Qi is a Human Construct. It’s also an assumption. That is to say, it’s just made up. Of course, we always knew that. But now we’ve had it confirmed by Howard Choy, a Feng Shui practitioner, and practicing Feng Shui Architect.
Howard turned up in the comments to my last Feng Shui post - Feng Shui Hooey. (Yes I know that doesn’t really rhyme. It rhymes the way I pronounce Feng Shui.) Howard joined the thread at comment #11. His defense of FS consisted of the usual fallacies (not “western” science, been around for a long time, you need to do more research before you understand it, yada yada), and didn’t get any better throughout the remainder of his 54 comments in that thread. But at least he eventually did one thing very few woos actually ever get around to doing, namely he admitted that Qi (and therefore the basis of Feng Shui) is just an assumption and a human construct.
By all means, read the whole comment thread. I just want to highlight the end of the discussion, where we finally managed to pin Howard down. It started with Howard making comment # 133 and the comment after it, #134:
FS is about how to take advantage of life enhancing forces (jue sheng qi) which science is a part. So it is part science by using it.
[…]
We use things that have evidence and we use things that don't have evidence, as long as it is useful, we use them.
[…]
Some parts of FS can be tested by science, like why the Chinese preferred a courtyard house, Some parts can't, like the assumption we make that everything has qi.
I asked him (comment #135) how he knew these things. How did he know that life enhancing forces of jue sheng qi even existed or what effect they have? How did he know they were useful if we don’t have evidence for them as he admitted? How did he know (as he claimed) everything has qi if (as he said), they can’t be tested?
His response in comment 135 was (with my bold):
Qi is an assumption and even science uses assumptions and in mathematics as well. An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, that is, as if it were known to be true.
“As if”?!
There are quantifiable qi like tianqi(weather) and qixi (breath), etc. The there are also unquantifiable qi like gua qi which is a human construct but we still use them because it is a useful tool by experience, like art, philosophy and religion.
So there you have it. Qi is just pretend. It was made up by humans. We just act "as if" it's real.
And remember, Howard is not just any new agey woo, angry that I don’t support his favorite piece of magic. He has studied this extensively. He is part of a team that designs buildings using Feng Shui, he teaches seminars and workshops in Feng Shui, he has a Feng Shui blog. In short, he is an expert in Feng Shui:
Howard has written 4 books on Feng Shui and Qigong and numerous articles for various magazines and journals worldwide. He has worked as the principal consulting Feng Shui Architect on the capital upgrading of the Chinese Garden in Darling Harbour, after having successfully completed the Feng Shui urban renewal for Sydney’s Chinatown in 2001 for the Sydney Olympic Games.
And this is the best a real expert can do? It’s all made up, a human construct, an assumption?
And then this evening, after two weeks of silence, Howard came back and left a final "goodbye" comment #163. Apparently “Feng Shui is not working here” and it’s all our fault for not just believing in Howard’s drivel. But real science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not - it works regardless.
As an expert in Feng Shui, Howard is like the expert on fairies at the bottom of the garden - in both cases, the expertise is worthless.
I realize this is a bit late in the thread but have you heard of EMC2 or get this... The Energetic Matrix-Church Of Conciousness run by a guy named Stephen Lewis in Las Vegas. It is obviously a "High Tech" bastardization of Feng Shui.
As is common these jackfuckers try to validate this rubbish by attempting to align themselves with REAL science. In this case the nonesense is predicated on Einsteins and Bohms work in Quantum Physics and Relativity. LOL The theory is that all your issues with health, wealth, love and true happiness are simply caused by energy blockages within and without. These energies need only to be balanced by some expert on the matter. They have some type of mysterious machine that emits vibrations and all you have to do is send them your photo and a couple of grand to recieve transformational energy 24/7 for a whole year. Hows that for a bargain? Wayne Dyer who I used to actually think had credence endorses this rubbish.
There is no end to the horseshit people believe and will shell out hard cash behind!!
Dr. Pei Wan Yoo
Posted by: Dr. Pei Wan Yoo | April 22, 2009 at 05:22 AM
Despite being stated completely void of any scientific validity elementary continuity and structure in the practice would lend some shred of credence.
