Talk:Qi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed for discussion -- what does this passage really mean?

Views of qi as an esoteric "force" tend to be more prominent in the West, where it has sometimes been associated with New Age spiritualism. These views are less prominent in modern communist China, where traditional Chinese medicine is often practiced and considered effective, but in which esoteric notions of qi are considered to contradict Marxist notions of dialectic materialism. China's current government in fact formally embraces anti-spiritual atheism. Many traditional martial arts schools also eschew a supernatural approach to the issue, identifying "external qi" or "internal qi" as representative of the varying leverage principles used to improve the efficacy of a well-trained, healthier than normal body with a given work load.

"More prominent in the West"? More prominent there than where?

What are these "esoteric" notions of qi? Discussions about qi have been going on for more than 2000 years, and there is nothing secret about them.

Do the traditional ideas of qi really contradict Marxism? There is no god involved, no "out of this universe" reality that explains what is really real. So what is the Marxist complaint, if it really exists. It ought to be possible to document this complaint for the article if it is really being made.

The part about "varying leverage principles" is at best very badly stated (and I'm not sure what the writer was trying to assert). Chinese MA knows about leverage as anybody who has studied qin na or aikido becomes acutely aware. But qi is about what what one puts into the systems of levers. The levers are just bones and connective tissue, and they would follow their leverage rules even if they were powered by hydraulic systems. P0M 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I was working with my second MA teacher, 陳眉壽 Chen Mei-shou, I used to watch him as he walked around the dojo. Whether coming upstairs, or going downstairs or just walking across the tatami, he would frequently raise one or both hands palm-up to a little above shoulder level as though he were raising a sparrow to eye level to have a good look at it, rotate his hand to point palm-down and then slowly push his hand down, basically all on a straight vertical line that followed him wherever he went. He had other little exercises like that. I judged, based on things that he had said in class, that he was inhaling as he raised his hand and exhaling as he depressed it. And I decided that it was one of his ways of practicing keeping all of his activities consistent with each other.

Years later I was working with a great Wado teacher, Mr. Kurobane, and he criticized my beginning attempts at sparring. He said I couldn't accomplish very much if I was going forward to attack with my fist but my feet were retreating at the same time. That's what I mean above by consistency of motions. But integration of function goes beyond that kind of thing.

My very first teacher was a White Crane teacher, and all the kata that he taught to me involved a peculiar kind of breathing exercise. He said it was intended to strengthen my abdominals so that if somebody tried to knock the wind out of me I'd have the strength to protect myself. But I noticed that although a few minutes before I had been so cold that my hands were turning blue and I could hardly hold a pen to write my lessons with, soon after I began this exercise I was more than comfortably warm, and after class I could sit around without my ski sweater and leather jacket on and still feel comfortable. One of the things that I know that this exercise does is to raise core body temperature. It has kept me comfortable while sleeping in snow caves in Colorado in the winter and while bobbing around dealing with a capsized sail boat in a northern lake in the spring time. But there are those who say that one also learns to more quickly and effectively mobilize energy in the body (glycogen to glucose), increase the number of muscle fibres that fire together when an emergency burst of force is required, etc. All of these things have to do with how much energy I can direct out against the world, either to move things away or to keep them from driving in toward me. That energy can be put into some move that involves leverage, but that doesn't change the mechanical advantage of a particular lever set-up.

The Japanese word "aikido" is, literally, the way that is concerning with joining one's qi with the qi of one's opponent. That idea has something to do, peripherally at least, with the idea of leverage because what one is aiming to be able to do is to make oneself and one's opponent part of the same physical system and to do so in such a way that one becomes the pivot (literally or figuratively) around which this system moves. To do so requires more than just physically attaching oneself to one's opponent. In fact, actually grabbing one's opponent effectively gives him a free grip on you. Instead, one wants to join the system by which one is aware of and controls one's own body to the other person's system, but to become the "living" part of the system while the opponent becomes either the paralyzed or at least the spastic part of the system. Again, the key idea is to mobilize energy from one's bodily researves (or borrow from the Taiji if you believe the theories), and direct its application so perfectly so that the total system (oneself alone or oneself as linked to an opponent) is integrated and does what you want it to with the minimum expenditure of energy, the minimum application of force. Somebody grabs both your shoulders from behind and you send him flying by lying down for a nap. Well, maybe just a short rest. But it requires very little energy and creates a great effect. All it requires is that you do it so impeccably that the attacker is flying before he realizes that he ought to have let go.

And one other thought. My Praying Mantiss teacher used to stress the idea of a jìng dào, a sort of "power configuration" through which actions had to travel to be truly effective. How does one get a bullwhip to snap? Two people pick up the same bull whip. The experienced user can make it snap. The beginner cannot. The "levers" involved are the same for everybody. Whether the whip snaps or not depends on the path in space and time that the various parts of the whip move through. Similarly, using a technique similar to Taiji quan to pick up a 200 pound man as though he weighed 20 pounds depends almost entirely on how two bodies interact when both move toward each other and contact at a certain point in the "power configuration" of each forward motion. The only real leverage use comes immediately after contact when the person doing the lifting may pivot to change the trajectories of the two bodies from "straight on" to "far gone." P0M 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Scrabble

Qi is a commonly used word to get rid of the letter Q. Perhaps this should be mentioned? :P 91.105.49.201 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article from eCAM -- measuring qi?

What Is Qi? The article is, eh, interesting. He references someone who claims to have measured qi. I'll admit I'm skeptical, but apparently the researcher measured something? Make what you will of it. II | (t - c) 21:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters in article

Does anyone else find the characters used as illustrative in the infobox to be confusing and inelegant? The "antique version" (I've seen original inscriptions of the "modern" character that date from ca. 500 BC) is unexplained and (to my mind) illegible, and I can read Chinese. --Fire Star 火星 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the style of the writing is much too fancy graphic design. It took a while to convice myself that he modern one was correct. I can't comment on the antique one. I just reduced the size as they were much to big in the version when they were introduced.[1] --Salix alba (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The "antique version" is just totally wrong. I can't even figure out how it would look if it were written out with a Chinese writing brush. It might be an attempt to represent some Daoist talismanic form or something (maybe it's supposed to be 炁?), but it has nothing to do with the way the Oracle Bone forms look. I can scan or otherwise reproduce a true Oracle Bone form. The explanation of the traditional character is wrong too. The present simplified form is actually the slightly stylized form of the original Oracle Bone form. The traditional form was originally used to refer to a kind of presentation of food to guests and diagrammed the qi or vapor rising from newly cooked rice that was so offered. That is why there is a 米 in there. Later on I suppose the rather sketchy original form of 氣 which is what you have left after removing the rice, was getting misread unless it was very carefully written so people started to use the more complicated character. Then when that happened they still needed a word for the guest-feeding-related term so they wrote 餼 for that meaning. P0M 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a new image that gives correct information. P0M 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The new images are an improvement, thanks. --Fire Star 火星 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to see but am not competent to add myself is the entire suite of historical characters for qi, using the same set as the Chinese character article: Oracle Bone Script, Seal Script, Clerical Script, Semi-Cursive Script, Cursive Script, Regular Script (Traditional), and Regular Script (Simplified). I have searched the web without success for such a reference set for qi. I would also like to know if there is a book in the reference section that covers the character representations of qi in depth. I am especially interested in the Oracle Bone form of the word, and wonder whether its usage today would create confusion with the character for the number 3 or with any other Chinese character, but this last question may be beyond the level of detail appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Even without any of these changes, the existing article is very useful, so thanks to those who have worked on it. Toad42 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The top of the article currently has the oracle, seal, and traditional forms. I guess we could put the whole set at the top of this talk page, but I don't think so much calligraphy belongs in the article. The Chines character for 3 is made with three very straight lines. The oracle bone form of qi is made with three wavy lines. It is possible that the later forms developed because sloppy writing could create mistakes in communication. P0M 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've figured out where the ancient Chinese character of qi comes from.

