Japanese "Ki," Chinese "Chi"

Hi MIke,

I'm not ignoring you, well, OK a little. I have no desire to delve into more pseudo debate with you. It bores me.I've given many answers and you either ignore or twist or change the subject.

I'm not sure why you post here, MIke. But, hey, it's a public board. Knock yourself out.

Craig, I'll e- you more info as our itinerary develops. We spent Turkeyday in the Czech Republic (Cesky Krumlov - Lovely town!). No turkey, but I feasted on some wonderful BBQ ribs ...

Carol, Hey girl! Where are you these days? And HOW are ya?

cg

The ki in aikido is part of a compound, aiki, that uses the term ki, but not the same way the Chinese systems use 'chi'. However, due to influence of Tohei and others, the idea of ki in aikido has gotten popular and is an exploration in an of itself. However, the ideas, theories and practices of ki in aikido aren't quite the same as chi in Chinese systems.

Well you see my interpretation of that is that "the ideas, theories and practices of ki in aikido" - where "The ki in aikido is part of a compound, aiki," - "aren't quite the same as chi in Chinese systems".

The idea presented was as a compound - [like H20] - the way this depth is approached is different than looking at a principle component - [like the 0 I breathe].

In context - [the one actually presented by Chuck] the ideas can be as 'apples and oranges' as O and H20. I'm not making an 'allusion' here - just an explanation of the misunderstanding of the presented material - based on what I consider a failed analogy using chopstick and that Chuck indicated he felt his his message/explanation had been 'twisted'.

In _my_ opinion, I would say that looking at the chopsticks in different cultures is a poor analogy given the context presented. Not to beat a dead horse, but to add clarity - I suppose that if the chopsticks were used/created/investigated in some larger concept (a compound of some other thing) in _one_ of the cultures then we'd have a more appropriate analogy for the context of his message.

Back on track, I suppose that is the point about books. Not only is the written word inadequate to present such material but also _if_ you have an agenda, you _may_ be so enraptured by it that you _may_ be blinded by the message presented - as seems to be the case here. I would say that this often happens when so_and_so shihan demonstrates as well. Usually the person unable to receive the message is not blatantly refusing the information (as I suspect is the case here) but rather they have some part of the whole that they feel is tremendously important and are a bit stuck in the 'trees' to the point that they loose sight of the 'forest.' Writing a book to try to reach as many people at their level is quite a challenge. I would love to see a book called level-appropriate aikido, where the first chapters can be considered "toilet paper" by the people beyond that, and the last chapters are over all of our heads but give great direction. Maybe two books - one from the perspective of people who will want to get to a certain degree of surface-level ability before ever deciding to try one suggestion about internal power, and another book for people who want to start out focused on internal power. As far as I'm concerned, there are strong arguments for both cases - which _to me_ should be substantiated based on the quality of the students produced by the method.

Just my thoughts - Rob

Chuck Gordon wrote: I'm not ignoring you, well, OK a little. I have no desire to delve into more pseudo debate with you. It bores me.I've given many answers and you either ignore or twist or change the subject.

No, I haven't seen a single substantive or well-supported comment from you, Chuck. You simply assert and take swipes. If you go back in the archives and look at your posts on "ki", they're complete crap. The latest thing I've seen from you is that "Ki" is "intention". I think you're so used to living in a world where everybody's mysterious statement is accepted without comment that you're shocked when someone asks you for support to your statements. And if you look again at your posts, there is NO support, just an attempt to trivialize and a swipe. Oh... and yes, I admit you put in an elitist comment about koryu every chance you get, but I think that serves no purpose in any discussion of Ki.

I'm not sure why you post here, MIke. But, hey, it's a public board. Knock yourself out.

I'm sure you'd see a purpose if I agreed with you, Chuck. Right? So the question is... can you give ANY substantive comments about why ki and qi are "apples, oranges"? ANY?