If all the practicioner were regulated and drafted a set of governing principals. I t would not have to be really elaborate just a few basic and Simple rules like:
A Red imitation crushed velvet love-seat must always be placed approximately 2 feet from the southernmost wall and 4 feet from any doorway or window on that wall...except of course if the front door of the home faces Eastward or if the location has a stream of running water within 3 miles...or there is an existing or proposed Walmart in a 10 mile radius...but if the initial reading is done on the 3rd Tuesday of the month in a year that ends with the number 8...you can go maybe 1 foot off the wall with the couch...except on a leap year or if the customer happens to be of Irish descent..or works near a 7-11...
Like I said simple rules.
Posted by: Dr. Pei Wan Yoo | April 22, 2009 at 05:36 AM
Well...as an atheist and disbeliever in any form of woo, I still have to say that you seemed to quote him out of context (a bit). To say something is a "human construct" does not seem to be the same as admitting non-existence.
Maybe I am misreading your comment:
"Qi is just pretend. It was made up by humans. We just act "as if" it's real."
The poster likened "qi" to preferences which are human constructs. You seem to take this as an admission of non-existence, which it is not.
An individual's preferences ARE real...as real as anything else one's senses can validate. Perhaps in the future we will be able to predetermine an individual's preferences based on genetics/chemical composition, but just because we cannot currently measure them does NOT mean they do not exist.
I like vanilla more than chocolate. I hate tomatoes. I like 70's rock and hate country music. I put my TV in a corner where the sun won't shine on it...regardless of how it looks in the room.
I don't buy into the fact that arranging my furniture in a particular way will make me smarter, stronger, or more vibrant, but arranging my furniture to be aesthetically pleasing (to me) as well as functional is a "human construct"...and my preferences are "real".
Just my two cents...and I don't know the first thing about Fengshui...
Posted by: Kenbo | April 22, 2009 at 08:12 AM
I just read through the Feng Shui comment thread (quickly, admittedly, so I'm sure I missed some things) and I personally felt it wasn't fair to label Howard a woo. Really he's more of a postmodernist. His errors in reasoning were the textbook errors endemic to postmodernism. The two have many tendencies in common, but I'd rank postmodernists much higher than woos in the pecking order. At least they've done the scholarly study and have points worthy of discussion rather than being content with ignorance.
And maybe it's just me, but much of the mystical-sounding terminology he used struck me simply as words representing abstract bundles of subconscious observations about human beings rather than as claims of literal, metaphysical truths. When eastern and western philosophy meet that's where misunderstandings frequently arise. His picture of Feng Shui did have some unfortunate woo elements, but on the whole it seemed to me to be less woo and more a sort of "folk ergonomics".
I kept thinking back to the recent article in Wired about how neurologists have been comparing notes with stage magicians -- magic being a time-tested form of folk cognitive psychology. Though magicians aren't doing rigorous science, they do have a great deal to offer it turns out. Jumping off points, if nothing else. And it's the same with insights into consciousness from Buddhism, insights into memory from Marcel Proust, insights into color perception from Claude Monet, etc.
Similarly it sounds like "deep" Feng Shui, though not a science, and though thoroughly steeped in metaphor and ambiguity, probably does offer genuine insights into how humans are affected by and engaged with their physical environments. It was said repeatedly that Feng Shui should really be defined as an art, but often I got the sense that this definition was intended to deny Feng Shui any ability to help guide us toward factual information. When really it's often the case that art is doing valuable preliminary work that scientists will later pick up and bring clarity to.
I know many commenters don't disagree with this and I'm not really saying anything new. I just like reminding people that the "KILL THE WOO!" impulse that we skeptics often succumb to isn't always the most productive or profitable approach to unfamiliar concepts.
I should add that none of this is said in defense of "shallow" Feng Shui. Squarely in the woo category, that one is.
Posted by: pendens proditor | April 22, 2009 at 01:01 PM
In reply to Kenbo:
By saying it is a human construct he is saying it was constructed (made up) by humans. That is, it does not exist independently of the mind of the person who made it up. Therefore it is highly unlikely to be real. He may not have realized that was what he was saying, but that is the only logical conclusion from his own words.
No, he did no such thing. In fact, he never even mentioned the word “preferences” - that was something you just made up.
Maybe. But human constructs are not necessarily preferences.
