
''QI'', standing for ''Quite Interesting'', is a comedy panel game shown on BBC Two and BBC Four and hosted by Stephen Fry. It is distinguished by the awarding of points not necessarily for the ''correct'' answer, but rather for an ''interesting'' one, and the deduction of large numbers of points for an ''obvious but wrong'' answer; this often results in a negative points score at the end of the game. Many of the questions and answers are extremely obscure. In a parody of "general knowledge" quizzes, rounds without a particular theme are named "General Ignorance". The first series aired in Autumn 2003. Although most viewers did not notice at the time, all of the questions (with the exception of the final 'general ignorance' round) were on subjects beginning with "a" (e.g. "arthropods", "Alans", "astronomy", etc.) A second series of 12 programmes started on 8 October, 2004. In a continuation to the established theme, subjects now begin with the letter "b". A potential criticism can be levelled that certain questions are purposely contradictory for entertainment's sake. For instance, to the question "''How many planets are there in the solar system?''", Alan Davies gave the answer "nine" and lost points for an obvious and wrong answer, the explanation being that by any consistent description Pluto (planet) is not a planet. However, the International Astronomical Union still defines Pluto as a planet, therefore "nine" would be a "correct" answer by the IAU definition. This is a technique used by many comedy panel games, since the questions are there mainly to set up jokes or discussions, rather than for any serious competition; in this case, the question was designed to raise the point that some people ''don't'' consider Pluto a planet. Panellists include Alan Davies (who has appeared in all episodes and normally gives most of the ''obvious but wrong'' answers), Bill Bailey, Jo Brand, Dave Gorman, Richard E. Grant, Rich Hall, John Sessions and Linda Smith (comedian). The format was devised by the writer and former BBC producer, John Lloyd (writer). In October 2004 a ''QI'' café/bar (establishment), eclectic bookshop and private members' club opened in Oxford. For the duration of the series, the bar shows the broadcast episode every Friday. ==Frequent participants== *Alan Davies, permanent panellist *Jo Brand *Bill Bailey *Rich Hall *Jimmy Carr ==External links == * [http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/qi Official site] at BBC * [http://www.qi.com/ Official site] of the makers * * [http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/QI ''QI''] at UK Gameshows BBC television programmes Panel games
{| border=1 width=300 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 align=right style="margin-left: 5px" ! th colspan=2 align=center bgcolor=#ffcc99 | Qi (Chi) |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Chinese Name |- |Pinyin || width=150px | qì |- |Wade-Giles || ch'i |- |Traditional Chinese || wiktionary:氣 |- |Simplified Chinese || wiktionary:气 |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Japanese language Name |- |Romaji || ki |- |Kanji || wiktionary:気 |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Korean language Name |- |Revised Romanization of Korean || gi |- | McCune-Reischauer || ki |- |Hangul || 기 |- |Hanja || 氣 |} :''See Qi (disambiguation) for other meanings of "Qi".'' Qi is a fundamental concept of everyday China culture, most often defined as "air" or "breath" (for example, the colloquial Mandarin Chinese term for "weather" is ''tiān qi'', or the "breath of heaven") and, by extension, "life force" or "spiritual energy" that is part of everything that exists. References to qi or similar philosophical concepts as a type of metaphysical energy that sustains living beings are used in many belief systems, especially in Asia. Philosophical conceptions of qi date from the earliest recorded times in Chinese thinking. One of the important early figures in Chinese mythology is Huang Di or the Yellow Emperor. He is often considered a culture hero who collected and formalized much of what subsequently became known as traditional Chinese medicine. Although the concept of qi has been very important within all Chinese philosophies, their descriptions of qi have been varied and conflicting. The etymological meaning of the qi ideogram in its traditional form 氣 is "气 steam rising from 米 rice as it cooks" (Wenlin dictionary), which could be interpreted as the indicating the link between matter and the energy it develops. Matter and energy are said merely to be different states of the same fundamental substance. One significant difference has been the question of whether qi exists as a force separate from matter, if qi arises from matter, or if matter arises from qi. Some Buddhists and Taoists have tended toward the second belief, with some Buddhists in particular tending to believe that matter is an illusion. By contrast, the Neo-Confucians criticized the notion that qi exists separate 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. Knowledge of the theories they espoused was eventually required by subsequent Chinese dynasties to pass their civil service examinations. == Qi in traditional Chinese medicine == Theories of traditional Chinese medicine assert that the body has natural patterns of qi associated with it that circulate in channels called meridian (Chinese medicine) in English language. Symptoms of various illnesses are often seen as the product of disrupted or unbalanced qi movement through such channels (including blockages), or imbalances of qi in the various Zang Fu theory. Traditional Chinese Medicine seeks to relieve these imbalances by adjusting the flow of qi in the body using a variety of therapeutic techniques. Some of these techniques include herbology, food therapy, physical training regimens (qigong), massages to clear blockages, and acupuncture, which uses fine metal needles inserted into the skin to reroute or balance qi. Traditional Asia martial arts also discuss qi. For instance, Nei chia attempt to cultivate and direct qi during combat as well as to ensure proper health. Many other martial arts include some concept of qi in their philosophies. == Views and opinions of qi == The nature of qi is highly controversial, and the old controversy among Chinese philosophy as to the nature of qi still exists. Among some TCM practitioners, qi is merely a metaphor for biological processes similar to the Western concept of the soul, and there is no need to invoke new biology, much less new physics, to account for its effects. Others argue that qi involves some new physics or biology. Attempts to directly connect qi with some scientific phenonomena have been attempted since the mid-nineteenth century. The philosopher Kang Youwei believed that qi was synonymous with the later abandoned concept of lumeniferous ether. In the early 21st century, attempts have been made to link the concept of qi to biophoton or inner biological energy flow. As of yet, science considers these claims of qi as an independent force to be unconvincing. Claims that control of qi allows one to transcend normal physical and biological processes are widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific establishment. Views of qi as an esoteric force tend to be more prominent in the West, where it has sometimes been associated with New Age spritualism. These views are less prominent in 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. 