PDA

View Full Version : Baseline skillset


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


MM
08-20-2007, 10:05 AM
Good points, Budd. I'll usually prod people a little bit who already claim expertise to see exactly what their motivations are.


Man, Mike, you hit a nerve on that one. :) I don't think I've ever really come up with a good answer to my motivations. As some older martial artists have said in interviews, to be strong, is aptly answered. But, I think that speaks to a lot of people who study a martial art. Are there other motivations than that?

And working on some of these basic exercises, my mind still screams why am I doing this. Well, after the mind quits trying to do the exercises, it screams that question. During, my mind doesn't have the time or extra neurons to do anything but concentrate on the exercises. :)

So why? heck, I can continue in Aikido without the internal stuff. But I want to put it into my aikido. It's my opinion it was there from the start. And I don't want to get close to Ueshiba's skill. I don't want to be like Ueshiba or have his skill. I want to be better than Ueshiba. I want to stand on his shoulders and go further. Maybe that is a motivation ...


Only a few people are really interested in exploring an art to these depths unless they have a reasonable body of their peers doing the same thing. In other words, the herd instinct is one of the main factors at work.


Seems that way.


The second thing is that there is an IQ threshold to all of this. Not everyone can get it (have the day-to-day insights from smarts and hard work) or would be willing to devote the time and effort.


Heh. I may prove you wrong on the IQ thing. :) LOL. I've never been the brightest bulb in the house. Just the most stubborn.

Mark

Budd
08-20-2007, 10:50 AM
You know, if I had to provide an answer as to why this stuff is of interest - it'd be that (to borrow Dan's phrase - which nails it IMO), "It makes you a better you."

Of course, there can be all sorts of examination and pseudo-scitheophilologicontific analyses of what the word "better" means, but for my purposes and goals for training - it really fits.

Now, as for answering the question as to exactly "where" it fits . . . I don't know, yet . . . still working on that one.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2007, 11:16 AM
ManAs some older martial artists have said in interviews, to be strong, is aptly answered. But, I think that speaks to a lot of people who study a martial art. Are there other motivations than that? Well sure. There's status, wannabelieve-something-esoteric, social, ritual, pecking-order, and a number of other reasons. Generally speaking (i.e., there are exceptions) some of the nicest martial artists (true Wu-De/Bu-Do) I've met tend to be the ones who are purists and always looking, regardless of the other stuff. There's a common feeling that is usually pretty recognizable. ;)

Best,

Mike

gdandscompserv
08-20-2007, 11:30 AM
or would it be better for those imaginary students if you simply worked to keep Justin out of the teaching ranks of various arts?
Mike,
What are the "teaching ranks" and how would you go about working to keep Justin out of those ranks?

akiy
08-20-2007, 11:53 AM
Let's stay away from discussions of a personal nature here, folks.

Last warning before thread gets closed.

-- Jun

statisticool
08-20-2007, 10:36 PM
You'll stay where you are. That circular piece of sky up above you must be fascinating.

I'll stay where I am asking for evidence of amazing claims? Yes, I will.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2007, 10:39 PM
The discussion of who should show whom what will be a topic on QiJin since obviously it won't fit into AikiWeb.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
08-20-2007, 10:42 PM
Super! I can't wait to read it on QiJin.

Justin

gdandscompserv
08-21-2007, 09:54 AM
The discussion of who should show whom what will be a topic on QiJin since obviously it won't fit into AikiWeb.

Mike Sigman
What's QiJin?

Ron Tisdale
08-21-2007, 11:36 AM
QiJin is a private list...invitation only, I believe.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
08-21-2007, 12:29 PM
If you restrict your membership to people who are really interested (and who post.... non-posters get the boot pretty soon), you can have some fairly good discussions. Of course, it's not a perfect membership (we even have some guy who surreptitiously sends Dan the QiJin stuff, apparently), but when you don't have to play to the general (i.e., heavily social, wannabe, role-playing, ritualisitic, New Age, the Nut Cases, etc., etc.) and can instead have discussions centered on the technical, etc., it can be very productive. AikiWeb caters to the general membership of Aikido and has a different protocol and focus than QiJin, which focuses on the body mechanics of qi/ki and jin/kokyu. Each to his own.

FWIW

Mike

Ron Tisdale
08-21-2007, 12:39 PM
Understood...and actually, I think it is a good idea. I would be a lurker there, and nothing more, so that's why I never took you up on your offer.

Best,
Ron

MM
08-21-2007, 12:56 PM
Some background reading is required here:
http://cattanga.typepad.com/see_otter_yiquan/

It's worth it, IMO. I think it's two pages, so nothing like this thread.

