Uechi-Ryu.com

OK, here we go.

Now, this thread has been quite entertaining, but the topic has kind of been lost, and I'm not sure it's now following Suzette's guidelines. The last few posts seem to have gradually devolved into (very witty and subtle) ad hominum jibes.

Now, to address JD's dismissal of the need or rationality of defining "ki". There are large numbers of discussions of the concept, ideas for experiments, et, etc. Ther trouble is that no two people seem to mean the same thing by the word. Some use it as a synonym/translation for "energy", some for "air" or "breath" (all legitimate translations). Some mean by it a metaphysical concept, some a mysterious form of energy.

I think, like Suzette, that the first step in any discussion should be to define the terms. You can't really even make an hypothesis if the words you are using have no clear meaning. And you can't do an experiment without an intelligent/intelligeable terminology.

So: what do we mean by ch'i/ki?

yours,
maurice

------------------
maurice richard libby
toronto/moose jaw
Ronin at large

To be a little flippant, which in light of the apparent absurdity of the quest we've saddled ourselves with, might be okay, let's just call it cheese!

"I projected the power of my cheese on the hapless mugger, rendering him unconscious. Then I took his wallet! HA HA HA HA!!!!!

------------------
sean

It is not possible to decide whether something does or does not exist when you have not yet agreed upon a definition for the item. In such a context, "evidence" is irrelevant.

Suzette

JD

See how civilized we can be?

My last word on this is just the observation that, for me, at least, it is very difficult to ask a question, or address a problem, if the terms aren't defined beforehand.

i.e. "It's patently obvious that ki (whatever that means) does/doe not exist."

Someday, when I finally make it out to the left coast, we can continue this over a dram of Lagavulin or a long espresso.

as always,
with respect,
maurice

------------------
maurice richard libby
toronto/moose jaw
Ronin at large

[This message has been edited by maurice richard libby (edited February 19, 2000).]

JD,

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,
maurice

p.s. it seems to me that you are, in fact, intelligent and well read

------------------
maurice richard libby
toronto/moose jaw
Ronin at large

[This message has been edited by maurice richard libby (edited February 19, 2000).]

To Doctor X:

With regard to your claim that evidence is never irrelevant, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

However, it is precisely because neither "angel" nor "head of a pin" nor "tango" (usually, "dance," though less witty) is an undefined term that it's possible to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Suzette