That particular arrangment of lines and dashes follows the kind of characters used in the I-Ching, which is a Taoist/Confucian book of divination. That arrangment of two lines with a dash in the middle translates as the element of "fire. You could look at it as qi is thought to be the "fire" or energy that makes life possible.

http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm

Scroll down until you see the picture of the Eight Trigrams on your left. The very bottom arrangment is the line of fire which is the closest to the character for Qi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.25.88 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Qi section needs rewrite

This section is strongly POV, and it so much written from the point of view of the average Western person that it is difficult to see the problem.

The first sentence says:

The nature of qi is a matter of controversy among those students of the subject who accept it as a valid concept, while those who dismiss its very existence ignore it, except for purposes of discussion with its adherents.

To me, this passage says that there might be something called qi, but, whatever it is not even those who "accept it as a valid concept" can agree on what it is. And then there are those who are only concerned to tear qi down because they do not believe in it. Presumably the believe in something else then.

Notice that by a sleight of hand qi has been given the status of a concept and not something that is purportedly real and about which concepts have been formulated. If that sounds o.k. to you, try something like:

Matter is a concept.

Energy is a concept.

Henry Kissinger is a concept.

God is a (mere) concept.

In all these cases, people have experiences of a something, or a set of somethings, and then they try to conceptualize the "something" in a fruitful way.

Look at the history of the use of the word "qi." Chinese people saw something going on. Their minds drew this "thing" out from the cluttered background of experience and said, "Something is going on here, and here, and here... And it's all the same somehow. I'm going to call it "qi," and here's how I think it works, what I think it is."

The same thing happened in the West with our idea of "matter." Actually, its history has a few more wrinkles in it than does the Chinese idea of qi, but it's pretty clear that the Western people who discuss matter and the Chinese people who discuss qi are often trying to talk about the same phenomena.

Similarly, the Western people who talk about Platonic ideas, Aristotelian forms, etc., are talking about the same general kind of phenomena, regularities of appearance, functioning, etc., that the Chinese are talking about when they are discussing li.

It is incorrect to say that the meaning of the word "qi" is the same as the meaning of the word "matter". The words are obviously different, but the concepts that are attached to them also prove (and you don't have to dig very deep, either) to be different.

A parallel situation occurs in the physics of the early 20th century. Everybody knew light when they saw it. They had even figured out that there was light at frequencies that humans could not see. But some of the people who investigated light conceptualized it as a wave -- and for very good reasons. Similarly, some of the investigators characterized it as a particle -- also for undeniably good reasons.

Some wag tried to skate around the issue by calling light a "wavicle," but everybody knew that was a joke. So was "wave light" to be explained in terms of "particle light" or vice-versa? It turned out that you couldn't do either.

So here you had two different fundamental concepts, neither reducible to the other. Investigate light one way and you'll see its wave nature. Investigate light the other way and you see its particle nature. But then you are stuck with the two of them.

For the Chinese, qi is a fundamental concept. Unless you go to the metaphysical level, there is no more way to explain qi than there is to explain matter. It is a fundamental concept, something that is used to explain other things. It is not composed of something else. It is not divisible into sub-components. It just is.

For the West, matter is a fundamental concept. String theory tries to go deeper, but so far nothing in that realm of discourse has panned out very well. The deepest our knowledge now goes is that matter and energy are somehow aspects of the same "thing," i.e., matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter.

If one person looks at the jet emerging from a boiling tea pot and says, "That's steam, a form of matter, coming out the spout," and another person looks at the same thing and says, "That's zheng qi, a form of qi, coming out the spout," you have two people looking at the same thing. One is naming and conceptualizing it one way, and the other is naming and conceptualizing it a different way. When you compare two concepts you will either find out that they are actually identical (as when Schrödinger's quantum theory turned out to be mathematically convertible into Heisenberg's quantum theory -- even though they looked much different in the forms they originally appeared in), or you will find that there is what Aquinas called a "conflict of notes," i.e., the category definitions conflict with each other in some fatal way. If that happens you can't decide things by privileging one system or the other. If you start out by defining the Chinese system as correct, then of course the Western system will be "wrong," and vice-versa.

So saying "Your idea of qi can't be right because it disagrees with Newton's Physics right here on page 283," only works if you assume that Newton is unassailable. If God spoke in Newton's ear, then qi is a bum idea. But we already know that God didn't speak in Newton's ear. Even so, we are not stymied yet.

The correct way to discover whether qi or whether matter is a correct way to start describing the Universe is not to do something analogous to 20th century physicists going to Rome and debating wave vs. particle before the Pope. The way to discover whether these are valid conceptualizations, conceptualizations that we have no good reason to throw away, is to work with them in a cogent way to see whether they lead us astray.

Surprise! Matter led us astray. Newton told us that matter was matter now and evermore, and energy was energy forever and ever. When it turned out that matter could be converted into energy we did not abandon those concepts, we just tailored them to fit reality a bit closer.

So what can we say about qi? We can say that some people in the West do not accept that conceptualization of nature because it covers most of the same ground that their concept of "matter" covers and they are uncomfortable with overlapping descriptions of nature. We can say that some people in the West accept the conceptualization because when they use it in certain spheres it allows them to predict ways of achieving desirable results and avoiding undesirable results.

We have a huge job to explain qi. If we want to include the metaphysical explanation (or the Chinese equivalent of the Big Bang theory if you will), then we have to go all the way back to the Tai Ji, how it, a thing outside of space and time, "moves" and produces Yin-Yang, and then how qi comes about as a result of this process that is largely outside our awareness. Even if we just stick with qi, Chinese use it to explain all kinds of phenomena, and it would be easy to exceed the 32K limit just briefly introducing all these wrinkles.

Do we really want to spend a lot of attention on the fact that another system with different fundamental premises will prove incompatible with it sooner or later? Do we really need to referee a dispute between groups of people who may not understand either their own or their opponents philosophies in depth? Probably what we need to do is to point out that when one does cross-system comparisons there are bound to be incompatibilities by the very nature of the comparison being made. P0M 08:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you have a pretty weak understanding of physics. Newton does not say anything about whether or not matter can or cannot become energy. Matter is just defined in a useful and direct fashion. At least in mechanics your energy equations are going to have matter. But the more important distinction is that matter has a clear definition qi does not. Can you give me a single defintion for qi that no one will dispute and I can then go into some context without your help identify what is and what is not qi with a high degree of reliability? This can be done with matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.105.3.10 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Patrick0Moran contests that qi is on a par with modern physics. No doubt the PRC will be revealing the qi version of the Large Hardon Collider forthwith, along with a scientific foundation and some measurements, falsifiable theories, etc, you know, all that "stuff" that the nasty West demands if qi is not to be considered "meaningless guff, save to those who profess to believe in it, whenever they define what it is". Wee Jimmy (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Qi/Ki

(Violations of WP:TALK removed.) -- Fyslee (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropiate to add proper references to your material being discussed.--Standforder (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A major addition: Early texts

I have put in a section on what the Chinese actually said about qi during the first several centuries. I note that much of the rest of this article lacks citations. Some of the ideas expressed seem plausible, but we need the actual citations.

At one point the text says something that I'd really like to have a citation for. Well, actually I think it is probably just wrong, but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. The sentence is:

By contrast to some earlier thinkers, the Neo-Confucians criticized the notion that qi exists as something distinct from matter, and viewed qi as arising from the properties of matter. Most of the theories of qi as a metaphor for the fundamental physical properties of the universe that we are familiar with today were systematized and promulgated in the last thousand years or so by the Neo-Confucians.