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. Some complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches not only assume its existence but believe that the purported subtle energy running through and surrounding the body can be manipulated so as to cultivate increased physical, psychological and spiritual health. Acupuncture along with other practices of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), homeopathy, ayurveda and many other traditional disciplines worldwide provide examples of similar beliefs. Properly funded, conducted and repeated empirical research is necessary to determine if the success rate of these CAM approaches is due to # the existence of subtle energy, # the placebo effect, and/or # various other factors. skeptic minded followers of the scientific method have to assume the possibility that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes. In answer, most proponents of the effects of the cultivation of qi maintain that since modern scientific technologies have to this point been unable to create life out of organic chemicals in their laboratories, and that as qi is a metaphor for the energy of life itself, it is to be thereby demonstrated that the mechanisms of how the subject of such a metaphor would work so far elude the abilities of the scientific community to describe. Opponents argue that qi is merely a form of vitalism, a theory that was largely abandoned in the early 19th century. The concept of qi appears often in Chinese fiction, in which a stock character is that of the kung fu master who has gained control of qi, to the point that he can alter the forces of nature. This character has entered Western consciousness through the martial arts film. Many have also remarked on the similarity between the concept of qi and that of the fictional Jedi's ''Force (Star Wars)'' in the Star Wars movies, and have suggested that George Lucas may have borrowed the concept. There are qigong masters who claim to be able to manipulate their students from a distance with qi. In contrast to the strictly scientific Western approach, individuals harnessing their qi would explain the qi cultivation process as a combination of repetitive movements, concentration and breathing. For example, in swinging an axe muscle control is initially all-important, but once the basic movement is learned the mind will naturally start to concentrate on the back foot, moving swiftly up through the body and down the arm to the axe rather than simply trying to get the body to perform the movement. Qi will go wherever the mind concentrates, and so the axe will start to swing effortlessly. == Romanization == Qì is the pinyin romanisation of what is sometimes transliterated, using the older Wade-Giles romanisation, as '''ch'i (and frequently mis-spelled as chi). The Japanese form is ki while the Korean form is gi'''. ==See also== *Eastern philosophy *Kundalini *Odic force *Prana *Pseudoscience *Tao Yin *Tui na *Yoga ==External links== *[http://www.angelfire.com/folk/vision/physicsofqi.html Physics of qi] *[http://www.skepdic.com/chi.html The Skeptics Dictionary] ==Further reading== *ENERGY MEDICINE: The Scientific Basis, by James L. Oschman, PhD, Churchill Livingston, 2000 *ENCOUNTERS WITH QI: Exploring Chinese Medicine, by David Eisenberg, M.D., Penguin, 1987. Chinese thought Chinese martial arts terms Mandarin terms
===Needles=== ::"which uses tiny metal spines inserted into the skin to reroute qi flow, among others." Are the "others" other devices (and surely the usual English term is "needles"? Is needle avoided for a reason?), or effects other than rerouted chi flow? It's not very clear. Some Chinese healer use thier fingers other than needles. It's called "Qi Neddle." Some use their hands, esp. fingers and knuckles, for acupressure treatments. Sometimes they'll use a species of wooden dowel. See tui na. User:Fire Star 14:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- ===Tai Chi=== BF, thanks for adding Tai Chi Chuan. :-) If you can find a Chinese calligraphy image of "Tai Chi", email it to someone here( there's a spot someplace on how to link images on Wikipedia), and it will look nice on the Tai Chi page. I keep a book beside my monitor titled "Tai Chi", by Paul Crompton. The 1st page has the Chinese symbol for Tai Chi, verified by a native of China, who pronounces it "djee". I've always been a New Age person and included Eastern thought in my lifestyle, but this book was the first one purchased that started me on my way seriously. My personal form is a ballet/ tai chi mixture which looks like me dancing slowly and breathing. It is allowed to make your own movements, as long as you know the basics. ~BF : you can find the yin yang symbol and all the Yijing trigrams and their corresponding unicode code point in http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf ---- ===Definining Qi=== I see that several of us have worked on this definition, and none of them (including my attempt) is adequate. What we really need is simply a longer and more contentful explanation, bearing in mind that the definition shouldn't imply that ch'i actually exists (in other words, it should leave room for the possibility that ch'i very well might ''not'' exist). --:LMS ---- ===Tonal information=== Probably no one cares, but I believe the tonal information is very important for Chinese transliteration. Please give a reason why the information was removed. Don't tell me simply because someone don't know what it is. FYI, according to my dictionary, there are 22 Chinese characters pronounced as qi(1), there are 42 pronounced as qi(2), 13 as qi(3) and 19 as qi(4). Removing the tonal notation at least quadrupled the ambiguity. Removing the Unicode character doesn't help at all, you are changing a precise origin of word into 96 possible mappings. Do you want an encyclopedia with precise info or what? :Yes, we absolutely do. I tend to agree with those who have been complaining lately that we have gotten too much into the habit of deleting content we don't like. People, that's ''not'' the right way forward. The right way forward is to ''edit'' what you don't like; if you can't be bothered to edit it, then unless there is just zero merit to it at all, you might mark the text as in need of editing, but don't ''delete'' it. Yes, there are instances where it's completely appropriate simply to delete what someone has written: if it's graffiti, if it's just entirely factually false, if it is ''merely'' (no more than) an idiosyncratic statement of opinion. But for everything (or nearly everything) else, if you're going to just delete something, at least give people a chance to defend what they wrote on the talk:Qi page. --:LMS ---- ===Subtle energy=== What is up with the "subtle energy" addition? It may be fine to provide a link to a page that talks about it, but this page (to my mind) should be about how Chinese traditions view ch'i. If syncretists want to shoehorn it into weird modern metaphors (orgone?) that is fine, but they should create their own pages, because I'll bet that there aren't many Chinese acupuncturists sitting around inside pyramids. Comments? User:Fire Star 05:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I agree that subtle energy ought to be a separate page, linked from Qi as a See also. Apparently, it was a separate page, but the coding doesn't indicate that on the Qi page. The subtle energy link is redirected to the Qi page, so someone moved the subtle energy text to the qi page and eliminated the subtle energy page. Also, the link QI used here is about a game. This article also needs some serious copy editing. User:Heidimo 18:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanks, Heidimo. I'll give it a few more days to see if there are any additional comments or suggestions, then start editing... User:Fire Star 20:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) ===Please merge=== The following was removed from the traditional Chinese medicine article to avoid redundancy. Please merge it into this article as appropriate. User:Heidimo 16:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Qi is typically translated as "vital energy" or "life force." At the simplest level, it is the common Chinese word for "breath" or "to breathe." Therefore, Qi is said to permeate all of life. In the body, Qi pools in certain places called acupuncture points which are generally along interior pathways or channels called Meridian (TCM) which are similar to rivers of Qi. Qi is not considered to be a physical substance, meaning it is not visible or tangible. However, it is somehow necessary for life. Whatever Qi ''is'', one basic notion of Chinese medicine is that living organisms must possess it. To maintain life, Qi must circulate, and when this circulation is impeded, disease results. Many of the rudimentary treatments of Chinese medicine are to get Qi to flow, and to prevent Qi from being "blocked". The translation of "Qi" as "energy" has caused much consternation among skeptics and Western scientists, who hold that any form of energy flowing though the body must be amenable to reductionist analysis, and that no such energy has been observed. However, neither ancient nor modern Chinese texts discuss what Qi is, but emphasize the ''function'' of Qi. Some practitioners treat Qi as a form of electromagnetism or biological energy. Feeling for temperature differences from place to place in the body is used by practitioners for diagnostic purposes, for example. Others hold that if Qi is to be understood as energy, it is in the sense of that which is present when we say "I feel full of energy today!", not in the sense of the chemical energy of a chemical battery, or the kinetic energy of a falling rock. (When a person in Japan asks the common greeting question ''"O-genki desu ka?"'' ("How is your Qi?") the expected answer is not given in joules.) Another idea is that Qi is best translated as "potential": where Qi is present, there are many different possible actions that an organism or system may take, while where it is absent there are few. This idea has interesting parallels with the concept of information entropy.) None of these explanations fully describe what Qi is or what it does. Such concepts are almost impossible to disseminate in anything less than esoteric language that would make little sense to lay people, especially when worded in English. ---- ===Scientific viewpoint=== I have altered the statement that "orthodox science has tested the claims of Qi...." to say something along the lines of "modern science rejects the existance of qi as pseudoscience...". I have done this because I am unaware of any honest double blind tests of Qi. There are tests of things like "laying on of hads" or "theraputic touch" famously done in the mid nineties by a child (Emily Rosa) clearly disproving their efficacy, but none of Qi specifically. --User:Deglr6328 06:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Western reductionism misses one important thing == Namely that it's stupid to restrict one's spirituality to the comprehensible or well-understood. What does it matter whether Qi exists or whether it can be explained by plain old biochemistry, when the notion of it flowing through your body gives you strength? What was that old Blaise Pascal quote? :Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism. Some things never change, obviously. User:Aragorn2 20:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Moved to talk page == ''Traditional Asia martial arts also discuss qi. For instance, Nei chia attempt to cultivate and direct qi during combat as well as to ensure proper health. Many other martial arts include some concept of qi in their philosophies.'' ''The above is incorrect. All systems of martial arts cultivate qi all the while developing control of yi, which translates to "intention", which is what is used to direct qi throughout the body. The difference between internal and external martial arts is that internal puts more emphasis on using qi, while external puts more emphasis on using phsycial force and strength, but both styles still cultivate qi. It is like 2 different paths leading to the same destination.'' ''Offensively, qi can be directed into attacks such as punches, while defensively, if your opponent has caught you off guard and an attack is about to strike your body, qi will move to and gather (using yi) at the place of impact to protect the body from the blow. This concept forms the basis of styles such as FanziQuan, in which many "fake" or decoy attacks are thrown to draw the defender's qi away from where they will actually be struck.'' I moved this here because, while it isn't necessarily wrong, a debate like this needs to be hashed out here, not on the article. The article should be a coherent whole, and