Thomas Campbell wrote:
The set of meanings embraced by the Chinese "qi" and the Japanese "ki" overlap, but the terms are not completely synonymous.
Where do they diverge, then? I think most of the ideas that Japanese and Chinese ki-qi terms diverge have more to do with misunderstanding by westerners than to do with actuality. Trying to grab an example out of the air... it's like examining a Japanese automobile and an American one and saying that they "diverge". The 2 cars may diverge on color, where they were built, transmission, upholstery (I'm giving far more divergences then there are in actuality between ki and qi perspectives, just to give your comment the edge in the example, BTW). But in reality a car must have an engine, a mode of steering, a transmission, an alternator, seats, etc..... because a car is a car and the basics are necessarily the same. What I'm saying is that ki and qi aren't just singular terms, they are complex ideas that contain certain basic concepts whether in Japan or China. The extent of those complexities limits how diverse the interpretation can be, in reality.
In terms of the body skills, the same thing happens, even though some of the people on the list have tried to posit the idea the "jin" is some sort of Chinese thing and the Japanese don't have it. All it means is that they don't understand the core concept and how much it is constrained by the complexity that contains it.
Chris Moses met up with Akuzawa and, as an example, couldn't push him in some instances. That's jin. Kohei may call it "ki" or "ki power". Someone else may say "kokyu ryoku" is quite different... but they're simply ill-informed. All these things are the same things. There may be lack of information encouraging someone to posit a difference because *they* understand some terms differently, but I've never seen that theory pan out when you start breaking it down. That's why I suggest that we look at what you consider "divergents" and let's see why you think ki and qi are not synonymous. More often than not, just like in the "open joints" discussion, the problem is a misunderstanding by the westerners involved and what their peers are thinking.