First, the Chinese did not have the concept of "matter." What they did have, and what the writer may have been referring to , is the concept of 質 zhi. Unfortunately for my now half hairless head, they barely bother to even make a drive-by stab at defining this term. Seen in context over and over again I finally felt confident enough to translate it as "materialized life breath." They seem to believe that qi can somehow be concentrated, precipitated, coagulated, inspissated... Then, like a ghost in a novel or like somebody coming out of the Startrek transporter, the stuff "materializes" in solid form somewhere. It can also go back into its "qi" phase. But nobody is very clear on how it is all supposed to happen. But I don't recall any argument about this idea. It is already in the Huai Nan Zi, and nobody argues against that idea either as far as I know.

The one idea that perhaps comes closest to that of a qi that "exists distinct from matter" would be the account that says that in the beginning there was something called "primal qi" and that it (somehow) got itself together to form things. So according to that theory, qi was first and organization (li) came afterwards.

What actually happens in Neo-Confucianism, and particularly in the philosophy of Zhu Xi, is that they have two theories going and can't decide how to get rid of one or the other. They're both too venerable I guess. Anyway, modern scholars of Neo-Confucianism such as Mou Zong-san claim adamantly that Zhu Xi was a dualist. He believed that li and qi were co-eval, and that for whatever reason li get hold of qi and shapes it into the forms that we experience in our everyday world. But modern scholars like Tang Jun-yi argue just the opposite, saying that Zhu Xi is a monist, that primal li is (like whatever is "before" the Big Bang) is outside the Universe, that it "moves" (whatever that can mean when you are talking about something with no phenomenal traits), and that in its waxing it produces cosmic Yang and then in its waning it produces cosmic Yin, and then it goes back to its waxing phase.

I will rewrite the passage I've quoted above unless somebody comes up with a citation. P0M 04:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that it wasn't just Taoists who were interested in "Qi." It is every bit as much a Confucian concept too. Evangeline (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I've always known the word to be pronouned 'chee'. Is this correct, or is the word mispronounced because of the common 'ch' spelling? The other spellings make it look as though it would be pronounced 'kee'. Could someone in the know add a pronunciation to this article?--Jcvamp 05:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mandarin pronunciation of the word is indeed "chee" with a kind of clipped quality, the "falling" fourth tone of Mandarin. In Japanese, it is ki or "kee" without any tonal consideration. In other dialects and languages it varies considerably. The pinyin romanisation "qi", despite becoming more common, is not a satisfactory spelling in any event. --Fire Star 火星 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. In terms of transliteration, I've always known 'q' to be pronounced 'k', which is why I asked. Shouldn't this article be renamed to reflect the more common 'ch' spelling?--Jcvamp 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. There should be a better pronunciation guide for those, like yourself, who know nothing about Pinyin. No offense intended - Pinyin is better than Wade-Giles ("Peking," "Tai Ch'i Chuan") but only at the cost of ease-of-use for many speakers of Western languages ("Beijing," "Taiji Chuan"). In Mandarin, the phoneme represented in English by "qi" is, as Fire Star correctly told you, pronounced like "chee" as in "cheese," only with a bit of a clipped quality to the initial sound. I've forgotten my descriptive phonology, but suffice it to say that if you start with a heavy shhhhhh! sound, open your lips a bit more, then head in the direction of Cheese, but keep it a very short sound, you're quite close. Compare to the difficulty of teaching an American how to pronounce "xiao" or "xie xie" or "Xing-Yi" (Hsing-I). In other words, your question is good, the answer is "no, but we should add to the entry."Eh Nonymous 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least my question could initiate a change for the better in the article.--Jcvamp 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the word is spelled "qi" in Pinyin romanization is that it was judged desirable to use different symbols for different sounds, and the sounds that we English speakers misinterpret as the same as the "ch" in "cheese" are actually two different ones. The English "ch" (for most but not all speakers) is made by placing the tip of the tongue on the "corner" of the hard ridge behind the upper front teeth. The Chinese "qi" sound is made by placing the tip of the tongue down behind the lower front teeth and making the tongue bell up so that the flat part of the tongue a half inch or so beyond the tip touches the aforementioned hard ridge area. On the other hand the "ch" sound that is represented by "ch" in Pinyin romanization is made with the tip of the tongue curled back in the mouth to a place close to the back hend of hard ridge that runs from front to back along the top of your mouth. (It took me a whole year in Taiwan to figure out the ji, qi, and xi sounds--all made in the same part of the mouth--and I could never hear the difference until a teacher happened to recite the alphabet as "a, b, xi, d, e, f, ji..." Suddenly the xi, and ji sounds stood out as the wrong sound--not for Chinese but for the English alphabet.)

All that being said, I'm not sure that we should have anything in the article other than a link to the pronunciation of Chinese sounds. When speakers with a prominent New Jersey accent speak English to the rest of us we notice the difference but we are not greatly impeded in our understanding of what they say. It hsppens that they are making their "gee," "chee," etc. sounds the way Chinese make theirs. So if Americans from other parts of the country can deal with the minor differences without great inconvenience, then Chinese people can probably tolerate a small variance in the opposite direction coming from most speakers of American English.

What is annoying to me is the mispronunciation of Beijing as "bay zhzhzhing." I don't know who learned the wrong way during Nixon's trip to China, but the incorrect speech sound seems to have propagated from that time. Maybe it was King Richard himself who got it wrong. Who would have dared to correct him? P0M 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So it's the same (or similar) to a Scandinavian "tj" sound ?76.113.104.88 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole Beige Shing issues another matter but Qi according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com is a variant of Chi not the preferred term. I stumbled on this artical and thought I'd taken a wrong turn. Chi/Chee I've heard of but Qi/Ki/Kwi is something else.203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chi and ch'i spellings

If qi has the same meaning as "chi" and "ch'i", I suggest that they be briefly mentioned in the introduction, preferably in the first or second sentence. For example:

In traditional Chinese culture, qi, also spelled chi or ch'i, (simplified Chinese: 气; traditional Chinese: 氣; Mandarin Pinyin: qì; Wade–Giles: ch'i; Jyutping: hei; pronounced /ˈtʃiː/ in English; [tɕʰî] in Standard Mandarin; Korean: gi; Japanese: ki; Vietnamese: khí, pronounced [xǐ]) is an active principle forming part of any living thing.

In addition, I think it would be preferable to give the different spellings in various Asian languages in a second sentence, as it is difficult to follow the first sentence at first because of the long list that is not part of the sentence. For example:

In traditional Chinese culture, qi, also spelled chi or ch'i, is an active principle forming part of any living thing. The spelling of qi in other languages includes simplified Chinese: 气; traditional Chinese: 氣; Mandarin Pinyin: qì; Wade–Giles: ch'i; Jyutping: hei; pronounced /ˈtʃiː/ in English; [tɕʰî] in Standard Mandarin; Korean: gi; Japanese: ki; Vietnamese: khí, pronounced [xǐ].

I am not sure how to introduce the various spellings of qi, and I welcome more elegant language.

Also, the article switches to the "chi" spelling in the middle of the section titled "Definition". Unless there is a reason for this alternative spelling, the word should be consistently spelled "qi".

I know Wikipedia style, but not this topic, so that is the limit of my input. With a normal article, I would have made the changes and moved on, letting others revert or modify my writing. However, this topic seems to be exceptionally contentious, so I am putting my suggestions on this talk page, and other people can decide to use them or not. I will not monitor this talk page or article, so you will need to use my talk page to get my attention. I do not think I have anything more to add, though. - Kjkolb (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifying, grammar

I made the changes I proposed above, as no one voiced any objections or support. The article's introduction had changed since I wrote the comment above, so it is not exactly the same as the example I gave. I also wikified and cleaned up the article as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The manual is not just the one page. It has many others. The old layout was easier to follow, at least to me. I strongly recommend reading the main pages of the manual, or at least those pages that are applicable to the type of editing that you engage in. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) would be helpful if you create or clean up articles. Anyway, I attempted to fix the many grammar problems with the article. By far the most common problem was the use of apostrophes, quote marks and italics for emphasis. This is supposed to be done sparingly. I also suggest using them to provide clarity when truly necessary. Again, please use my user talk page if you want my attention. -- Kjkolb (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Yogic science"?