You are confusing truth statements with opinions. You like vanilla. I like chocolate. Neither are objectively correct – they are not truth statements, they are opinions. A truth statement would be “qi is real”. It is either objectively true or it isn’t. “I prefer vanilla to chocolate” is neither correct or incorrect – it is just an opinion. “Qi exists” IS either correct or incorrect – it is a truth statement.
True. But that has nothing to do with whether qi exists or not, which was the sole point of this post.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 22, 2009 at 08:54 PM
I have to disagree with that. Saying "I prefer vanilla to chocolate" is an objective statement about one's subjective preferences. It has a truth value--one can prefer vanilla to chocolate, or one can not. That statement can be true or false.
On the other hand, saying "vanilla is better than chocolate" would be just an opinion, a subjective statement whose truth value can't really be determined.
What that has to do with the fantasy of qi is anyone's guess.
Posted by: Skemono | April 22, 2009 at 09:25 PM
AKA "expressing an opinion". It cannot be correct or incorrect. And as you implied, it has nothing to do with the fantasy of qi.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 22, 2009 at 09:30 PM
Of course it can be correct or incorrect. It is correct if I do, in reality, prefer vanilla to chocolate. It is incorrect if I do not prefer vanilla to chocolate. Even though one's preferences cannot themselves be "correct", one can make statements about one's preferences, and these statements can be correct or incorrect.
Posted by: Skemono | April 22, 2009 at 09:34 PM
When you say you prefer vanilla, you are just expressing your opinion. An opinion cannot be objectively correct or incorrect.
In fact, I want to reconsider your earlier statement:
- No it’s not an objective statement – it’s a subjective statement. You’re stating your subjective opinion. This is not in the same category of things as "qi is real".
Posted by: Skeptico | April 22, 2009 at 10:27 PM
True, you are expressing your opinion. The fact that you have this opinion is an objective truth which has just been expressed. It is only the opinion itself that is subjective, not whether or not you have it.
Agreed. But whether or not one has opinions can be objectively correct or incorrect.
Posted by: Skemono | April 22, 2009 at 10:35 PM
If you prefer chocolate that is an opinion. It is not a truth claim. I’ll agree that it might be objectively true that that is your opinion, but you are just playing semantics. Saying “hey my opinion really is that chocolate is better” does not suddenly elevate the choice to a truth claim. Kenbo was saying that the truth or otherwise of qi is an opinion, like a preference for chocolate. It isn’t.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 22, 2009 at 10:56 PM
All right, then. We're in agreement.
Posted by: Skemono | April 22, 2009 at 11:02 PM
"There are quantifiable qi like tianqi(weather) and qixi (breath), etc. The there are also unquantifiable qi like gua qi which is a human construct but we still use them because it is a useful tool by experience, like art, philosophy and religion." - Howard Choy
Art, philosophy, and religion are subjective preferences...which DO exist as you have stated:
"You like vanilla. I like chocolate."
I agree they are opinions...but we can prove scientifically that preferences are real, subjective though they may be.
"Kenbo was saying that the truth or otherwise of qi is an opinion, like a preference for chocolate. It isn’t."
No, I was saying that the author was stating that his definition of "qi" is a human construct like religion, art, or philosophy...that was the only disagreement I had with your analysis and critique. You can deny the reality of preferences if you like, but it will not change the fact that they do exist (as skemono also indicated).
For what it is worth, I agree with the assessment that fengshui as it is normally presented is so much hooey, but when the author defined it as an art then he took the woo out of it (by replacing it with subjective preferences).
I will end this with your own words:
"I’ll agree that it might be objectively true that that is your opinion, but you are just playing semantics."
...like you did with Howard's words. He did not deny the existence of qi, but redefined it.
Posted by: Kenbo | April 23, 2009 at 07:29 AM
- from Mr. Choy's own website
No ambiguity there I'd say. Not art, not shallow, but a desire to "build science".
Howard only redefined FS once it became apparent it wasn't going to fly with any kind of scienceyness.
The shallow vs. deep FS reminds me of a letter to the editor in response to a rare article about the busting of a psychic:
"Real psychics don't have neon signs in their windows..." - Och aye, lassie. Spoken like a true Scotswoman.
I have a cousin that has subjective preferences just like anyone else. Unfortunately for her, schizophrenia means many of them only exist in her mind.
Very real, very true to her just like FS is to this fella.
It does not make it so...