these paragraphs have to be re-written to express that. User:Fire Star 03:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''Thanks for moving it! :) I hope there are some people who can better explain what I'm trying to express.'' Ah well, my bit didn't last too long. In fact, I was surprised it lasted as long as it did. Scientific analysis rather than user experience wins through, I guess. The problem is, science only sees from the outside, whilst the user experiences it. The sceptism about Qi is actually mind-boggling. Do you think this stuff has lasted so long because it's nonsense? Thousands of years.... Or are the races that use/believe in it seen as 'inferior' by Westerners? Really, there should be a non-scientific area for any subject that's inexplicable to the average scientist type. Not that scientists can't experience Qi of course. The professiorial, detailed knowledge seen here reminds me of endless classes where the professorial types stand around discussing/alaysing Qi, whereas the rest of the class gets on with learning about it. But I tried! What's interesting is that the bit about the axe, the most minor bit of a relatively long essay, still remains! Weird!User:241 :Greetings User:241. I actually don't have a problem with what was put there as much as how it was put. The problem with personal experience is that it is anecdotal bordering on no original research, and the encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia shouldn't express itself that way. I'm a T'ai Chi Ch'uan instructor for one of the largest and oldest schools in the world, and I use the term qi (although not as much as some) quite happily in my classes, and I can show it to people who ask for a demonstration. Not everyone wants to call what I am showing them "qi" however, but that's not my problem. Reproducible results, such as the medical studies reported on the T'ai Chi page, or reports of the notable, well-reported experiences of others are what will last in an article here, and the information should be presented in an npov manner, not presented as a foregone conclusion. I hope this helps. User:Fire Star 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thanks Firestar. I would suggest that the concept behind the encyclopeaidea needs looking at. Reproducible results are not the be-all and end-all of life. Emotions, for example, can probably trigger machines to pinpoint areas of the brain, but I wouldn't say that the science of that is so advanced that they can be defined in strictly machine/science terms. But emotions are thought to exist. Art is certainly open to interpretation - paintings, etc. etc. History, politics all have various viewpoints as well. None of it reproducible, none of it machine-defined, none of it fixed as far as interpretations are concerned. I am suggesting that other viewpoints rather than the strictly scientific one be allowed at Wiki. Would the 'subconscious' that was first (I believe) formulated by Freud/Jung have any place here unless someone had written loads of books on it and made many (now seen as definitely dodgy) studies on it? But the subconscious was always there, it's just that no one had conceived of it. Does that mean that a load of books by people like Mantak Chia or all the others out there are necessary before the concept of Chi (accepted by however many billion people live in China, plus the Phillipines, plus India) gets more than a skeptical look in here? I have not said Qi is a foregone conclusion. I made sure to put it in terms that allow for doubt. But there ought to be room in an encyclopaedia for personal experience or different viewpoints, or it becomes a dry place based on Western sciemtifoc analysis.User:241 :I do believe the different aspects should be reported, but they should be reported in accord with general academic Wikipedia policy or some scientifically minded editor will simply remove them. So we have to have the wingnuts from both ends of the spectrum in the article and everything in between for completeness' sake. The good news is, that for the scientific criticism of a given phenomena we can also mention notable criticisms of the scientific method. a typical example, from the article: ::"''The consensus among scientists is that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes and usually amount to little more than magic tricks or sleight of hand. In answer, most proponents of the effects of the cultivation of qi maintain that since modern scientific technologies have to this point been unable to create life out of organic chemicals in their laboratories, and that as qi is a metaphor for the energy of life itself, it is to be thereby demonstrated that the mechanisms of how the subject of such a metaphor would work so far elude the abilities of the scientific community to describe.''" :Which has problem right away because there isn't a citation for any "consensus among scientists" so such a statement may be safely removed. However, the paragraph shows both sides of the issue, if the intro is a little weasel wordy. Cheers, User:Fire Star 16:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Odic force == I reverted the link mostly because there is a difference of degree, to my mind. Odic force is a universal concept, Qi is a specific concept, IME, that is based on larger concepts of Taoism and Neo-confucianism, at least in conservative Chinese conceptions. The theory of Odic force, for example, doesn't seem to be specifically breath based, as 氣 is supposed to be. So, in that sense, Odic force seems to be more appropriate a link to larger Western concepts such as Neo-paganism, alchemy or astrology, but not as much (at least it seems to me) as specific concepts that posit an observable mechanism, like Four humours or Moon (astrology). Most practical theories of 氣 are based on observations of the various parameters of breathing, Odic force seems based on more larger, abstract categorizations of opposites. If it is to be linked to an Eastern article, perhaps it would be better for larger concepts such as Yin and yang or Taoism? User:Fire Star 00:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It's the "see also" section; it doesn't have to be equivalent. "Odic force" seems to be a similar, although certainly not identical, concept. If "The Force" from Star Wars (very similar to Odic force in concept) deserves a mention in the article, Odic force at least deserves a link. It doesn't refer to breath specifically, but that's specific to the idea of qi. User:Gwalla — User:Gwalla | User talk:Gwalla 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:A | B | C | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | X | Y | Z |
QI
''QI'', standing for ''Quite Interesting'', is a comedy panel game shown on BBC Two and BBC Four and hosted by Stephen Fry. It is distinguished by the awarding of points not necessarily for the ''correct'' answer, but rather for an ''interesting'' one, and the deduction of large numbers of points for an ''obvious but wrong'' answer; this often results in a negative points score at the end of the game. Many of the questions and answers are extremely obscure. In a parody of "general knowledge" quizzes, rounds without a particular theme are named "General Ignorance". The first series aired in Autumn 2003. Although most viewers did not notice at the time, all of the questions (with the exception of the final 'general ignorance' round) were on subjects beginning with "a" (e.g. "arthropods", "Alans", "astronomy", etc.) A second series of 12 programmes started on 8 October, 2004. In a continuation to the established theme, subjects now begin with the letter "b". A potential criticism can be levelled that certain questions are purposely contradictory for entertainment's sake. For instance, to the question "''How many planets are there in the solar system?''", Alan Davies gave the answer "nine" and lost points for an obvious and wrong answer, the explanation being that by any consistent description Pluto (planet) is not a planet. However, the International Astronomical Union still defines Pluto as a planet, therefore "nine" would be a "correct" answer by the IAU definition. This is a technique used by many comedy panel games, since the questions are there mainly to set up jokes or discussions, rather than for any serious competition; in this case, the question was designed to raise the point that some people ''don't'' consider Pluto a planet. Panellists include Alan Davies (who has appeared in all episodes and normally gives most of the ''obvious but wrong'' answers), Bill Bailey, Jo Brand, Dave Gorman, Richard E. Grant, Rich Hall, John Sessions and Linda Smith (comedian). The format was devised by the writer and former BBC producer, John Lloyd (writer). In October 2004 a ''QI'' café/bar (establishment), eclectic bookshop and private members' club opened in Oxford. For the duration of the series, the bar shows the broadcast episode every Friday. ==Frequent participants== *Alan Davies, permanent panellist *Jo Brand *Bill Bailey *Rich Hall *Jimmy Carr ==External links == * [http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/qi Official site] at BBC * [http://www.qi.com/ Official site] of the makers * * [http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/QI ''QI''] at UK Gameshows BBC television programmes Panel games
Qi
{| border=1 width=300 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 align=right style="margin-left: 5px" ! th colspan=2 align=center bgcolor=#ffcc99 | Qi (Chi) |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Chinese Name |- |Pinyin || width=150px | qì |- |Wade-Giles || ch'i |- |Traditional Chinese || wiktionary:氣 |- |Simplified Chinese || wiktionary:气 |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Japanese language Name |- |Romaji || ki |- |Kanji || wiktionary:気 |- ! colspan=2 align=center | Korean language Name |- |Revised Romanization of Korean || gi |- | McCune-Reischauer || ki |- |Hangul || 기 |- |Hanja || 氣 |} :''See Qi (disambiguation) for other meanings of "Qi".'' Qi is a fundamental concept of everyday China culture, most often defined as "air" or "breath" (for example, the colloquial Mandarin Chinese term for "weather" is ''tiān qi'', or the "breath of heaven") and, by extension, "life force" or "spiritual energy" that is part of everything that exists. References to qi or similar philosophical concepts as a type of metaphysical energy that sustains living beings are used in many belief systems, especially in Asia. Philosophical conceptions of qi date from the earliest recorded times in Chinese thinking. One of the important early figures in Chinese mythology is Huang Di or the Yellow Emperor. He is often considered a culture hero who collected and formalized much of what subsequently became known as traditional Chinese medicine. Although the concept of qi has been very important within all Chinese philosophies, their descriptions of qi have been varied and conflicting. The etymological meaning of the qi ideogram in its traditional form 氣 is "气 steam rising from 米 rice as it cooks" (Wenlin dictionary), which could be interpreted as the indicating the link between matter and the energy it develops. Matter and energy are said merely to be different states of the same fundamental substance. One significant difference has been the question of whether qi exists as a force separate from matter, if qi arises from matter, or if matter arises from qi. Some Buddhists and Taoists have tended toward the second belief, with some Buddhists in particular tending to believe that matter is an illusion. By contrast, the Neo-Confucians criticized the notion that qi exists separate 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. Knowledge of the theories they espoused was eventually required by subsequent Chinese dynasties to pass their civil service examinations. == Qi in traditional Chinese medicine == Theories of traditional Chinese medicine assert that the body has natural patterns of qi associated with it that circulate in channels called meridian (Chinese medicine) in English language. Symptoms of various illnesses are often seen as the product of disrupted or unbalanced qi movement through such channels (including blockages), or imbalances of qi in the various Zang Fu theory. Traditional Chinese Medicine seeks to relieve these imbalances by adjusting the flow of qi in the body using a variety of therapeutic techniques. Some of these techniques include herbology, food therapy, physical training regimens (qigong), massages to clear blockages, and acupuncture, which uses fine metal needles inserted into the skin to reroute or balance qi. Traditional Asia martial arts also discuss qi. For instance, Nei chia attempt to cultivate and direct qi during combat as well as to ensure proper health. Many other martial arts include some concept of qi in their philosophies. == Views and opinions of qi == The nature of qi is highly controversial, and the old controversy among Chinese philosophy as to the nature of qi still exists. Among some TCM practitioners, qi is merely a metaphor for biological processes similar to the Western concept of the soul, and there is no need to invoke new biology, much less new physics, to account for its effects. Others argue that qi involves some new physics or biology. Attempts to directly connect qi with some scientific phenonomena have been attempted since the mid-nineteenth century. The philosopher Kang Youwei believed that qi was synonymous with the later abandoned concept of lumeniferous ether. In the early 21st century, attempts have been made to link the concept of qi to biophoton or inner biological energy flow. As of yet, science considers these claims of qi as an independent force to be unconvincing. Claims that control of qi allows one to transcend normal physical and biological processes are widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific establishment. Views of qi as an esoteric force tend to be more prominent in the West, where it has sometimes been associated with New Age spritualism. These views are less prominent in 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. 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. Some complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches not only assume its existence but believe that the purported subtle energy running through and surrounding the body can be manipulated so as to cultivate increased physical, psychological and spiritual health. Acupuncture along with other practices of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), homeopathy, ayurveda and many other traditional disciplines worldwide provide examples of similar beliefs. Properly funded, conducted and repeated empirical research is necessary to determine if the success rate of these CAM approaches is due to # the existence of subtle energy, # the placebo effect, and/or # various other factors. skeptic minded followers of the scientific method have to assume the possibility that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes. In answer, most proponents of the effects of the cultivation of qi maintain that since modern scientific technologies have to this point been unable to create life out of organic chemicals in their laboratories, and that as qi is a metaphor for the energy of life itself, it is to be thereby demonstrated that the mechanisms of how the subject of such a metaphor would work so far elude the abilities of the scientific community to describe. Opponents argue that qi is merely a form of vitalism, a theory that was largely abandoned in the early 19th century. The concept of qi appears often in Chinese fiction, in which a stock character is that of the kung fu master who has gained control of qi, to the point that he can alter the forces of nature. This character has entered Western consciousness through the martial arts film. Many have also remarked on the similarity between the concept of qi and that of the fictional Jedi's ''Force (Star Wars)'' in the Star Wars movies, and have suggested that George Lucas may have borrowed the concept. There are qigong masters who claim to be able to manipulate their students from a distance with qi. In contrast to the strictly scientific Western approach, individuals harnessing their qi would explain the qi cultivation process as a combination of repetitive movements, concentration and breathing. For example, in swinging an axe muscle control is initially all-important, but once the basic movement is learned the mind will naturally start to concentrate on the back foot, moving swiftly up through the body and down the arm to the axe rather than simply trying to get the body to perform the movement. Qi will go wherever the mind concentrates, and so the axe will start to swing effortlessly. == Romanization == Qì is the pinyin romanisation of what is sometimes transliterated, using the older Wade-Giles romanisation, as '''ch'i (and frequently mis-spelled as chi). The Japanese form is ki while the Korean form is gi'''. ==See also== *Eastern philosophy *Kundalini *Odic force *Prana *Pseudoscience *Tao Yin *Tui na *Yoga ==External links== *[http://www.angelfire.com/folk/vision/physicsofqi.html Physics of qi] *[http://www.skepdic.com/chi.html The Skeptics Dictionary] ==Further reading== *ENERGY MEDICINE: The Scientific Basis, by James L. Oschman, PhD, Churchill Livingston, 2000 *ENCOUNTERS WITH QI: Exploring Chinese Medicine, by David Eisenberg, M.D., Penguin, 1987. Chinese thought Chinese martial arts terms Mandarin terms
Qi
===Needles=== ::"which uses tiny metal spines inserted into the skin to reroute qi flow, among others." Are the "others" other devices (and surely the usual English term is "needles"? Is needle avoided for a reason?), or effects other than rerouted chi flow? It's not very clear. Some Chinese healer use thier fingers other than needles. It's called "Qi Neddle." Some use their hands, esp. fingers and knuckles, for acupressure treatments. Sometimes they'll use a species of wooden dowel. See tui na. User:Fire Star 14:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- ===Tai Chi=== BF, thanks for adding Tai Chi Chuan. :-) If you can find a Chinese calligraphy image of "Tai Chi", email it to someone here( there's a spot someplace on how to link images on Wikipedia), and it will look nice on the Tai Chi page. I keep a book beside my monitor titled "Tai Chi", by Paul Crompton. The 1st page has the Chinese symbol for Tai Chi, verified by a native of China, who pronounces it "djee". I've always been a New Age person and included Eastern thought in my lifestyle, but this book was the first one purchased that started me on my way seriously. My personal form is a ballet/ tai chi mixture which looks like me dancing slowly and breathing. It is allowed to make your own movements, as long as you know the basics. ~BF : you can find the yin yang symbol and all the Yijing trigrams and their corresponding unicode code point in http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf ---- ===Definining Qi=== I see that several of us have worked on this definition, and none of them (including my attempt) is adequate. What we really need is simply a longer and more contentful explanation, bearing in mind that the definition shouldn't imply that ch'i actually exists (in other words, it should leave room for the possibility that ch'i very well might ''not'' exist). --:LMS ---- ===Tonal information=== Probably no one cares, but I believe the tonal information is very important for Chinese transliteration. Please give a reason why the information was removed. Don't tell me simply because someone don't know what it is. FYI, according to my dictionary, there are 22 Chinese characters pronounced as qi(1), there are 42 pronounced as qi(2), 13 as qi(3) and 19 as qi(4). Removing the tonal notation at least quadrupled the ambiguity. Removing the Unicode character doesn't help at all, you are changing a precise origin of word into 96 possible mappings. Do you want an encyclopedia with precise info or what? :Yes, we absolutely do. I tend to agree with those who have been complaining lately that we have gotten too much into the habit of deleting content we don't like. People, that's ''not'' the right way forward. The right way forward is to ''edit'' what you don't like; if you can't be bothered to edit it, then unless there is just zero merit to it at all, you might mark the text as in need of editing, but don't ''delete'' it. Yes, there are instances where it's completely appropriate simply to delete what someone has written: if it's graffiti, if it's just entirely factually false, if it is ''merely'' (no more than) an idiosyncratic statement of opinion. But for everything (or nearly everything) else, if you're going to just delete something, at least give people a chance to defend what they wrote on the talk:Qi page. --:LMS ---- ===Subtle energy=== What is up with the "subtle energy" addition? It may be fine to provide a link to a page that talks about it, but this page (to my mind) should be about how Chinese traditions view ch'i. If syncretists want to shoehorn it into weird modern metaphors (orgone?) that is fine, but they should create their own pages, because I'll bet that there aren't many Chinese acupuncturists sitting around inside pyramids. Comments? User:Fire Star 05:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I agree that subtle energy ought to be a separate page, linked from Qi as a See also. Apparently, it was a separate page, but the coding doesn't indicate that on the Qi page. The subtle energy link is redirected to the Qi page, so someone moved the subtle energy text to the qi page and eliminated the subtle energy page. Also, the link QI used here is about a game. This article also needs some serious copy editing. User:Heidimo 18:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanks, Heidimo. I'll give it a few more days to see if there are any additional comments or suggestions, then start editing... User:Fire Star 20:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) ===Please merge=== The following was removed from the traditional Chinese medicine article to avoid redundancy. Please merge it into this article as appropriate. User:Heidimo 16:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Qi is typically translated as "vital energy" or "life force." At the simplest level, it is the common Chinese word for "breath" or "to breathe." Therefore, Qi is said to permeate all of life. In the body, Qi pools in certain places called acupuncture points which are generally along interior pathways or channels called Meridian (TCM) which are similar to rivers of Qi. Qi is not considered to be a physical substance, meaning it is not visible or tangible. However, it is somehow necessary for life. Whatever Qi ''is'', one basic notion of Chinese medicine is that living organisms must possess it. To maintain life, Qi must circulate, and when this circulation is impeded, disease results. Many of the rudimentary treatments of Chinese medicine are to get Qi to flow, and to prevent Qi from being "blocked". The translation of "Qi" as "energy" has caused much consternation among skeptics and Western scientists, who hold that any form of energy flowing though the body must be amenable to reductionist analysis, and that no such energy has been observed. However, neither ancient nor modern Chinese texts discuss what Qi is, but emphasize the ''function'' of Qi. Some practitioners treat Qi as a form of electromagnetism or biological energy. Feeling for temperature differences from place to place in the body is used by practitioners for diagnostic purposes, for example. Others hold that if Qi is to be understood as energy, it is in the sense of that which is present when we say "I feel full of energy today!", not in the sense of the chemical energy of a chemical battery, or the kinetic energy of a falling rock. (When a person in Japan asks the common greeting question ''"O-genki desu ka?"'' ("How is your Qi?") the expected answer is not given in joules.) Another idea is that Qi is best translated as "potential": where Qi is present, there are many different possible actions that an organism or system may take, while where it is absent there are few. This idea has interesting parallels with the concept of information entropy.) None of these explanations fully describe what Qi is or what it does. Such concepts are almost impossible to disseminate in anything less than esoteric language that would make little sense to lay people, especially when worded in English. ---- ===Scientific viewpoint=== I have altered the statement that "orthodox science has tested the claims of Qi...." to say something along the lines of "modern science rejects the existance of qi as pseudoscience...". I have done this because I am unaware of any honest double blind tests of Qi. There are tests of things like "laying on of hads" or "theraputic touch" famously done in the mid nineties by a child (Emily Rosa) clearly disproving their efficacy, but none of Qi specifically. --User:Deglr6328 06:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Western reductionism misses one important thing == Namely that it's stupid to restrict one's spirituality to the comprehensible or well-understood. What does it matter whether Qi exists or whether it can be explained by plain old biochemistry, when the notion of it flowing through your body gives you strength? What was that old Blaise Pascal quote? :Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism. Some things never change, obviously. User:Aragorn2 20:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Moved to talk page == ''Traditional Asia martial arts also discuss qi. For instance, Nei chia attempt to cultivate and direct qi during combat as well as to ensure proper health. Many other martial arts include some concept of qi in their philosophies.'' ''The above is incorrect. All systems of martial arts cultivate qi all the while developing control of yi, which translates to "intention", which is what is used to direct qi throughout the body. The difference between internal and external martial arts is that internal puts more emphasis on using qi, while external puts more emphasis on using phsycial force and strength, but both styles still cultivate qi. It is like 2 different paths leading to the same destination.'' ''Offensively, qi can be directed into attacks such as punches, while defensively, if your opponent has caught you off guard and an attack is about to strike your body, qi will move to and gather (using yi) at the place of impact to protect the body from the blow. This concept forms the basis of styles such as FanziQuan, in which many "fake" or decoy attacks are thrown to draw the defender's qi away from where they will actually be struck.'' I moved this here because, while it isn't necessarily wrong, a debate like this needs to be hashed out here, not on the article. The article should be a coherent whole, and these paragraphs have to be re-written to express that. User:Fire Star 03:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''Thanks for moving it! :) I hope there are some people who can better explain what I'm trying to express.'' Ah well, my bit didn't last too long. In fact, I was surprised it lasted as long as it did. Scientific analysis rather than user experience wins through, I guess. The problem is, science only sees from the outside, whilst the user experiences it. The sceptism about Qi is actually mind-boggling. Do you think this stuff has lasted so long because it's nonsense? Thousands of years.... Or are the races that use/believe in it seen as 'inferior' by Westerners? Really, there should be a non-scientific area for any subject that's inexplicable to the average scientist type. Not that scientists can't experience Qi of course. The professiorial, detailed knowledge seen here reminds me of endless classes where the professorial types stand around discussing/alaysing Qi, whereas the rest of the class gets on with learning about it. But I tried! What's interesting is that the bit about the axe, the most minor bit of a relatively long essay, still remains! Weird!User:241 :Greetings User:241. I actually don't have a problem with what was put there as much as how it was put. The problem with personal experience is that it is anecdotal bordering on no original research, and the encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia shouldn't express itself that way. I'm a T'ai Chi Ch'uan instructor for one of the largest and oldest schools in the world, and I use the term qi (although not as much as some) quite happily in my classes, and I can show it to people who ask for a demonstration. Not everyone wants to call what I am showing them "qi" however, but that's not my problem. Reproducible results, such as the medical studies reported on the T'ai Chi page, or reports of the notable, well-reported experiences of others are what will last in an article here, and the information should be presented in an npov manner, not presented as a foregone conclusion. I hope this helps. User:Fire Star 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thanks Firestar. I would suggest that the concept behind the encyclopeaidea needs looking at. Reproducible results are not the be-all and end-all of life. Emotions, for example, can probably trigger machines to pinpoint areas of the brain, but I wouldn't say that the science of that is so advanced that they can be defined in strictly machine/science terms. But emotions are thought to exist. Art is certainly open to interpretation - paintings, etc. etc. History, politics all have various viewpoints as well. None of it reproducible, none of it machine-defined, none of it fixed as far as interpretations are concerned. I am suggesting that other viewpoints rather than the strictly scientific one be allowed at Wiki. Would the 'subconscious' that was first (I believe) formulated by Freud/Jung have any place here unless someone had written loads of books on it and made many (now seen as definitely dodgy) studies on it? But the subconscious was always there, it's just that no one had conceived of it. Does that mean that a load of books by people like Mantak Chia or all the others out there are necessary before the concept of Chi (accepted by however many billion people live in China, plus the Phillipines, plus India) gets more than a skeptical look in here? I have not said Qi is a foregone conclusion. I made sure to put it in terms that allow for doubt. But there ought to be room in an encyclopaedia for personal experience or different viewpoints, or it becomes a dry place based on Western sciemtifoc analysis.User:241 :I do believe the different aspects should be reported, but they should be reported in accord with general academic Wikipedia policy or some scientifically minded editor will simply remove them. So we have to have the wingnuts from both ends of the spectrum in the article and everything in between for completeness' sake. The good news is, that for the scientific criticism of a given phenomena we can also mention notable criticisms of the scientific method. a typical example, from the article: ::"''The consensus among scientists is that the results claimed by martial arts students and patients of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can be explained without invoking esoteric or supernatural processes and usually amount to little more than magic tricks or sleight of hand. In answer, most proponents of the effects of the cultivation of qi maintain that since modern scientific technologies have to this point been unable to create life out of organic chemicals in their laboratories, and that as qi is a metaphor for the energy of life itself, it is to be thereby demonstrated that the mechanisms of how the subject of such a metaphor would work so far elude the abilities of the scientific community to describe.''" :Which has problem right away because there isn't a citation for any "consensus among scientists" so such a statement may be safely removed. However, the paragraph shows both sides of the issue, if the intro is a little weasel wordy. Cheers, User:Fire Star 16:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Odic force == I reverted the link mostly because there is a difference of degree, to my mind. Odic force is a universal concept, Qi is a specific concept, IME, that is based on larger concepts of Taoism and Neo-confucianism, at least in conservative Chinese conceptions. The theory of Odic force, for example, doesn't seem to be specifically breath based, as 氣 is supposed to be. So, in that sense, Odic force seems to be more appropriate a link to larger Western concepts such as Neo-paganism, alchemy or astrology, but not as much (at least it seems to me) as specific concepts that posit an observable mechanism, like Four humours or Moon (astrology). Most practical theories of 氣 are based on observations of the various parameters of breathing, Odic force seems based on more larger, abstract categorizations of opposites. If it is to be linked to an Eastern article, perhaps it would be better for larger concepts such as Yin and yang or Taoism? User:Fire Star 00:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It's the "see also" section; it doesn't have to be equivalent. "Odic force" seems to be a similar, although certainly not identical, concept. If "The Force" from Star Wars (very similar to Odic force in concept) deserves a mention in the article, Odic force at least deserves a link. It doesn't refer to breath specifically, but that's specific to the idea of qi. User:Gwalla — User:Gwalla | User talk:Gwalla 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:A | B | C | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | X | Y | Z |
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