Oh please, it's a religion or concept but it's not "science". I'm going to change it to something more sensible but I did want to start a discussion in case people feel strongly about it. Huw Powell (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A new contributor argues against "energy"

The following material was included directly in the article. It has been moved here for discussion. P0M 06:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Energy a Good Translation for Chi…? At the beginning of our time, the ancient Chinese once thought that Chi was the micro-substance which made up all the matter in the universe. Thus the term Chi has a great influence in the Tradition Chinese Medicine (TCM). The term Chi has many meanings depends on the context. For example, Chi by itself means air. However, in Chi Kung, we are involved in breathing methods, therefore, Chi means breathing here. Hence, Chi Kung is an ultimate breathing method.

In TCM, the term Chi was used very loosely. In my native acupuncture book described Chi as follows: Chi is the functional activities of the internal organs. In order for our body to be in the state of homeostasis, the organs must interact with each other. One organ produced a product and passed on to another. For example, the liver converts the glycogen into glucose and carried by the blood inside the body. It is considered that Chi is flowing properly; because the liver is performing its function, which is part of the somatic activities. If the liver stop functioning, not able to convert glucose to keep the Chi flow, it is considered that Chi is clogged.

The TCM practitioner might say that the Chi is weak in one’s body. It simply means that some of the organs are not functioning properly. This is how Chi is expressed in the Chinese society. Among the Chinese people, they just know the term Chi, but cannot explain it explicitly.

There is an old Chinese proverb says: If something is not named correctly, then it cannot be described properly. In the case of Chi, translated as Energy. The original meaning has been changed completely. As we can see, Energy does not match the meanings as described above. Unfortunately, scientists tried to conduct experiment on this imaginary Energy theory and still have not come to any conclusion. Why, it is because due to the mistranslation of the term Chi as Energy. We are abided by the limited definition of Energy; and went off tangent of the right track.

If we treated Chi as Chi, then we may find a way to prove it as energy. If we cannot prove it as Energy, then we still have Chi to work with. In fact, Chi is not Energy; it has to be something else. Now, Chi is still an open item to be investigated. In the other word, if we insist Chi as Energy, it will be a dead end.

In conclusion, the mistranslation of Chi as Energy is due to the language barrier between two cultures. Chi was never meant as a form of energy in the Chinese society. Calling Chi as Energy is totally mistranslated. Mistranslation will cause misinterpretations and misleading. The imaginary Energy is causing the scientific investigation come to a co-de-sac. That is why, up until now, modern science still cannot come up with a scientific explanation.ChiDragon 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many good points in the above discussion. Western translators of high repute have been guilty of translating such terms as "qi" with whatever words sound right to them in English. The Western idea of energy as we use it today is a very sophisticated concept. The Chinese did not have an indigenous term with the same energy, so translations of terms like "solar energy" are somewhat problematical. (Fortunately physicists get to deal with lab instruments, measurements, calculations, etc., so the conceptual problem is not too bad.)

By the time people in China were getting rather technical in their discussions of qi, especially with the creation of Zhu Xi's philosophy, qi and li were seen as mutually aspective. In some contexts it seems appropriate to translate li as "potential," because li tells us whether something can possibly occur, or whether it is likely to occur. So it is difficult to find qi discussed in isolation where we might better assess how close it comes to meaning something like "energy." Much earlier, what we call the radient energy emitted by a fire may have been explained as the qi given off by the burning wood. But we never find cases (to my knowledge at least) where one talks about "harvesting" the qi of a fire and investing it somehow in another process.

Some acupuncturists maintain that in treating a patient they can somehow deplete their own system of a certain amount of qi and transfer it to the patient. Qi seems to be regarded as a fluid, not as an energy field or a flux of photons or anything like that. But we need specific quotations to be able to get clear on what is actually being claimed. The result of the transfer of qi is not necessarily immediately manifested. It does not result in a heating of the body parts being treated, for instance. It does not feel like an electrical current being directed through some body part. If one were to speak of it as "emergy" in this context then one would have to hypostatize something like a car battery that could be charged by the contribution of the acupuncturist. But, to the contrary, the understanding seems to be that qi flows into the patient's body and "does its own thing" over the next several hours. Calling qi energy just draws in all sorts of unwanted comparisons and assumptions. P0M 06:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to go to a Chinese trained acupuncturist and Qi Gong therapist, and had a similar conversation with him. As someone with a training in Western science, I suggested that qi was much more like a form of negative entropy (or positive order) than energy, and that release of heat expected during a successful treatment conformed with thermodynamic mathematical equations if one replaced "-S" with "Q". Sasha (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is comforted by the works of this guy on the meaning of Qi: http://www.traditionalstudies.org/chinese-medicine/20-online-seminars-chinese-medicine/online-seminars/159-demystifying-qi (this is 40mn of discussions on the meaning of the character Qi, followed by commentaries from his own experience of how Qi is perceived by chinese people)

I Personally do think it is too bad so much mystifying informations is given in wikipedia, there should maybe be a page about Qi as the original concept, and Qi as interpreted as energy in western culture. But it is true that the "Qi metaphor", as explained above, is used in practice in martial arts (see for example: http://www.martialtaichi.co.uk/articles/practical_guide_to_qi.php) Victor, 12:58, 28 December 2012 (sorry, I don't have an account...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.147.248.154 (talk)

Qi in the martial arts

“ Qi is a central concept in many Chinese, Korean and Japanese martial arts. While a traditional Neo-Confucian explanation of the principle is given in most martial art schools, many New Age-oriented or neo-ninja schools approach the subject from a more syncretist point of view, especially in the west. ”

I'm not quite sure what is trying to be said here, but 'Neo-Confucian' and 'syncretist' doesn't quite explain their beliefs, only who they are. Reading the rest of the article helps somewhat, but there should be a more thorough explanation of the different beliefs regarding Qi in martial arts.

— Sasuke Sarutobi 11:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept of qi has two sides to itself. I base myself primarily on early Chinese classics as huinanzi, guanzi, sunzi,huangdineijing In Chinese Daoism's daocang (daoist canon ) qi is in described in several places as that the presence of dao brings the arrival of qi. Qi is seen in the context of jing and shen, the three make word combinations: jingqi, shenqi, shenjing etc. every time emphazing the subtle interactions between Shen as awareness, jing as that what keeps the body together in its form (xing), qi as the functional effectiveness of an action. That meaning is commonly used in martial arts when speaking of qi. In that sense it is interesting to see that in Chinese language "qi" usually follows another word. example: Qi is sometimes translated as air. That translation is wrong, even though it is popularly used by both amateur and professional translators. It only means air if it follows kong (空), then writing kongqi (空气). Kong means emptiness, hence Kongqi means qi of kong, functional action of emptiness. This example shows how Chinese language reveals how culture defines meaning and science. Study of culture and language writing and speaking is one of the core tasks in study of qi in traditional martial arts in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qi&action=edit&section=10#Cui Li-Ou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cui Li-Ou (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ki?

Even though "ki" is directed here, there is no discussion of "ki" versus "ch'i", making the assumption that they are the same. No Japanese sources, of which there must be many. Kortoso (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Circular reference?