Posted by: jcairo | April 23, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Kenbo:
You’re making this much more complicated than it is. Unfortunately it seems you have been taken in by Howard’s slippery language, and then you’ve added some of your own. I’ll try to deconstruct it for you.
Howard said Qi is a human construct. So what is a human construct? Exact definitions are hard to find, but Wikipedia directs to Social construction which is:
I agree with that definition. That’s certainly pretty much what I thought Howard meant. A social (or human) construct is something invented, that doesn’t exist independently of the humans who invented it and agreed to behave as if it exists. The example given at the link is money. No one is saying that dollar bills, coins etc are human constructs. (They are made by humans, but they are not “human constructs”.) The human construct is the value given to the little pieces of paper – the value which does not exist independently of the people who invented it. Howard said that qi is a human construct. What he means is that qi is something that was invented by the ancient Chinese, and that people like Howard now all just agree to behave as if it exists. Even though it doesn’t. We know this because Howard actually wrote, “Qi is an assumption […] a proposition that is taken for granted, that is, as if it were known to be true”. (Check that with the definition above – it’s remarkably similar.) Now compare this with something that is not a human construct. Electricity, for example. I can shock you with an electric charge, and it’s real, and you’ll feel it regardless of whether we agree to behave as if it exists or not. So electricity is a real force that we don’t all need to pretend exists to be able to use it. Qi, as Howard wrote, is not. (Although many practitioners will tell you it is.) Money at least has a value as long as people still believe in it. Qi doesn’t, because it doesn’t even have that level of usefulness. (And the construct of qi is not monetary.) I wrote that this means qi is just made up. Some might think that is a bit of hyperbolic, but I just think it’s expressing what is really being said.
You quoted Howard saying qi is like art, philosophy and religion. Well OK, let’s examine art, which may be the least controversial of those three to examine. (The arguments for the others would be similar.) Art is a human construct. By that, we don’t mean the paintings. The human construct is the value placed on the paintings – for example, it’s what makes a Picasso worth millions. Now, Howard is being a little disingenuous with this comparison to art. He knows that we know art exists and I think he seeks to obfuscate by comparing qi to art. (You’ll note he does that a lot.) The comparison is to the human construct of art, not the actual paintings. And, as with money, although the art may actually be worth money, it’s only worth money because the human construct of art is (inter alia) to place monetary value on it. The human construct of qi is something different – it states it is a life force, energy or whatever. But unlike electricity, qi doesn’t really exist.
It’s really quite straightforward if you ignore Howard’s attempt at misdirection. As jcairo wrote above, “Howard only redefined FS once it became apparent it wasn't going to fly with any kind of scienceyness”.
But then you come along, and for reasons that are unclear to me, you start talking about preferences. You say that Howard “likened "qi" to preferences”. But Howard didn’t liken qi to preferences. In fact, he didn’t even mention preferences. Human constructs are not necessarily preferences. Some preferences may be human constructs (not all, in my view), but certainly not all human constructs are preferences. The value of money is not a preference, in any meaningful definition of that word. The human construct of qi is certainly not a preference; it’s an assumption about a mystical force that in reality (almost certainly) does not exist. So your talk of preferences is a red herring – completely irrelevant to this discussion.
You end with:
Yes he did. He redefined it as something that humans just made up, and pretend it is real. He then muddied the waters with a comparison to art and religion, in a classic piece of equivocation. I didn’t quote him out of context. On the contrary, it is you who took his words and made something more of them than was there. Specifically you made up the idea that he was likening qi to “preferences” (only one kind of human construct – not one that makes any sense with respect to qi) and then claimed that somehow this means he wasn’t saying qi is made up. That claim makes no sense. That’s exactly what he was saying. He may not have realized it at the time, but that is the only sensible conclusion to draw.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 23, 2009 at 09:50 PM
Skeptico,
Thanks for your reply and I understand what you are saying...although I think you are still missing the point. Perhaps you don't want to understand or really cannot.
I appreciate your time and effort, regardless.
Posted by: Kenbo | April 24, 2009 at 07:19 AM
Well, I think I have hit the point right on the head, and I've made a pretty good case to support that view. I note you are unable to refute any of my arguments, so clearly it is you who is missing the point. Perhaps you don't want to understand or really cannot.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 24, 2009 at 07:34 AM
Skeptico,
LOL...you do this every time someone disagrees with you on your forum and decides to stop arguing with you. I said I UNDERSTAND you, not that I cannot refute you.