Mike

Chuck Gordon wrote: If you want to study Japanese budo, and learn about aiki and ki and all the other principles and ideas, then find a good teacher who teaches these ideas and practices. Study Japanese budo. If, on the other hand, Chinese arts float your boat, then find a good Chinese style teacher and do a Chinese system. However, trying to understand Japanese concepts through the medium of Chinese theory doesn't offer much info for most folks who are way beyond the level of most of the folks here.

How would you know this, Chuck? Can you give ANY support other than assertion? Tell us what Ki is and then tell us what Qi is (since you're including an implied knowledge in your assertion). So far, you're still making assertions and trying to imply that you have the background to speak knowledgeably. I've got many years in Japanese arts and many years in Chinese arts, Chuck... I say you can't support your contentions with any facts, so you're in essence contributing to the problems for beginners, not helping them. Let's hear the facts for once.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Rob Liberti wrote: Well you see my interpretation of that is that "the ideas, theories and practices of ki in aikido" - where "The ki in aikido is part of a compound, aiki," - "aren't quite the same as chi in Chinese systems". The idea presented was as a compound - [like H20] - the way this depth is approached is different than looking at a principle component - [like the 0 I breathe]. In context - [the one actually presented by Chuck] the ideas can be as 'apples and oranges' as O and H20.

I'm sure you're unaware of it, Rob, but the *spectrum* of ideas about ki/qi in Japanese and Chinese systems are the same. Tohei's approach is not really that new... it's also found in some areas of qi belief in China. I keep asking for some facts and neither you nor Chuck seem to have any. Chuck has bald, unsupported assertions, you have allusions and metaphors. Do you think Aikido would be better off with facts or with vaguely worded "beliefs" of all sorts? If you think spouting "beliefs" as facts is good, can you tell us who you think it is good for, other than people with an assumed status?

Regards,

Mike

I think facts are wonderful. It is a well known fact that the O in what I breathe and the O in what I drink is the same - regardless of culture. Sorry if are having trouble following the logic of the that metaphor - but I assure you that it is not _vague_. The basic idea is that things takes on different properties when they are combined with other things, like sand and glass (is that a "simile"). The *spectrum* of ideas about sand might also be the same in Japanese and Chinese, and yet I wouldn't compare Japanese glass to Chinese sand - even if the Chinese knew how to make better glass - and that's a fact. That is what what I understood him to be getting at. It's really not personal, if he were saying something I disagreed with I'd challenge him - it's happened before.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: I think facts are wonderful. It is a well known fact that the O in what I breathe and the O in what I drink is the same - regardless of culture. Sorry if are having trouble following the logic of the that metaphor - but I assure you that it is not _vague_. The basic idea is that things takes on different properties when they are combined with other things, like sand and glass (is that a "simile"). The *spectrum* of ideas about sand might also be the same in Japanese and Chinese, and yet I wouldn't compare Japanese glass to Chinese sand - even if the Chinese knew how to make better glass - and that's a fact. That is what what I understood him to be getting at. It's really not personal, if he were saying something I disagreed with I'd challenge him - it's happened before.

So if you "understood" what Chuch said and you want to butt in, then tell me the difference between Ki and Qi, Rob. Period. Stop the silly comparisons as some sort of "fact". A comparison is not an analysis, Rob. Oh... and since it's now coming to a screeching halt because I'm holding you to facts, go ahead and attack me personally.

Mike

...the O in what I breathe and the O in what I drink is the same - regardless of culture...Things takes on different properties when they are combined with other things...

Hi guys,

Excuse me for butting in. I am trying to understand/expand this metaphor to compare "Ki" & Chi". We breathe in air but the blood cells in our lungs absorb only O2 and CO (carbon monoxide). The water we drink is H2O. The food that we consume contains carbohydrates (combinations of the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms). So you are saying that the common element of "Ki" and/or "Chi" is the single atom of oxygen and "Ki" and/or "Chi" come in different forms (of energy) due to its various combinations with other atoms of carbon and hydrogen. Am I on track? But, IMO, the single atom of oxygen (O) as a single ingredient is of no use without combination of its own atom (O2 -the gas we need to live) and other atoms of carbon and hydrogen (the water and food).

Coming back to the comparison of chopsticks - Japanese version versus Chinese version versus Korean version. In the dining room, chopsticks are tools to bring food into mouths. While in the kitchen chopsticks are also used to put food into the cooking pots/pans. In the various oriental cultures, chopsticks come in various sizes and shapes for different intend and purpose and, of course, eating habits (e.g. Chinese push rice into their mouths from the bowls with the chopsticks while the Japanese use them as scoops to lift the rice from the bowls and into their mouths). The idea of this metaphor is to look at 'Ki" and/or "Chi" alone as a live energy form rather than at its applications. Am I right?

David Y

David Yap wrote: Excuse me for butting in. I am trying to understand/expand this metaphor to compare "Ki" & Chi".

Qi/Ki can be explained with words... it doesn't need cryptic metaphor-analysis, just plain words will work. When someone asserts that they are different things and they claim they are a knowledgeable instructor in arts that us Ki (Qi), I and a number of other people reading this forum would expect they can explain in plain English. If I was a student of one of these people and had an IQ bigger than double digits, I'd expect my "teacher" to be able to do so, also.

Coming back to the comparison of chopsticks - Japanese version versus Chinese version versus Korean version. In the dining room, chopsticks are tools to bring food into mouths. (snip)

So bringing food to the mouth, holding them, two sticks, etc., are the salient points that they all agree in. Anyone getting hung up on fluted carvings, pointed ends, etc., is missing the salient points of what chopsticks actually are, wouldn't you agree?

Qi and Ki also have basic salient points... in fact, they have the SAME salient points because they're the same thing, are spelled with the same kanji, "Ki" is just the Japanese pronunciation of "Qi", and so on. If someone is claiming that they are somehow different, as Chuck did, I'm asking for the particulars which, not surprisingly, are not forthcoming.

Regards,

Mike

I have to agree with Mike, IMHO Chi and Ki are the same thing, just different languages.

But what does this have to do with Carol's books?

Mike Sigman wrote: <snip>... If I was a student of one of these people and had an IQ bigger than double digits, I'd expect my "teacher" to be able to do so, also. ...<snip>

This is the danger of present instructions. In the old old days of masters and apprentices (servants), the system was geared towards growing/cultivating the best of the trade and weeding out weak and those who (in the first place) had no passion for the trade/skill/profession. The objective was that quality and efficiency could only get better. Competition was one form of eliminations.
In old old days, the lack of skill and understanding in ones trade (especially in MA) could even result in ones premature death.

Aikido is propagated - quantity first, quality maybe.

Just my observation.

David Y

Rubbish. I think it is also easy to hide (one's lack of knowledge) behind the traditional method of teaching...

Ignatius Teo wrote: Rubbish. I think it is also easy to hide (one's lack of knowledge) behind the traditional method of teaching...

Yes. In the absence of competition it is indeed easy to hide (one's lack of knowledge) behind the traditional method of teaching. This accounts for the numerous "shodan-startup" aikido dojo all over the world.

David Y

Chuck Gordon wrote: If you want to study Japanese budo, and learn about aiki and ki and all the other principles and ideas, then find a good teacher who teaches these ideas and practices. Study Japanese budo.

I'm sorry Chuck, although I have alot of respect for many of your posts and feel you make a valuable contribution to aikiweb I disagree with this point entirely. To think there is this massive seperation between chinese and japanese martial arts is just false. (and I also believe, as many do, that not everything that Ueshiba was capable of within his aikido was transferred to his students). Despite this, I don't think many people are learning aikido as a Japanese cultural investigation - they want to know the real universal principles behind it; to presume physical or energetic principles in China and Japan are different seems a bit strange. Or maybe you don't see that aikido addresses any universal principles? I suppose pretty much everyone (inc. the original poster) is getting a bit bored with this now!

Anyway, nice while it lasted. I'm sure we'll all argue again next time this thread comes round!