Currently on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi it states "Chi may refer to:", with the 4th one down being "Ch'i or qi (氣), "energy force" in Chinese culture", and "qi" linking to this page. However, at the top of this page it states that Qi is "Not to be confused with Chi or KI", and Chi linking back to the page stating that Chi may in fact refer to Qi. This seems contradictory, although I am unsure what the correct way to resolve the contradition would be. Mvandemar (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Happened to come to his page while looking up Qi, the TV show hosted by Stephen Fry, but why is there this terrible parody of an ad that links to the AR-15 page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.224.27 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

An error or vandalism. Thanks for noticing. Has been repaired. Xenxax (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with ki abilities

I think this is a valid category. Though pperhaps the name should be qi abilities? User:Ryulong keeps reverting my edits. There is a discussion at the administrators noticeboard involving us. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Article lacks any scientific credibility

Article reads as if "qi" or "ki" is a scientifically accepted quantifiable empriical entity. It absolutely is not. The whole concept submits itself to the false logic of prop hoc ergo propter hoc- that is if A happens because of B, despite and in total ignorance or denial of whatever coincidental or chance causality, B must cause A. I argue that the article needs far more CON and much less PRO.

• There are no QUALITY peer-reviewed scientific texts or journals ever used to support "qi'.
• The article selectively avoids the argument negating its existence/

1000 years ago, most Westerners thought the earth was flat and 4000 years old. This illustrates the false logic of popular thought- thousands of scholars and tonnes of literature arguing till blue in the face that this premise was true- has been proven utterly false. The argument of the existence of chi is best described as Existential_fallacy After some investigation, the Chinese philosopher/scholar Gongsun Long complements Aristotelian logic and critical thinking. Furthermore the entire article meets all of the following logical fallacies and fallacious argument propositions:

• NO Critical thinking. Critical thought employs not only logic (formal or, much more often, informal) but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance.
• appeal to tradition, false analogy, Loki's wager, thought-terminating cliche, causal oversimplification, false attribution, proof via verbosity,
• Definite description, law of excluded middle, true-believer syndrome, observational selection, vacuous truth, argument by artifice.

If "Chinese Science" and other such new age drivel is to be passed of truly as a science and not an art or series of folk tales it must meet the evidence by [proof]] criteria of Western science. Otherwise, like all folk-beliefs, regardless of origin, it is a masterwork of sophistry. The article needs a major er-write to shed its: appeal to tradition, false analogy, Loki's wager, thought-terminating cliche, causal oversimplification, *appeal to tradition, false analogy, Loki's wager, thought-terminating cliche, causal oversimplification, false attribution, proof via verbosity,

• Definite description, law of excluded middle, true-believer syndrome, observational selection, vacuous truth, argument by artifice.

See also Bad Arguments :[[2]] And list of fallacies: [[3]] Notonegoro (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First, it's "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Second, citing lists of well-sounding, but inappropriate terms is sciolism!

Western science is the science I'm familiar with, therefore any other take on science is "drivel", right? Some WP users might actually want to research the pro side that you want to strip out though - me, or the mere 1.2 billion Chinese people on the planet perhaps - even if it has imperfect overlap with Western science. Wikipedia is a global resource, not a single hemisphere resource. K2709 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, modern science -- i.e. Western science -- is only a couple of hundred years old and prior to it we spent thousands of years believing in drivel. The fact that millions of people around the world still do is a blow against them, not against science. I'm curious as to how you intend to conduct your "research" -- using science, perhaps ? Besides, an ecyclopedia should make mention of facts, free of any agenda and with a firm basis in objectivity. A supernatural belief needs to be referred to as such (for example: "followers believe that....") and not be presented as something that is actually true.76.113.104.88 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In my own research into Qi (Ki) i came across the following book Nakayama, Shigeru “Academic and scientific traditions in China, Japan, and the west”, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo 1984 which I found helpful. As a scientist (physicist come sports engineer) and traditional martial arts practitioner/instructor its easy to see the worlds collide and a religious war ensue. The approaches of reductionism in the west vs. observation in the east (big generalisation here) naturally collide and some understanding of this can help. The idea was published in a reference I added to the wiki Qi entry and some of the text here http://www.aikidorepublic.com/aikiphysics/what-is-ki feedback on these thoughts always appreciated and happy to contribute further to this article without wanting to step on toes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckorama (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, regarding the OP: it may surprise some enthusiasts that a thousand years ago no one thought the earth was flat and scientific evidence for qi is not required.

The prosaic translation in the article, "stuff", should read "basic stuff", i.e. material, and it's not really so very mysterious and impenetrable to the "western mind" that moving stuff emerges naturally from more basic patterns of moving stuff, is it? Daoist and Neoconfucian usage, though less familiar than TCM, are more in the realm of natural philosophy and metaphysics—and they're not so very different from ancient philosophy in the west (the article gives energia, it could say dunamis just as easily). Qi has more than a few meanings, some of them frustratingly contradictory, but in TCM it clearly has less to do with philosophical issues... Still, the article helplessly suggests ancient Chinese thinkers didn't realize wind isn't a liquid or a solid.

I think the main defect of the article is this sort of condescension and indulging in the mystification of Chinese philosophy. Whatever it's medical merits may be, science should certainly weigh in when meridians are presented less figuratively and more speculatively, (impressive-sounding midichlorians are not required either).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that those responsible for editing this entry have done all they can to minimize the scientific evidence concluding that the entire concept of qi is pure garbage. The section detailing the scientific investigation into "qi" is pitifully short and it would seem someone has attempted to somehow provide some sort of false "balance" to the section by mentioning an MD Anderson newsletter that purportedly claims treatments that harness qi are somehow effective in the treatment of cancer. If one reads the source, one will see that such a claim is not being made at all. Furthermore, as is the case with almost all the entries involving pseudoscience(particularly when the pseudoscience in question is more esoteric)we get individuals claiming that demands for scientific evidence are inherently biased because, we are told, "science" is too "Western" and individuals from whichever region the pseudoscience in question arose have a different way of thinking that is equally valid, just different. What total nonsense. Science is a method, a system for testing hypotheses and arriving at conclusions based upon the evidence collected. This is true whether you live in the United States or in China. If people in China believe our solar system is geocentric, for example, they are still wrong, regardless of which "hemisphere" the evidence was gathered. Science is science. There is not "Western Science" and an equally valid "Chinese Science" and no amount of esoteric philosophizing or ridiculous accusations of cultural bias will change that fact. All of the valid, peer-reviewed studies into qi lead to one conclusion: qi simply does not exist. Qi is about as valid as humorism, although humorism was quickly discarded once it was disproven by modern medical research.74.134.145.218 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Header too long

The lead paragraph is waaaaaay too long and repeats info that is contained later in the article. Famousdog 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is currently six lines long. P0M 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cause I moved non-header stuff to a section of its own! Famousdog 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the article, so some repetition is par for the course. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Qi has a point among nothing word? [sect. "Etymology"]

Does among Qi word nothing point then not lack? --217.84.76.244 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sha Qi and Sheng Qi

There is missing information about Sha Qi which is negative energy and Sheng Qi which is positive energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Force and chi

A new editor has several times attempted to remove references to The Force from the page. Issues of learning to edit aside, I would argue that these references belong. The reference is properly sourced, and is a good fit for the page. We don't need for these two concepts to be perfectly the same, the analogy is useful for a reader looking to understand chi. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, my name is Jacob, And i want to be a little brief on some thing's between the two forces.

Now i have had a lot of conversations between chi and other mystical forces and how they are different. And i see you are a believer in Buddhism and the occult, but lets get to the very bottom. Lets start off with Star Wars, i want to bring to your very attention that the forces in Star Wars is based on supernatural events and not the force of nature. I will describe the forces, okay, you notice how "telekinesis" is mostly used in Star Wars, it is used by the top classes of Jedi including Yoda and Darth Vader and Luke Sky Walker, etc. Clearly some of you didn't quite understand what Yoda was saying in reference to Luke Sky Walker. When Yoda was saying to Luke, "Use the force around you Luke". He didn't met the force of nature, he met the force of "matter", i want you to clearly understand this. He met to use the force of matter by the influence of his mind, not nature not life force or Qi. He met "mind over matter of super consciousness". Now as for chi or Qi on the other hand, is unalike mind over matter. Chi is a physical power of inner force or inner strength, not the supernatural or mystical events. This is why some people and even my self get confused and frustrated on mystical forces and powers. I can't seem to understand why, why is that chi come in to place of everything in definition of "energy". I don't understand why, and I've been crying out loud on this subject for a long time. If you have any other opinions or preparations for this. Please start with this one, God bless.