The original poster said that his definition of 'qi' is that it is a human construct, like art or philosophy. You then said that the author was admitting 'qi' is made-up and he "acts like" it is real (which he did say).
I merely pointed out that human constructs are real to us, like our preferences. Preferences are intangible human constructs that do exist...and I can prove every time in a double-blind test that I like vanilla more than chocolate :). Yes, they are subjective and would not exist without humans...but that does not invalidate their existence.
And I believe that was what the original poster meant in his statements, rather than emphasize the "made up" or "as if" that you grabbed from his words (and I indicated you might be quoting out of context).
So that is where it lies...I agree that you have your opinion of his words and I have mine.
Thanks again for the post...but do not take this as any form of admission of winning/losing or that I agree with you or that I cannot refute your arguments :).
Posted by: Kenbo | April 24, 2009 at 08:46 AM
http://howardchoy.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/the-first-monograph-on-scientific-feng-shui/
Kenbo, read Howard's URL
Does it say "the first monograph on artistic/philosophical/religious/chocolate/vanilla feng shui"?
No it quite explicitly does not
And if you bothered to follow the link, you'd see that:
"The Fourth International Conference on Scientific Feng Shui and the Built Environment is about to take place in Hong Kong this weekend (20-21 Febfruary 2009)."
Again, no reference to art or chocolate
Posted by: jcairo | April 24, 2009 at 09:03 AM
While I agree that Qi has been tortured in our world to the point that it no longer means anything, that does not mean that it didn't describe something when it was first invented. As a word, "Qi" is no less made up than the word "quantum." In our world, we just have a rigorous way to define what the word "quantum" represents.
In the context of some woo like Feng Shui, Qi is meaningless. Feng Shui co-opted this word from Chinese religion, but the religion actually did have something they were observing for which they needed to coin a name.
In its original form, Qi was invented to describe some physical observations for which no better description was available at the time... multiple thousand years ago. "Qi" was invented to refer to a set of nervous sensations... including, among other things, sensations like muscle exhaustion, fight-or-flight reflex and sexual orgasm. Note, these are sensations with a known physical basis and they have existed for as long as humans have sought names to describe things. "Qi" exists simply because we needed the name before we had a methodical approach for learning the mechanism underlying what the name was intended to describe. As a catch-all, the word Qi can still be used to refer to these things, but we have many better names for these sensations now and much greater detail of explanation.
The problem with Qi is that, within the religious context, the physical sensations that it was used to refer to are _believed_ to have arisen from a thing not too different from a soul, termed Qi. The definition of Qi at its origin has no capacity to separate the religious "soul" connotation from the nervous sensation that the word was intended to describe. Because religion refers to things that people make up, the word "Qi" is immediately subject to abuse and is not constrained to its intended meaning if the people using it do not understand what it was intended to refer to.
We now have many much more accurate models and names that describe what Qi was intended to describe. Also, because of the culture jump that the term endured to come to the english language, it has been wedged into a lexicon where all its meanings are taken up by better, more precise words, except for the religious part... which is the woo-friendly part. In the west, people understand "Qi" in terms that the culture allows, namely in a form not unlike George Lucas' "The Force," which is entirely fictitious.
To say the word "Qi" is meaningless depends on its context. Used correctly, it can mean a lot.
Don't think for a second that I'm arguing that any woo is meaningful. I'm arguing that the word did originally having a meaning and that it did refer to a phenomenon for which there is a naturalistic explanation. I personally think "Qi" is an incredibly interesting word because of where it originated and because of how its meaning has been warped by religion, ignorance and cultural collision. I would argue that the modern word "quantum" is being warped the same way and would suffer the same fate if it were not firmly attached to a mathematical foundation--it may ultimately suffer the same fate if our culture ever loses knowledge of the math and experimental physics.
Posted by: viggen | April 24, 2009 at 10:56 AM
well, I sit corrected
I loafed around Howard's site some more and yes he does call it an art and a science
He also equates art and science
He elsewhere attempts to answer the question "is FS superstitious?"
