sign, the other
(the
> sense of "qi" as like the "life-force") adds the character for rice
beneath
> it. Of course, there is some bleedover I guess and obviously they are
> related (as breath and life-force often are), but that particular word
> (with that same tone) apparently has at least those two semi-distinct
> nexuses of meaning.
The ones you mean are the traditional form and the simplified character (the
radical). The first is normally used to write the word "qi", as in "qigong",
in Taiwan, while in the mainland you should use the simple form. In fact the
radical (simple) form is probably older (Shang Dynasty, oracle bone
inscriptions). There is another equivalent form, the Japanese form ("ki"),
which has the same radical and an "x" sign under it, an abbreviation for
"rice". Koreans use the same form as the Taiwanese, the one with "rice".
However, you're right, in that there are other related characters in modern
and classical Ch. that are pronounced qi. For example, radical + "water"
(sandianshui) is also pronounced "qi", as in "qiche" (automobile).
Moreover, in Chinese trad. medicine, the word "qi" was sometimes written in
different ways to mean different "aspects" of the same concept, ie:
radical + "fire" (huo): Qi, as immaterial aspect;
radical + "rice" (mi): Qi that gathers in the "Sea of Qi" (qihai), an
acupuncture point right under the navel;
"without" (wu) + "fire" (sidianhuo): Qi at birth (the immaterial aspect of
our vital energy, qiantian zhi qi), etc.
I also did one year of Tai Chi at university, I was put off from continuing
after trying out in a park in Beijing. It was in the deep of winter, the
time of year when human limbs fall off like frozen mandarins, and
"breathing" is hard to do next to a chimney spewing coal smoke. But apart
from that, it really is great. :-)
I agree with you, Marvin, that it is hard to define qi. To me it was
explained as the immaterial (yang) component which corresponds to things
material (yin) such as blood. Being immaterial, you can't see it. As strange
as this may sound to us, this is consistent with the theory of yin-yang. One
of their axioms, like the duality principle in some parts of mathematics, is
that whenever there is yin there is yang, and anything "material" (in a
sense that is specified more precisely, in the modern Chinese school) is
assumed to be yin.
However, IMHO one should be VERY careful with mixing Chinese medicine with
Western philosophy. The idea of "qi" is meaningless outside of the knowledge
system and definitions (axioms, if you like) of Ch. trad. med. It should not
be taken too much out of context.
Especially, it is not our "soul" or "life-force" or anything. The Chinese
system makes testable predictions, and in that sense it is scientific, not
mystical.
Back to deep lurking
Carlo
