What is Ki?

[Valarian]

Given that rocks have Ki energy, but no brains, therefore possess ki power but not psychic power, the question that immediately pops in my mind is: can the rock, of it's own will, actually do anything with its ki energy?

@Karro, while it may seem silly to us, in the orient, that rock with Ki in it that is just sitting there is actually doing something - its sitting there absorbing the energy at that location. It is not inert, and is as much alive as we are. Just that rocks don't move - which is part of its "life cycle."

I was going to throw in a similar point. As an animist, I find the discussion interesting, even without the reference to D&D4e. From an animist's point of view, all living things (which include natural things such as rocks, mountains, etc.) contain a soul (life-force / anima) - which seems to be very similar to the concept of the Ki.

[Gamerprinter]

Much of this talk is academic. I am as much speaking of the concept of Ki outside the game, as it is a part of it.

In Japan, those manufactured good that have an intended short life span, such as a folding fan or a pair of straw sandles, as opposed to furniture, a house or a ship - can come alive, after a century of continued survival.

Theres a story of an old man that bought a pair of straw sandles. Under normal use, depending on how much walking he does, a pair of straw sandles can last a week or a few months. The old man died shortly after buying them, and for some reason the sandles got buried in the closet so to speak, and disappeared. A century later, the great grandson of the old man, found the pair of sandles and they moved and danced around.

So although taking a much longer period of time, that inert rock could become animated through the power of Ki. So all things have Ki and are alive, just not the same as normal living things.

The rock doesn't require a brain or other proof of animal/plant life, yet not only does it store Ki, Ki can give the rock supernatural life aspects.

I know this doesn't matter to the game, but further as differences to what Ki really is.

GP

[Nomadic]

As to whether ki and chi are different? Thats sort of like a discussion about whether protestants and catholics are different. If you are really into either of them, you probably think they are completely different. If you aren't, you probably see the differences as minor at best.

Just because someone unaware of what ki and chi actually are thinks they are a very similar thing does not make them a very similar thing. Basing definitions of things on something someone who doesn't know the definition says sounds a bit silly.

Roughly speaking Ki is the connection everything has with everything else. It has nothing to do with whether something is natural or not. Everything has ki, nothing has it more than anything else. It is an energy of sorts but not what most think of when you say energy. It is more an energy of extension or awareness.

Chi is connected to the elements. Fire, Water, Wood, Earth, and Metal. It deals with the flow of energy within the body and between the body and everything else and how to use the flow of energy in regards to those elements.

The only thing that the two concepts have in common is that when you use them they allow for a meditative state of mind. Even that though is different. Ki meditation is more about awareness and acknowledgment of everything which makes it good for martial arts. Chi is about that flow of energy and is more effective at more traditional meditation, the calming of mind and body and release of stress.

The More You Know

Anyhow Chi is very spiritual and could make for an interesting background to a character. A cleric in the form of an eastern religious monk would be cool. Ki i good for the monk in the concept of a martial fighter. And yes I think the monk should have been an oriental supplement.

[msa]

I am as much speaking of the concept of Ki outside the game, as it is a part of it.

Ah. Well, outside the game I am sure there is some difference that believers see. As a universal non-believer, I have nothing to contribute. Chi vs. Ki. Catholic vs. Protestant. Mayayana vs. Pure Land. Zen vs. Chan. They all look the same to me

[msa]

Just because someone unaware of what ki and chi actually are thinks they are a very similar thing does not make them a very similar thing. Basing definitions of things on something someone who doesn't know the definition says sounds a bit silly.

Roughly speaking Ki is the connection everything has with everything else. It has nothing to do with whether something is natural or not. Everything has ki, nothing has it more than anything else. It is an energy of sorts but not what most think of when you say energy. It is more an energy of extension or awareness.

Chi is connected to the elements. Fire, Water, Wood, Earth, and Metal. It deals with the flow of energy within the body and between the body and everything else and how to use the flow of energy in regards to those elements.

Well, I have an academic understanding of both, as well as a lot of other details about various religions and philosophies. Its just, as a non believer, these differences seem minor at best.

Like... your descriptions? Very little difference between the two. Its like if you tried to explain to me how very different believing in the holy trinity is vs. believing in god. I just have to take your word for it... looks like apples and apples to me.

[Nexis]

So if I have this straight in my head.
Psy- The person, specificaly the brain, is a reactor. It generates the energy that the person then manipulates and uses.
Ki- The person is a capasiter. Absorbing the (potential) energy in all things and manipulates that to his own ends.
So Ki is a realisation and sencitivity to the living force of the world (Gia) and learned to channel that force spiritualy. While, say, a wizard does the same thing but using more brute force means to rip the energy from the living world.
There is definatly an interesting idea in here to use Ki and Psy in the game while not needing the eastern flavor.
Say isn't that like a Druid? Using the life force of plants to power themselves?

[Karro]

You're missing my point here. Ki is in fact only partially internal.
Psionics is individual only. Ki is everywhere.

@Karro, while it may seem silly to us, in the orient, that rock with Ki in it that is just sitting there is actually doing something - its sitting there absorbing the energy at that location. It is not inert, and is as much alive as we are. Just that rocks don't move - which is part of its "life cycle."

GP

PS: except that Ki is also internal, I think it would be a better argument that Ki and Primal was the same thing - much truer than Ki and Psionics.

I think you're touching on part of why I, personally, find your argument not completely convincing, rendering this a semantic debate. I'll allow that the association of degree of "naturalness" of an object may render it more or less powerful or inert with regards to ki, which from a certain outlook is vastly different from a typical understanding of psionics.