P.S. my mistake - I did read one of Carol's books (ki exercises in...). I thought it the content was OK and the style and presentation very original and useful, but not necessarily a good coverage of ki. Although I borrowed it and didn't end up buying it I think it is a useful book for a beginner/intermediate or teacher. Maybe our expectations of ki explanaition in aikido only go back as far as Tohei. Chinese systems (which originated the whole chi/ki concept) have been accepted around 4000 years now. It's a bit like reading a copy of 'Watchtower' and thinking you know everything about christianity.

No need for attack - just clarity.

Okay, reading comprehension time: Go back and READ Chuck's post. He was NOT saying Ki and Chi are different things in isolation in that post. He was talking about the compound of aiki.

Drop the persecution complex. It's okay, we all love you.

What the heck is this nonsense about "butting in" in a public forum?!

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: No need for attack - just clarity. Okay, reading comprehension time: Go back and READ Chuck's post. He was NOT saying Ki and Chi are different things in isolation in that post. He was talking about the compound of aiki.

In other words, despite being directly asked, time after time, you cannot offer any substance or logic.... you just keep parroting about "compounds". If you know it and aren't just bullshitting, Rob, you or Chuck can explain it. Ever heard of "I call you" in card playing? Call. I've never had to "call" so many times in my life with so little substantive response.

Regards,

Mike

Lynn Seiser wrote: I have to agree with Mike, IMHO Chi and Ki are the same thing, just different languages. But what does this have to do with Carol's books?

Carol's book was the starting topic. Frankly, if you really want to learn how to do/use the physical phenomena of Ki (if you can't feel the results, why do obviously physical "ki tests"?), I don't see where Carol's books will help that much. I actually have one (or maybe two) in my library. There's more to it than just "doing exercises". I don't care how carefully you copy the wave of the magician's hands over the hat, if you don't know more than that you'll never produce a rabbit. ;^) Easy to test and show.

FWIW

Mike

If you continue to "call" me on something that wasn't said, I expect you'll remain frustrated. Neither Chuck NOR I posted that ki and chi are different in isolation. He wrote about ki as part of aiki. It was the first paragraph of his post. I won't bother to quote it again. The rest of his statements were in that context. Then you took some of his statements later on in the post out of context and challenged them as if he didn't write his first paragraph. I can't help you understand that any better. If you are looking for me to acknowledge that ki and chi are the different culture's word for the same thing, no problem. I made that point pretty clear with the oxygen analogy. But whatever.
Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: If you continue to "call" me on something that wasn't said, I expect you'll remain frustrated.

Explain how Ki and Qi are different in "compounds", Rob, since you said you understood what he was saying and Chuck obviously is in a predicament where he can't explain his pompous assertions himself. If you want to jump in with how you understood him, then explain it factually, not with more vagaries and allusions.

Mike

Aiki vs Tenki vs Genki - does ki mean the same thing in any of these compounds?

There are a large number of meanings of Ki in the Japanese language with context and its place in a compound being quite important. Really don't know if this is also true in Chinese but I suspect it is.

I've heard Ki used in isolation for everything from fighting spirit to the more esoteric. However for Aikido its role in the Aiki compound is more important.

Peter Rehse wrote: Aiki vs Tenki vs Genki - does ki mean the same thing in any of these compounds? There are a large number of meanings of Ki in the Japanese language with context and its place in a compound being quite important. Really don't know if this is also true in Chinese but I suspect it is. I've heard Ki used in isolation for everything from fighting spirit to the more esoteric. However for Aikido its role in the Aiki compound is more important.

For a laugh: A Genie

A man walks into a restaurant with a full-grown ostrich behind him.

The waitress asks for their orders.

The man says, "A hamburger, fries and a coke," and turns to the ostrich, "What's yours?"

"I'll have the same," says the ostrich.

A short time later the waitress returns with the order.

"That will be $9.40 please," and the man reaches into his pocket and pulls out the exact change for payment.

The next day, the man and the ostrich come again and the man says, "A hamburger, fries, and a coke."

The ostrich says, "I'll have the same."

Again the man reaches into his pocket and pays with exact change.

This becomes routine until, the two enter again.

"The usual?" asks the waitress.

"No, this is Friday night, so I will have a steak, baked potato, and salad," says the man.

