Mike Sigman wrote:
[snip] 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.
I think to the limited extent I understand "ki" and "qi," we're in agreement. I just don't want to move the discussion away from Gernot's specific posit about opening the joints.
I also don't want to argue about something that I don't believe I have a full understanding of. If I find something useful in talking with my Chinese teachers with respect to "qi," I'll bring it here on another thread, after I see them early next year. Professional obligations allowing, I hope to see the aikido/bagua fellow next month, so should have a chance to clarify hands-on with respect to opening of the joints and "ki extension" as he understands it.
As far as the body skills go, I'd agree that good martial arts, Japanese or Chinese or other tradition, make use of "jin," whatever else they might call it. In my own current training, my Chinese teachers use more prosaic terminology, and rarely if ever use the term "jin" during training. That's their particular approach, however, and I am aware of the multiplicity of "jins" in CMA theory, for example with taijiquan. Here as well, I'm not arguing with your interpretation, since I haven't made a study of it. When I have the time I will go back over what appears to be several discussions on the forum with your contribution to the topic, and see if I can gain enough understanding to offer something useful.