tidbit

[ironymaiden]

"The Chinese concept of qi presents a problem in English because it is neither matter nor energy but rather both. Several distinctions that are rooted in Western philosophy and Western languages, such as the distinction between matter and energy or between body and mind, are far less concrete in traditional Chinese thought and language. In a sense it is the same problem that faces modern scientists who must describe light as both particles and waves."

- Brian Kennedy, from Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals A Historical Survey

Comments

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

It seems to me like he's driving at a much deeper reconciliation of the two: western philosophy has been trying to resolve the problem of "mind" and "body" for centuries, and working very hard at it, and it's mostly come down to two positions:
Cartesian Dualism - there is "mind," and there is "body," and they interact somehow.
Reductive Materialism - there is "body." "Mind" is an illusion; an epiphenomenon of the body.

There's also the less-popular-in-the-west Reductive Spiritualism, which is just like Reductive Materialism, except it says that body (and, by extension, the tangible world) is the illusory one, and only mind is real.

But this is a little different - this is making an argument that the appropriate way to understand Chinese martial arts (and, implicitly, the worldview in which they are bound) is to take a stance of non-reductive reconciliation, and "solve" the problem of dualism by denying that the division into categories is real.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Eh. I'm not sure I like the idea of empiricism being labeled as mere philosophy.

But then again, I'm just boring and practical that way. ;)

If real-world actions to improve one's spiritual standing (whatever one thinks that is) create real-world benefits, then so be it. But if they get in the way at all of creating real-world solutions to real-world problems, then I'd really rather they just go away.

IMHO, I think according philosophy and religion anywhere near equal stance with empiricism is getting in the way of being able to solve real problems that are affecting real people. Fantasy is fine when practiced on a small scale. When we forget to acknowledge it as such, and let it blow up into epic proportions, that's when we get screwed.

(That said, there's probably a reasonable physics argument to be made about matter and energy. Kinetic potential or something. I dunno. ;) )

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I like the idea of empiricism being labeled as mere philosophy.

Which is pretty much the division Kennedy is talking about. From a classical Chinese perspective, the two ideas are so deeply linked that to suggest one is not a subset of the other and vise-verse (pretty much ad infinitum) is nearly incomprehensible: Facts are understood through philosophy; philosophy is understood through facts.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Also, I'd say that Reductive Spiritualism is a lot more popular here than it might seem. I keep seeing it all over the place in arguments against evolution.

(The gist: We have no way of proving that what we know as reality actually exists, ergo, science is not superior to religion and the two should be given equal value in education.)