I have to say, in this case you are wrong. Before you can have any kind of discussion, experiment, argument, whateever, you have to define your terms. Evidence is of primary importance, sure, but evidence of what? If you (and I obviously mean the universal "you") don't agree on some kind of "bottom line" you might as well not start the conversation in the first place. (see my first post in this thread to avoid repitition).
As Suzette said in another post, in the the social sciences (I have an MA in Social Anthropology and an ABD PHD in Linguistic Anthropology)where you are, by necessity, dealing with subjective and somewhat amorphous concepts, you spend a lot of time defining your terms and clarifying the area of discussion just so you know everyone is in the same ballpark).
Even in the harder sciences this holds true. You can't talk aboput something, even to debunk it, if everyone involved doesn't mean the same thing by the same words.
I see what you're saying, but with a concept as amorphous (twice in the same post??!!) as "ch'i), which as I said before has a multitute of literal an figurative meanings, I think we must either define the term or forgoe the discussion. desu ne
with utmost respect,
p.s. it seems to me that you are, in fact, intelligent and well read
maurice richard libby
toronto/moose jawRonin at large
[This message has been edited by maurice richard libby (edited February 19, 2000).]