But where I think you're wrong is the assertion that psionics is only internal. Because psionics involves doing something external to the body without the physical effort of the body itself, this implies, to me, that the "mental exertion", per se, is being performed through some medium. Since the results of that exertion are external to the psionic user, the medium, by necessity, is also external. I suggest this is the case because if the power were only internal, then the psionicist would only be able to affect things internally (i.e. self-heal, increase in strength, etc) but not affect things externally except through the medium of his own body. To me, the fact that the power can be applied externally implies that the power has an external component. In the case of psionics, the means of activation, of accessing this external medium, is internal via the mind, but the power still manifests externally.

The question then arises: what is this medium by which a psionic user is able to exert his/her mental influence on the world outside him/herself? If that medium were the omnipresent will of a diety, we would call the power "divine". If that medium was some strange and unseen mystical energy derived from the resonnance from elemental material planes (or whatever your preferred explanation for the source of magic in D&D) then we'd call it "arcane" power. Both Ki and Psionics seems to be something else... something that is invisible and exists within the world and is manipulable through conscious application of effort. Are these energies the same? Who can tell? They're both invisible and omnipresent and cannot be detected through any of the normal sensory means.

Another way I have of looking at it is that psionics is a codification of so-called "ESP" and parapsychology. The connection, again, is that if we're "perceiving" something with non-standard senses, then there is something there to be perceived with non-standard senses, or that all things have a quality that lies beyond the physical characteristics we are normally aware of (size, color, shape, mass, sound, texture, etc. etc.)

To your point, however, given the connection between ki and the natural world, and the degree to which ki is influenced by something natural, inherent, and primal I think you can build a strong case that ki is, in fact, a part of this "natural" or "primal" category of power forces.

At the end of the day, I am neither for nor against "ki" as a source of energy being classifed with or without "psionics". To me, the difference is primarily one of flavor and fluff for the game. Especially since all powers mechanically work the same, apparently, in 4e. So if the flavor and fluff don't suit you, then I agree that's a valid reason for you to eschew 4e. My only point here is to demonstrate, probably redundantly, that you can argue that they are the same thing. I even thought up a story once where they effectively were the same thing. A setting or story where they are totally different and work in completely different ways is also conceivable. That's why I think it's a semantic question: it's all about how you think about it.

[Nomadic]

Well, I have an academic understanding of both, as well as a lot of other details about various religions and philosophies. Its just, as a non believer, these differences seem minor at best.

Like... your descriptions? Very little difference between the two. Its like if you tried to explain to me how very different believing in the holy trinity is vs. believing in god. I just have to take your word for it... looks like apples and apples to me.

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

[msa]

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

Be careful suggesting I am ignorant. I suspect I have thought about these issues a good bit more than you seem to realize.

[Karro]

If you think that it is similar to the difference between Christianity and Catholicism then there is nothing I can say except that ignorance of the difference doesn't mean there isn't a quite large one. As an aside I am not a "believer" in Ki. Ki isn't religious, so being a follower of it would be like being a follower of physics. It isn't a faith but something that does exist. It's just a matter of putting it to use. You can see it as a state of mind existing anytime you watch an Aikido master throw someone. Without that state of mind what they did would be impossible. There seems to be a blending in western culture between chi and ki when they are quite different. To put it as simple as possible, ki is practical extension, chi is spiritual meditation.

I'm rather with MSA on this one. To the unitiated there certainly appears to be little difference, when viewed from the outside.

The assertion that one cannot be a "believer" or "disbeliever" in Ki or chi or anything of that sort, for that matter, also appears falacious to me. While I am not a "universal non-believer" like MSA (i.e. I follow a specific religious faith), I have an understanding of the fact that if something cannot be seen, felt, touched, tasted or heard in the normal senses, whether the thing really exists or not, is real or not, to the individual the existence of the thing remains a matter of faith. "Faith" or belief in Physics, for example, seems absurd because we can demonstrably prove the things physics tells us through scientific experimentation. "Faith" or belief in god is not absurd, because without faith we cannot demonstrably prove god's existence. "Faith" or belief in heaven or hell is not absurd because we cannot demonstrably prove they exist (and one does not "follow" heaven or hell, they simply exist: one either goes to one or the other after death based on certain universal and natural laws; I don't say this as an assertion of my personal faith, per se, but as a point of comparison to your assertion on ki). Now maybe I'm just uneducated, but to me it appears ki/chi/etc. are the same as god, heaven, hell, etc. in that regard, as I am unaware of any means to scientifically and unequivocably prove the existence of ki. You can say that it exists, and I respect that, but whether or not it truly does exist, saying so doesn't make it so (in other words, I'm not saying ki doesn't exist, but I have no evidence for its existence besides your word). To me, that makes it a matter of faith.

To get back on topic then, I think where the major difference of opinion lies is in applying real-world ideas, beliefs, faiths, and assertions to a fantastic world. In the real world our perception of our beliefs and ideas tends to be more nuanced and particular. But I don't think it appropriate to bring many of these real-world faiths into the game world. My thoughts and ideas about the nature of god, for instance, are nothing like the way gods are portrayed in fantasy worlds. But I don't get hung up on the differing interpretations of gods and divinities between my personal, real-world beliefs and how they are portrayed in game-worlds. You can say in the game that all gods are flying spaghetti monsters, and it wouldn't bother me too much since that portrayal simply doesn't impact my real-world beliefs.