— Jacob Merrill

Hello Jacob, and thank you for the friendly greeting.

Now, I take it that you have said that I am "a believer in Buddhism and the occult," because I am a member of WikiProject Buddhism & WikiProject Occult, but you might also take note that I'm a member of WikiProject Skepticism. My own personal beliefs are closest to Robert Anton Wilson when he said "I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions." But my beliefs, your beliefs, and anyone else's are not relevant here.

Wikipedia is constructed, not from the opinions of editors, but from reliable sources. As editors we must always keep in mind the core content policies, which tell us to focus always on what is said in peer-reviewed academic publications and reputable newspapers. Now your personal opinions may conflict with (or go beyond) what the sources say, but unless you can find a set of good sources to support your opinions they don't belong in Wikipedia.

If you have your heart set on excising references to The Force from this page, you need to research. Look at what the source(Porter, John A. (2003). The Tao of Star Wars. Humanics Trade Group. ISBN 978-0-89334-385-9.) says, look for other reliable sources that conflict with this opinion, ideally you want explicit refutations.

Best of luck to you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps references to "The Force" should merely be moved away from the article's opening section. Should a reference to Western pop culture be made in the opening section of an article about a Chinese religious concept that is well over 2000 years old? It seems childish to me to place it so prominently. Common practice on Wikipedia seems to be to place an "In Popular Culture" section at the very end of the article, because it is essentially trivia. DesertRat262 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree fully with this - seems to be more of a "In Popular Culture" reference Junkqwerty (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Direct to Qi disambiguation?

When searching "qi" or "Qi", users are redirected to this page. However, because the term "qi" has multiple meanings (such as "QI" the British game show or the states with the same name) should the users instead by redirected to the disambiguation page of Qi when they search for "qi"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.255.235 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Qi 炁 has a point among nothing 无 word."

This sentence appears in the Etymology section; I cannot work out what it is meant to mean, or what it has to do with the rest of the section. Is it an irrelevance that should be deleted, or did it used to make some sense? --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's trying to say that the some of the radical strokes forming the character "qi" by themselves form the character "nothing". Which is visually true; simply omit the upper left stroke and the four strokes at the bottom. This certainly is not unique to "qi", though; hundreds of characters share the same subset of radicals. So I'm not sure if this has any meaning for this article. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Even worse, it's only true for simplified characters. In traditional, it's 炁 (qì) and 無 (wú), with not even a visual relation beyond sharing the fire (火) radical at the bottom.. siafu (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

More accurate lede

Wouldn't it be more factually correct to reword the lede sentence (as of this edit) to something like this (some text omitted for brevity, new text underlined)?:

In traditional Chinese culture, qì or ch'i [...] is believed to be an active principle forming part of any living thing.

After all, there is no credible scientific evidence for qi, even after years of supposed research. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will go ahead and make this change. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing but slow edit war over last sentence in the lead

For some time now (earliest instance I found is from 22 Apr), one or more anonymous editors have repeatedly either removed or made the following change to the last sentence of the lead.

From:

Despite widespread belief in the reality of qi, it is a non-scientific, unverifiable concept.

To:

There is widespread belief in the reality of qi. It is a non-scientific, unverifiable concept.

And been quickly reverted by a variety of editors.

Nick Moyes put in his edit summary: Splitting one sentence into two parts subtly alters the emphasis, and is really not an improvement on the original one. That sums up the best reason I can see for preferring the original. This talk page post is intended to provide an opportunity for the anonymous editor (or editors) to explain or defend their changes.

Pinging: @Moriori, 2402:8200:178e:9900:1c6d:c490:7cf5:ff7a, 2402:8200:170a:4f00:7c15:9680:6de2:7650, 47.151.130.34, 2402:8200:171c:600:fcdb:dc80:36b:d45c, and 2402:8200:1722:6d00:c10b:de02:8b7:ca81

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Scientific Studies section

I have read through all of the sources referenced in the 'Scientific Studies' section as far back as 2011. They are all studies of the beneficial effects of qigong and tai chi, but where they find beneficial effects, the conclusions ascribe them to the physical benefits of exercise and the mental effects of meditation, mindfulness etc. Out of fourteen articles, only one of them makes any mention of qi, and that is in a general description of what qigong entails. Not one of them ascribes any of their findings to the flow of qi - even the article that mentions qi in its preamble explicitly states that they only looked at the physical exercise involved, and ascribes their findings to that.

If these studies belong anywhere, it is on the articles on qigong and tai chi. Every single one of them concludes that the physical exercise involved in these activities is beneficial to patients, and some of them suggest that the meditation aspects are calming; not a single one of sets out to examine whether qi exists. To suggest that their findings were related to the existence of qi would be OR. I haven't finished going through the whole list, but I've come to the conclusion that this entire section is not useful on this article, and suggest that it is deleted in its entirety. Thoughts?Girth Summit (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not taken the time to review the sources, but if what if you say is true then I agree with you. RobP (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I finished checking through them all. I couldn't access one of them (Lam, Wai-Lee, Sandy (2004)) because it was behind a paywall, but none of the other studies attempted to demonstrate the existence of qi - they were all studies of whether or not qigong or tai chi had beneficial effects on patients. One or two of them mention qi in their descriptions of what qigong is, but none claim to have demonstrated that qi is involved in any of the beneficial effects they report. The one that comes closest to this claim is probably Chen et al (2008), and even that uses language like "TCM believes that open meridians (smooth qi flow) support health..." and "It is assumed that qigong healer could use EQT [external qigong therapy] to break the qi blockage" - beliefs, assumptions, but no assertions or demonstrations. I conclude from this that none of these references adds anything to our knowledge of qi, and propose the removal of the entire section.Girth Summit (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! RobP (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Qi is vital energy whose flow must be balanced for health."

"Vital energy" is a specific concept that differentiates the living and nonliving. Qi flows through all things and evidenced through Feng Shui. I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentence. This is my justification.--174.130.35.148 (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Short Description

@Editor2020: You recently added the short description 'A vital force forming part of any living entity' to this article. I'm not too familiar with the guidelines for short descriptions, so I haven't reverted this, but isn't that a bit POV? Wouldn't a more accurate description be 'A vital force believed by adherents of traditional Chinese philosophy to form a part of any living entity'? I appreciate that's not as short, but the description as you wrote it seems to be asserting that qi actually exists, which isn't exactly uncontroversial. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll change it. Editor2020 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Far East

1. This concept may have been put forth initially as an explanation for the unexplainable in a time of limited scientific knowledge, but its practical use today is almost entirely related to physical exertion (especially martial arts) and traditional medicine. 2. In the martial arts, which are a form of exercise more than practical self-defense for most people today, the master instructs students to a. breathe fully and rhythmically b. be alert but not tense (not relaxed, although the breathing gives that impression) c. and to draw in energy from the air and all one's surroundings into oneself then redirect it through whatever physical motion you undertake (and not just for offensive or redirecting moves, but also for things like bracing for a strike to be inflicted upon oneself). a and b are familiar concepts to most serious athletes, and c is a good mental technique for heightening focus and environment (which includes opponents) awareness. Put all of them together and you have a pretty good mental approach to precision in both movement and generated energy (or force).