Initially, the answer is no. Then a few paragraphs later the answer is yes, sort of
He also includes the following rather sweeping generalization about "western" man:
“The Westerner is a man of extremes, who fails to see the basic unity of positive and negative. He strives for the positive and denies the negative. He identifies himself with one extreme, which he makes the goal and god of his life. But the opposite still remains and reacts on him. Unable to reach his god, he finds his self divided, and being self-divided he creates one-sided things that split nature and in turn disrupt man and his order. He fights the devil within his heart and in fits of despair turns negative and creates destruction. He turns to science, technology and formulas to create machines that will bring happiness to man, only to discover that they also bring unhappiness. The happiness and suffering which he brought about he calls progress and thinks this is his mission in life”
and then the page about the not one but four conferences on scientific feng shui
my brain it hurts - Professor Gumby
Posted by: jcairo | April 24, 2009 at 01:15 PM
"Used correctly, it (qi) can mean a lot."
That depends on context. In the context of that discussion it was being used very ambiguously, as a disembodied "energy" which "flows", has harmful or helpful effects which can be channeled by a FS practitioner, and which Howard also identified as the very thing that keeps us alive.
He used the fact the we are alive as proof of its existence. Note the equivocation - he identifies concretely, then slipperily tries to sneak all qi's other "qualities" into the same definition.
He changed his tactics numerous times throughout the thread, at times denying he believed things he stated clearly on his own site, and after a lot of questioning finally admitted that qi is an assumption.
....And then equivocating again, that it's an "assumption" just like science makes assumptions. Of course, an assumption shouldn't be a buffer to protect your pet theory (and your profits) from proper investigation.
His statement on his site that he intends to "scientifically validate" FS shows his fundamentally anti-scientific attitude. He isn't interested in investigating his own beliefs, rather he just wants his beliefs and his business to sound all scientific and legit.
That said, I also think he was sincere and stuck around for quite a while, and was mostly polite and articulate, but I think it is also valid to point out that he is misusing science and not declaring a financial interest in the outcome of his "scientific approach".
Posted by: yakaru | April 24, 2009 at 01:17 PM
No, I don’t do it “every time”. I do it only when the other person ignores everything I’ve written, ignores the numerous refutations of his arguments, continues to make the same debunked points again, insists someone wrote what they did not write, and then after all that, ends writing a snide, passive aggressive attempt to claim victory such as, (oh let me think), “Perhaps you don't want to understand or really cannot”. When faced with that kind of response I will point out that you have ignored and not refuted my arguments. You’ll excuse me if I think that’s your problem, not mine.
Yes, you just claimed I’m a poor sap who just doesn’t understand this issue that only you of all people seem to get. And yet despite my poor understanding of your insightful words, you can’t (excuse me, have just decided not to) refute any of my points. Yeah. Whatever.
No, you claimed that human constructs are like preferences. I have pointed out (and you have ignored) that they are not necessarily, preferences, and that specifically qi is not a preference. You also claimed that Howard had likened human constructs to preferences. I have pointed out numerous times that Howard said no such thing. Are you now backtracking on that claim? If so, wouldn’t it be honest to say so?
Although again as I pointed out and you ignored and still ignore, not all preferences are human constructs. More importantly, not all human constructs are preferences. You can’t admit that though, because if you did your whole argument would fall apart.
Tell me, how is “qi” a preference?
And that example proves that your preference for vanilla is not a human construct. It almost certainly has a physical basis. If not, you wouldn’t be able to prove it with a double blind test. That’s why Howard had to call qi a human construct – he had been backed into a corner and realized there was no evidence for qi, the way you say there would be evidence for your vanilla preference. If qi was not a human construct, Howard would have been able to demonstrate how he knew it existed, just like you were able to demonstrate how you know your vanilla preference exists. But he couldn’t. Your own example disproves your own point.
LMAO – I quoted out of context? I did? You completely made up something you say you “believe” Howard was saying – that qi is a preference. You just completely made that up and built your entire argument around it. And then you have the nerve to say that I quote out of context.
And anyway, I didn’t quote out of context. Here is what Howard wrote in full:
The first paragraph of the above, is where Howard is saying what qi is. You know that because the paragraph (the entire comment, actually) begins with the words “Qi is…” (Yeah, hard to spot, I know. Highly technical. I’m sure you could manage it with some practice.) If I take out Howard’s misdirection about science, we are left with:
So in what way did I ”grab” the “as if” from the above words to change the meaning? What context did I miss? Go on. I’m all ears. (Hint: it’s not “preferences”.)
No, I have his actual words; you have the additional words and meanings you made up and assigned to him.
