Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
There are a lot of problems with the concept of ki, the foremost being that no two people can agree on what ki actually is.
|
Well, actually plenty of people agree on how to define it, even if many people (not all) have a vague sense of what it represents or have diverging definitions. Particularly, people who share the same phenominological experiences, will share understanding of their given conceptualization.
Quote:
|
None of what I've written so far addresses the more pragmatic users of the word ki: the ones who believe (correctly, I think) that what used to be called ki is in fact a combination of breathing, biomechanics, and visualization, and who assert (incorrectly, I think) that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use the word so long as we understand that there's nothing mystical or supernatural about it.
|
To me it's not unlike saying 1+1+x=y
I may not have all the values pinned down, but it's a start. The semantics of a lot of words strike me as being similar in nature...particularly the ones denoting more abstract concepts.
Quote:
|
I am a real jerk about words. When we start deciding that words can mean whatever we want them to mean, words begin to lose their meaning altogether. We already have words for breathing, biomechanics, and visualization. Adding ki to that mix only obfuscates things.
|
Well, we already have words to describe the different aspects of biomechanics, why do we need a term which references them all at once? Why have synonyms for that matter? Just more clutter, if I'm understanding your reasoning here.