Interesting. William Harristalk 09:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions

Hi Xonq - you have been making some potentially contentious changes to this article today - please could you discuss the changes you want to make here, and the sources you want to use, before adding any more content? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello GirthSummit. I apologize for the quantity of changes - I'm relatively new to editing. The changes I have made are to provide a more balanced perspective in line with the literature. As the article currently stands, it firmly pronounces the snake oil qualities of Qi. While I understand that a broad portion of Qi's representation in alternative medicine is pseudoscience, complete rebuke of Qi is only considering the extreme pseudoscience perspective. I have cited some peer-reviewed research and reviews from robust academic journals that Qi-based practices, like Qigong and Tai Chi, may promote physiological and psychological wellbeing. The disparity in research is partially due to inability to define Qi in the scope of testable hypotheses , the bias of some research - for and against - (see previous citations), and the misrepresentation of Qi in practice. Again, as it stands, the Wikipedia article does not present a balanced perspective or consider that some of the research against Qi may be due to inaccurate definitions and bias underlying the research. In that line, I have problems with the second paragraph of the introduction because it is based upon a singular, refutable definition that may not coincide with the actual historical basis. the actual historical basis.

Hi Xong - you might want to read WP:TP - it gives some advice for how best to conduct talk page discussions, including the user of indentation, and the importance of signing your posts. (Note that notifications, like the ping you used above, don't work if you don't sign your post).

So, I took a look at those sources, but I'm not seeing any of them describe those practices as 'Qi-based' - none of them are ascribing any kind of beneficial effects to the actions, or even the existence, of Qi. The first one, for example, talks about the practice of Qigong exercise on mood and anxiety in elderly people. The idea that doing exercise of any sort would be beneficial for mood and levels of anxiety in elderly people is entirely uncontroversial; linking it to Qi, as you seem to be attempting to do, is a type of original research that we call WP:SYNTH - synthesising a novel conclusion by combining multiple sources. If there is a reliable scientific source that indicates that such exercises are beneficial because of the effects or existence of Qi, I would be interested to read it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to add to this, because I didn't address your concern about the second paragraph of the lead section - I would be open to looking at alternative wordings for how we define qi in its first sentence, but I can't see you getting consensus for changing much about the overall meaning - we are not going to start saying that qi actually exists in the physical world, for example. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq apologies - I mistyped your username in my post above, so my notification will also have failed - seems like we both have something to learn from WP:TP! GirthSummit _(blether) 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you for your reply and pointers on general wikipedia editing. I agree with a lot and see the point of what you are saying. There's two points here I wish the article considered 1) treating it absolutely as a scientifically approachable topic may be akin to treating God as such. Perhaps a point could be made to explicitly state that Qi, as described in many alternative medical practices, is considered pseudoscience. 2) Under the definition that Qi is the energy manifested in a living being, it doesn't disagree with foundational physics as all mass and matter is composed of potential energy (e=mc^2, E=hv), and free flow of that energy manifested in living beings like blood and lymph, is simply important for overall wellbeing - blood clots bad. In summary, I'm not trying to make the claim Qi is real in the article, I just want the rebuke of it to focus on its pseudoscientific implementations and to acknowledge the potential inability of science to form testable hypotheses about it due to conflicting definitions and its potential supernatural qualities. Xonq _(blether) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq You're welcome. I don't think you signed that post in the normal way - looking at what resulted on the page, I'm guessing that you copy/pasted my signature? Just type four tildes like this: ~~~~ and the software will automatically add your signature and a time stamp.

I see what you are saying about the religious aspects of it. The problem is that we are dealing with a phenomenon that some people say actually exists in the physical world. The article already has sections on 'Concept' and 'Philosophical roots', and I think that these sections would benefit from expansion with appropriate scholarly sourcing - I'm sure there's a lot more we could say about that. However, I don't really understand your second point. Are you saying that Qi is used by philosophers as a shorthand for the actual, real-world measurable energy that living beings manifest? If that's the case, we could use a philosophy or religious studies textbook discussing that to add something to the relevant section of the article. I'm concerned though that you seem to be saying that Qi might be a form of energy that actually exists in the real world, but which science is unable to detect, and which might have supernatural qualities - that idea falls squarely within the realm of pseudoscience, and it needs to be described as such. Credible academic sources do not ascribe to the idea that there are weird supernatural energies emanating from living beings - that is the realm of science fiction and pseudoscience. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Okay, I will work toward finding references for the "Concept" and "Philosophical roots" sections using the Zhuangzi and Laozi. I am in agreement that Qi in its alternative medical applications is largely pseudoscience. But to retry my two previous point 2) In a physics sense, I agree, it is pseudoscience to say it is some form of energy specific to living beings. However, if described as simply energy - which is a basal concept underlying all matter - or simply a classification of the energy of organismal matter, it does reconcile with physics. So, it should be emphasized that Qi does not have an agreed upon definition and I think the pseudoscience aspect should be restricted to the definitions that have clearly been refuted. E.g. instead of Qi is a pseudoscientific ... it would be more appropriate to begin with Qi, if defined as a form of energy exclusively associated with life, is a pseudoscientific or unobservable phenomenon .... In other words, it should be clarified as having various definitions, some of which have been refuted by science, and/or a spiritual concept not approachable by science. Xonq (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq, that ping was successful :). Are there any reliable academic sources describing qi in the way that you are talking about above? That's what we would need to support a change to the way we handle it. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, glad the ping worked lol thanks for your patience. Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), the "second pillar of Daoism" so to speak, may define Qi as the basis of all the physical universe - under this light the physics definition of energy is too restrictive for Qi. Per this Stanford philosophy excerpt on the Zhuangzi "... Chinese [philosophy] does not focus on sentential items (actions, events, beliefs) particularly as conclusions of belief plus desire mental arguments. Instead, it focuses on the interplay of natural processes grounded in the temporally shifting distributions of qi (physical stuff) that yields path-like guidance structures for living things." In this article, Qi is the basis of the physical universe, but on the pneuma (spirit/vital force/perhaps consciousness): "It might be appropriate to view spirit as the dynamic aspect of qi." A particular type of ``energy`` associated with organisms has been refuted, however, that is restricting Qi to energy and further refining it to energy associated with living beings. Mencius may restrict Qi to this definition, but the Daoist philosophers Zhuangzi (above) and Laozi (Dao De Ching/Tao Te Ching) do not: "The Heshanggong commentary [on the Laozi] shares with other Han works the cosmological belief that the universe is constituted by qi, the energy-like building blocks of life and the vital constituent of the cosmos." Xonq (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq I'm still struggling to understand what it is that you think we should be changing about the article. Are you arguing that we should say that qi might exist, in the physical sense of that word, but that we somehow can't define or measure it? I'm all for expansion of our coverage of the history of the philosophy surrounding qi, and I'd be willing to entertain the idea of nuancing the way that we describe it as pseudoscience, but we have to be clear to the readers that attempts to measure or define it as an actual think that exists in the real world are pseudoscience. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I'm requesting that it be clearly stated in the introduction that Qi has various definitions, particularly the one currently stated and the broader definition I just mentioned. I would like it to be explicit that the scientific rebuke of qi applies to its use in alternative medicine and the definition of it as a specific form of energy associated with life. I would also like to see it mention (introduction or otherwise) that a broader definition of Qi is potentially an historic interpretation of physical fields and energy, and therefore not irreconcilable with physics or that it transcends physical phenomenon and therefore eludes scientific reasoning. Here is how I would word the introduction: "In traditional Chinese culture, qi or ch'i (/ˈtʃiː/ CHEE simplified Chinese: 气; traditional Chinese: 氣; pinyin: qì About this soundqì) is variously interpreted, particularly as either a vital force forming part of any living entity or as the underlying component of all things in the physical universe... [maintain this part]... Some believers of qi describe it as a vital force, the flow of which must be unimpeded for health. Under this definition and its application in alternative medicine, Qi is a pseudoscientific, unverified concept,[2][3] which has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the concept of energy used in science[4][5][6] (vital energy itself being an abandoned scientific notion).[7] Broader definitions of Qi are potentially an historic interpretation of physical fields and energy or are spiritual in nature. (cite previous work)" What do you think? Xonq (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq I'm not sure that the pseudoscientific description applies only to the alternative medicine sphere, although I acknowledge that the sources currently presented in the lead are talking about it in that context. I'm not sure that I've seen where any of the (reliable) sources posit the idea that qi is an historic interpretation of physical fields and energy - can you point me to the particular part of the particular source discussing that, so that we're on the same page? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Separated by citation: "Early medical – and cosmological – thinking depicts a cosmos ultimately composed of qi 氣 (the energy that constitutes and organizes matter and causes growth and change) in processes of constant change""

The Tao of Physics(1975) Fritjof Capra, Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist - I think this source is perhaps questionable, but the point here is to establish a definition, not the validity of the concept. “Qi bears the most striking resemblance to the concept of the quantum field in modern physics.” he adds "As in quantum field theory, the field – or the chi – is not only the underlying essence of all material objects, but also carries their mutual interactions in the form of waves."

'Everything between heaven and earth is either qi A or xing #J ... Of the two terms used here, xing is by far the easier to deal with: Song Yingxing uses this word fairly consistently to mean ' solid objects' "Most sinologists nowadays prefer to leave qi in transliterated form: there really does not seem to be any suitable short English equivalent." "... qi is less and less clearly any kind of substance as we might recognize the term" "we should certainly not be too ready to dismiss the physics of qi and xing as a dead end incapable of critical development under the right circumstances"

"In physics, Qi is similar to the idea of a field" Xonq (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Xonq Yeah, I know what you mean about The Tao of Physics - I don't think we would look to use that as a reliable source for anything except as a primary source for assertions about what the author wrote in the book. The Atmospheres of Breathing book seems to be talking about qi as being metaphorically similar to fields in physics - I don't think it's saying that qi exists, and it is discussing in terms of biological energy again. The School of Oriental and African studies source is talking about 17th Century Chinese philosophy, and I don't think it's written by a physicist - I don't really understand why it's relevant. This is all interesting stuff, but I don't see how we could use any of it to support the idea that qi is, or even might be, an actual thing that exists. This is the problem with this sort of subject - we don't want to talk disrespectfully about people's belief systems, philosophies or whatever, and so long as these things are kept within the realm of spirituality we don't have to wrap them up with language about pseudoscience. But qi is something that people argue actually exists, that can cause or cure ailments, all that sort of stuff - that is intrinsicly pseudoscientific, and we can't shy away from mentioning it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not observed by Western science

This begs the question: was it observed by Eastern science? What is that, Eastern science? Do China and India subscribe to a radically different nuclear physics than USA and the EU? Do Iran and Saudi Arabia subscribe to a radically different, Islamic thermodynamics? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine holds Qi as a central tenant. It has been practiced for 3,500 years and is very popular to this day.

Victor J. Stenger claims that Einstein refuted qi energy since he did not believe in "spooky action at a distance" that causes change instantaneously. In contrast, the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation posits consciousness causes collapse as part of the Dualism (philosophy of mind). In addition to this is the theory of Dark_energy#Technical_definition, which is neither matter nor radiation but permeates the entire universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonki72 (talk • contribs)

TCM is quackery by our book. See WP:RGW.

@Nonki72: If qi were real energy, it would be measured in Joules, kilo-calories and kilowatt-hours. Till now nobody has published anything at arXiv about such measurement. Virtually everything one learns in organic chemistry is built upon the non-existence of "vital energy" and "vital force". Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: This article describes measurement of qi, specifically in the 3-5 microns infrared spectra, and its effect on human biology. Nonki72 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nonki72: It's not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Randi (JREF) offered him a million dollars if he could do it properly, AFAIK nobody won that award. If infrared radiation would cool down bodies, it would be worth a Nobel prize in physics. That would be the opposite of radiative cooling. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Is The American Journal of Chinese Medicine not a reputable journal of medicine? It is recognized by pubmed and World Scientific. And does a skeptic's challenge preclude an event from happening, independently of it? The authors, if they have heard of this challenge, simply chose not to enter. As for the radiation, the article says the infrared wave was absorbed when cooling, not emitted. Nonki72 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nonki72: Yup, if you can cool down bodies through absorption of infrared radiation you are on your way to your Nobel. E.g. give me a 2 kW IR absorption device, I will use it instead air conditioning. WP:MEDRS says that WP:PRIMARY sources are discarded by default. We want at least systematic reviews. Also, Chinese research is suspect, see e.g. [4]. China has a pro-quackery bias enshrined in its Constitution (Art. 21). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Chinese research is suspect well, shit, why don't we just add an asterisk next to Reliable Sources that says "All sources that are reliable in this world come from Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand and are written by authors that are of the fine and noble Caucasian race." — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk:Firejuggler86#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Firejuggler86|contribs]]) 11:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Chinese research is suspect because it has been observed to be very biased in favor of quackery such as this one. That is not because of race, it is because China is a dictatorship where honesty is actively discouraged. If Trump had succeeded in turning the US into a dictatorship, US research would be suspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, but Chinese scientists have to publish, publish, publish while they lack the means for conducting proper research. Western-style scientific research is extremely expensive, so only a tiny elite of Chinese scientists do actual research, the rest just have to write something. Also, Chinese medical research has the reputation of never ever having found that the investigated medical intervention is ineffective. These are real problems, which cannot be washed away by crying "Racist! Racist!" Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience or fake news?

As Wikipedia itself says, pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Qi never claimed to be a science(even though the concept of energy is scientific), science doesn't have a single definition of energy, and as has already been said, Qi doesn't mean "vital energy," so clearly whoever wrote this doesn't understand anything about either Qi or science.

So if this is classified as pseudoscience or "paranormal," Christianity and philosophical concepts attributed to ancient Greeks must also be. ProudIndoEuropeanGraecoRomanJudeoChristianWestern (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ProudIndoEuropeanGraecoRomanJudeoChristianWestern, the assertions you removed were sourced; the material you added was not. I've reverted you for now, but would be happy to discuss this. Can you provide sources for your material? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Besides having no source, being a Christian isn't pseudoscience, but faith healing is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is 'being a Christian'? Christians' own scripture says that its followers will have the power to heal the sick by the laying of hands. (and ingest poison without being harmed, and handle venomous snakes, etc). And what about believing that consumption of bread and wine that's been blessed by a priest literally becomes their founder's actual flesh and blood inside their bodies? How can you call Eastern spiritual beliefs pseudoscience, but not that, while maintaining a straight face? Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, bread turning into flesh is fantasy. Laying on hands is quackery. Snakehandling is dangerous quackery. And if we have sources which say any of it is pseudoscience, of course the article will say it is pseudoscience. You would profit from reading Whataboutism and Straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to note that the sources are articles debunking reiki and other recently invented alternative medicines which claim to be scientific. Those things can reasonably be called pseudoscientific. Qi is not reiki, it is a spiritual/religious concept that predates the scientific method by centuries - calling such a thing pseudoscientific is imprecise at best, and certainly doesn't meet the criterion of "claims to be scientific". If someone insists that its status as science be mentioned in the intro, I propose "unscientific" - the Scientific View section correctly uses this sort of approach. Ozimuth (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Subject: detecting Qi

I have a Stanley stud finder which can find iron nails or steel staples. With one hand in grouped fingers, and the finger tips are about 0.5 inch from the stud finder, the detector lite will glow red. Is the stud finder detecting Qi from my fingers or something else? thank you Dewi7 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It's probably just picking up small electric currents in your body. That's not qi, it's regular physics. Regardless, this talk page is for discussing the article, it's not a chatroom for discussing the subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 10 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raichu15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DylanHansen29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)