OK, then I’ll just have to be content pointing out again that you have ignored my refutations of your arguments, that you continue to make stuff up about what Howard really meant, that you’ve completely ignored the definition of “human construct” which includes the words "invented" and "constructed"” and “as if” and how that ties exactly with Howard's own words, and how you still have not refuted single thing I’ve written.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 24, 2009 at 10:13 PM
That's an interesting quote you've picked out from Howard Choy's site, jcairo - I hadn't seen that one. I think its worth highlighting. Howard approvingly quotes this statement:
The Westerner is a man of extremes, who fails to see the basic unity of positive and negative. He strives for the positive and denies the negative. He identifies himself with one extreme, which he makes the goal and god of his life. But the opposite still remains and reacts on him. Unable to reach his god, he finds his self divided, and being self-divided he creates one-sided things that split nature and in turn disrupt man and his order. He fights the devil within his heart and in fits of despair turns negative and creates destruction. He turns to science, technology and formulas to create machines that will bring happiness to man, only to discover that they also bring unhappiness. The happiness and suffering which he brought about he calls progress and thinks this is his mission in life
Now, your Chinaman on the other hand, unlike the Westerner, or the Jew, or the Negro, is open-minded and well balanced. He doesn't divide the world up into arbitrary sets of opposite extremes, or live in a bigoted fantasy world closed of from reality.
Posted by: yakaru | April 25, 2009 at 06:36 AM
NB - that last paragraph is of course mine - the quote should've been bold, and the preview even showed it bold, and a hyperlink to the page on Howard's site, but it all disappeared. Typepad is crap.
Posted by: yakaru | April 25, 2009 at 06:40 AM
ya, what a complete load of codswallop eh?
Imagine if a round-eyed pink skin like moi said anything remotely like that about any other culture rather than the Taoist Howard happily quotes...
from the same page:
"we have an irrational fear of superstition"
and
"The sceptics are good at attacking irrationality and superstition but they don’t realise that in their zest for Western science and rationality, they are being irrational as well. They give more power to the devil than it deserves."
and yes, Typepad does suck as it regularly eats my previews
Posted by: jcairo | April 25, 2009 at 11:16 AM
I find that I can cheerfully agree that Feng Shui is just as useful as religion.
Posted by: Nemo | April 26, 2009 at 09:23 AM
Skeptico --
As a native speaker of Japanese, I just wanted to point out what seems to be a misunderstanding in language.
Qi, which is pronounced 'Ki' in Japanese (same character, same meaning), is a very very broad term in Chinese and Japanese. If I attempted to translate it, I would have to say it means multiple english words: feeling, intuition, perception, emotion. Basically, Qi means all of the in humans are unquantifiable, subjective, etc.
So, to say that Qi is a made up concept is not something that is new, or revolutionary. In fact, to a speaker of an asian language, it is quite obvious.
Feng Shui should not and cannot be compared to and evaulated by science, because it isn't science. IT'S ART!
I think to avoid confusion, we should call it 'Chinese Interior Design' instead of Feng Shui. Would you write a blog post saying that 'Interior Design is a Human Construct'? No, because that would be obvious.
Posted by: Loren | April 28, 2009 at 03:12 PM
Cultural constructs are fine, so long as they are useful. We all act "as if" governments exist. But there's a useful purpose to the cultural construct of government. What is the useful purpose of Qi? If there's any, you'd have to demonstrate there is, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Posted by: Joseph | April 29, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Thanks loren. This is exactly what all of us were saying in the other post. It was the Feng Shui die hard, howard choy, who was saying it was science, part science, related to science, or had something at all to do with science.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | April 30, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I agree, Loren! If Feng Shui practitioners would just ADMIT it's Chinese Interior Design, they could cheerfully charge outrageous sums and no one would bat an eye. Yes, good interior design can affect people's moods! Absolutely!
When they ascribe magical health and moneymaking powerz to it, that's when I start having a problem. :)
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | May 02, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Apparently India has a similar construct called vaastu:
"Hindus believe that for peace, happiness, health and wealth one should abide by the guidelines of Vaastu while building a dwelling. It tells us how to avoid diseases, depression and disasters by living in structures, which allow the presence of a positive cosmic field."
http://hinduism.about.com/od/vaastu/a/vaastu.htm
Posted by: jcairo | May 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM