|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: RenliRenli Date: Mar 28, 2008 08:22
On Mar 28, 9:02 pm, WannabeSomeoneCa...@ gmail.com wrote: >
>> Yet it is called Yuan Qi, which is said by Chen Xin to specifically be
>> the precursor of Zhong Qi.
>
>> Therefore it is one and the same.
>
> It is very confusing to mix the concept of "chi" in TCM with the
> concept of "chi" in martial arts because they should have used
> different words. All these "chi" can be translated into English using
> modern words, especially the "chi" used in martial arts.
|
| Show full article (11.67Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Mar 28, 2008 08:47
On Mar 28, 10:51 pm, Mike yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 28, 10:37 am, Renli gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My preconceptions have little to do with it. As was stated in the OP,
>> everything in the FAQ is referenced.
>
> You mean...circularly referenced.
>
> -Mike K.
No I don't.
Mike, did you know you're listed as a contributor to the FAQ? Yes, in
the top 10 most ridiculous quesitons that didn't make it into the faq.
Here, I'll quote the section:
(Top 10 questions that didn't make it into this FAQ.)
4. Qi, Chi, Ki? Isn't having three different spellings an obvious
attempt to throw up dust?
This hilarious question was actually asked by "Mike K." on rec.martial-
arts. The answer is found via an intelligent reading of "What is Chi
(etymological answer)".
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Mar 28, 2008 09:24
>>You mean...circularly referenced.
>
>>-Mike K.
>
> oh god, Â here we go again.....
>
> it's just like Deja Vu, over, and over, and over.....
Yeah, it sucks doesn't it? I pleasently asked him to stop the
stupidity.
-Mike K.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Mar 28, 2008 09:27
On Mar 28, 11:47Â am, Renli gmail.com> wrote:
> So what do you think? Snazzy ehh?
Well, since you misrepresent the actual circumstance in which the
question occurred, it is just another example of your pitiful
phraudulent deception.
> Although - i'll note that since you
> are hiding your real name from us (Mike K? What is K supposed to mean?
> Killer?) you have no real credibility.
You're not very smart are you?
-Mike K.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShuuraiShuurai Date: Mar 28, 2008 11:17
>> Oh, and btw, Stanley's addition is spot on.
>
> Opiniuendo will not be accepted. I asked for any references or proof
> that what he was saying was true.
This is classic. Your entire FAQ is on a subject bereft of proof or
even evidence, and yet you're asking critics to "prove" that you lack
proof?
> After all, I suppose the small mountain of evidence in the form of
> authoritative sources I've managed to dig up could always be countered
> by a greater number of, or *more* authoritative sources. He has yet to
> provide any.
Small mountain?? That's a joke, right? What you have is more like a
chasm than a mountain.
Let me repeat it for you since you've obviously missed it the previous
several times it was explained: Pointing out old texts where someone
talks about the same thing you're talking about does not qualify as
evidence. Would you take the Iliad as evidence that Greek warriors
used to literally fight alongside gods?
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: WannabeSomeoneCaresWannabeSomeoneCares Date: Mar 28, 2008 12:18
On Mar 28, 11:22 am, Renli gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 28, 9:02 pm, WannabeSomeoneCa...@ gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >>> Yet it is called Yuan Qi, which is said by Chen Xin to specifically be
>>> the precursor of Zhong Qi.
>
>>> Therefore it is one and the same.
>
>> It is very confusing to mix the concept of "chi" in TCM with the
>> concept of "chi" in martial arts because they should have used
>> different words. All these "chi" can be translated into English using
>> modern words, especially the "chi" used in martial arts.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that they are the same yuan qi. Recall
> that "to keep yuan qi smooth no movement may be uncomfortable" (from
> the illustrated canon again, by chen xin). This categorically implies
> yuan qi is both the physical body, so that no uncofortable position is
> reached, and the dynamic force of the body such as throwing your ...
|
| Show full article (20.56Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: halhal Date: Mar 28, 2008 13:58
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:24:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>You mean...circularly referenced.
>>
>>>-Mike K.
>>
>> oh god, =A0here we go again.....
>>
>> it's just like Deja Vu, over, and over, and over.....
>
>Yeah, it sucks doesn't it? I pleasently asked him to stop the
>stupidity.
>
>-Mike K.
and you can't simply ignore him, because .... ?
Hal
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: WannabeSomeoneCaresWannabeSomeoneCares Date: Mar 28, 2008 15:24
> The meaning is 原气 IIRC - same pronunciation - i'd have to look it up
> again in chinese to see which one they're using though to be 100%%
> certain. At any rate "dollar" is not as common a meaning for the term
> as "first, primary" (at least in the far east chinese dictionary I
> have :p) - At any rate the wikipedia article you reference does not
> use the huangdi neijing nor the illustrated canon (or any work i'd
> consider before another.. only Porkert's work which I haven't read)..
>
Huang-Di Nei-Jing is a very old medical canon. Old Chinese was to be
carved on stone, bamboo, or bones, or shells. They used a small set of
characters with fewer strokes. Many of the words were the same. The
word you showed above did not exist because the word now used for
dollar today already covered that. That is why Chinese characters are
quite confusing if taken out of context.
>
>> Yuen Qi is the chi that you are born with, and you cannot do much in
>> improving. However you can active avoid depleting it by maintaining
>> you health and good life style. Zhong Qi is the chi that...
|
| Show full article (10.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Mar 28, 2008 16:30
On Mar 29, 12:27 am, Mike yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 28, 11:47 am, Renli gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So what do you think? Snazzy ehh?
>
> Well, since you misrepresent the actual circumstance in which the
> question occurred, it is just another example of your pitiful
> phraudulent deception.
>
>> Although - i'll note that since you
>> are hiding your real name from us (Mike K? What is K supposed to mean?
>> Killer?) you have no real credibility.
>
> You're not very smart are you?
The irony is thick and fragrant.
-
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