"Same," says the ostrich.

Shortly the waitress brings the order and says, "That will be $32.62."

Once again the man pulls the exact change out of his pocket and places it on the table.



The waitress can't hold back her curiosity any longer.

"Excuse me, sir. How do you manage to always come up with the exact change out of your pocket every time?"

"Well," says the man, "several years ago I was cleaning the attic and found an old lamp. When I rubbed it a Genie appeared and offered me two wishes.



My first wish was that if I ever had to pay for anything, I would just put my hand in my pocket and the right amount of money would always be there."

"That's brilliant!" says the waitress. "Most people would wish for a million dollars or something, but you'll always be as rich as you want for as long as you live!"

"That's right. Whether it's a gallon of milk or a Rolls Royce, the exact money is always there," says the man.

The waitress asks, "But, sir, what's with the ostrich?"

The man sighs, pauses, and answers, "My second wish was for a tall chick with long legs who agrees with everything I say."

------------------------------------------------------------

If we start playing language games, I can say "Chinese chick", "Japanese chick" is apple and orange. Heck, i can even say "Japanese chick", "Japanese chick" is apple and orange.

But we all know the man wanted a "chick" not a "chick" in the joke. So does everyone in this thread about what "ki"/"chi" we talk about.

Peter Rehse wrote: Aiki vs Tenki vs Genki - does ki mean the same thing in any of these compounds? There are a large number of meanings of Ki in the Japanese language with context and its place in a compound being quite important. Really don't know if this is also true in Chinese but I suspect it is.

ってかさ、こんなの当たり前じゃん？言うまでもないと思うけど 　

I think Mike was referring to Ki, as its referred to in Aiki, and in the martial "Qi" context (as it exists in the Chinese language).

Just curious Peter, you say it's an important connotation, would you mind elaborating on this?

Two questions....does the exact change include the tip.?....and why did he not ask for a relationship with a woman?...it would have been so much more aiki to really communicate what he needed. ;o)
Mary

I don't think the argument is about the semantics of language, but about what ki is and what chi is, *functionally*. So far, I've seen the assertion that the ki and qi are "apples, oranges" because of usage... not this diversion into semantics. I'm asking for someone to explain the functional difference. Since Chuck Gordon made the assertion (by the way, his declarative statements about ki, etc., are in the AikiWeb archives if anyone wants to look), I asked him to clarify. Since Rob Liberti stated that he "understands", I've asked him to clarify. I'd like to see these "teachers" explain the assertions that involve the basic "aiki" principle that they publicly claim credentials in. If they're ready to teach and put out a shingle, they should be ready to demonstrate ki/qi (whichever) explicatively and to talk about it knowledgeably. I think it's that simple, really. If I was teaching music and music theory, I'd expect to be held to the same expectations, frankly. This stuff ain't magic. Er... well, if someone thinks it is...... let's hear that, too. ;^)

FWIW

Mike

Robert John wrote: Just curious Peter, you say it's an important connotation, would you mind elaborating on this?

That's a whole new thread. I'm just not convinced that the Ki expressed in Ki tests and the like reflects the Ki in Aiki which I think is more of a mental construct. But that's an opinion I've expressed and been taken to task for before.

The old meaning of Aiki is described as two sword masters standing absolutely still waiting for an opening. In this case there is no contact. Again in my opinion, the sensitivity to your opponent defines the aiki techniques.

Dragging the thread back to its first off topic tangent I tend to agree that the kanji is a very strong anchor between the two languages. Same kanji tends to have analogous meanings in both languages. There may be cultural nuances and there are several examples of added meanings but I suspect Ki/Chi is not affected very much by the former or the latter. For the Chinese martial linguists out there I have a question. Among the various Chinese martial arts does Chi have a uniform meaning or does the debate rage there too? I'll bet it rages.

And dragging still further on topic. I've read one of Carol's books and found it fine for what it is meant to be. There was no attempt to pretend it was anything other that what it was. Some may find it exactly what they need others not. I'm one of the latter but then again I never did get that much out of martial arts books in general.