Anyway, the person's latest entry is about the "The Missing Basic" exercise to develop qi/ki. Is this "Missing Basic" something that is part of what we talk about here?

statisticool
08-21-2007, 04:10 PM
From the page
(bold added)


No I'm not going to tell its name. Why should I, just to get all kinds of random shit blastback from every idiot out there on the net. Y'all don't pay me enough for that. But it's in there, and I got it.
...
The Missing Basic is in there. If you can find it you can have it.


What is up with the 'shroud of mystery' approach.

Budd
08-21-2007, 08:21 PM
Well, it was a good discussion while it lasted . . . .

Walker
08-21-2007, 09:15 PM
What is up with the 'shroud of mystery' approach.

I think the answer is self contained, "Why should I, just to get all kinds of random shit blastback from every idiot out there on the net." I would also speculate that while the MB is basic it is not sufficient in and of itself.

The other question is will they feel the same about MB two weeks from now?

Lee Salzman
08-22-2007, 01:09 AM
Some background reading is required here:
http://cattanga.typepad.com/see_otter_yiquan/

It's worth it, IMO. I think it's two pages, so nothing like this thread.

Anyway, the person's latest entry is about the "The Missing Basic" exercise to develop qi/ki. Is this "Missing Basic" something that is part of what we talk about here?

The thing about the "missing basic" is extremely suspect. He talks about just flicking "hunyuanli"/martial ability on like a light switch makes little sense when you are wading in and practicing it. It's a progression, where you must improve every step of the way, not something that just "happens". In yiquan you are reconditioning/overriding your habitual movement patterns that you have been practicing since birth with whole movements, and this is not something you just "trigger".

gdandscompserv
08-22-2007, 06:14 AM
QiJin is a private list...invitation only
Ahh...the secret soke council.

Timothy WK
08-22-2007, 06:35 AM
The Missing Basic - the one practice method, a single basic drill that is The Most Ultimately Optimal for developing The Power Formerly Known As Qi...

No I'm not going to tell its name.
OK, but...

...I can say at this stage that if I had to pick the top three all-star practices, of what I've learned so far, it would be these three:

1. Control Tiger
2. Ping Bao Zhuang (flat handed 'combat post' standing practice)
3. Huang Rao Pi (spiral splitting practice)

I choose these not cause I like the names or they make me look cool or anything, but because the energetic effect/harvest of these three is the greatest. In terms of TPFKAQ (The Power Formerly Known As Qi).
I think you can tell something about where is the pearl in the oyster of any art by clocking what the most senior students do in their own individual practice (rather than averaging over a syllabus or looking at the broad mass of average students).

So in that light, here are the results of my staggeringly unscientific survey of the more advanced shixoing types in the ZongXunWuGuan:

=======================================

70% of their time = basic Hun Yuan Zhuang (combative pose) standing! ... spiced with various subtle shili's directly based on that.

25% of their time = highly combative partner work: push hands, sparring, and related combative stuff

5% of their time = other kinds of "health" zhan zhuang's, walking shili's, mocabu's, fali of all kinds.
I think we can infer what exercise he's talking about.

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2007, 09:17 AM
Ahh...the secret soke council.

Sour grapes, anyone??? ;)

Look, they don't hand out fancy belts or awards. It's a discussion group. And the reason it is private is responses like the I'm quoting above. And the fact that this is happening here is exactly the point of why these kinds of threads are better in the private venue, which in turn drives this information under ground. Counter productive, don't you think???

If we didn't have responses like these, maybe the information wouldn't be in a private discussion group. :uch:

Best,
Ron

Chuck Clark
08-22-2007, 09:42 AM
My dad, an old farmer and blacksmith, would've said, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." another one... "Hogs' eyes weren't made to look at the moon." I grew up hearing these in context and I don't think he ever used these old sayings in a prejudicial manner. As often stated in threads on this site, working close to the land brings both physical development and a certain insight into human "stuff."

Budd
08-22-2007, 10:30 AM
Yeah, well it's frustrating to be in the position of "just trying to work and train" things, start to get a decent discussion going and then see it get moved elsewhere (I'm used to derailing in public forums, even done it a time or two - so karma sucks ;)), but I'm not in any kind of position to really contribute anything substantive to this topic other than ask newbie questions and point at it to other people and say, "Yes, yes . . . is good, try!"

Course, I also think everybody should grow up having done hard, manual labor, participated in combat sports and contributed to a theatrical or musical production (we all have our own biases) . . .

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2007, 10:36 AM
and contributed to a theatrical or musical production

Yikes! nudge nuge, wink wink... ;)

B,
R

gdandscompserv
08-22-2007, 10:53 AM
Sour grapes, anyone??? ;)

Look, they don't hand out fancy belts or awards. It's a discussion group. And the reason it is private is responses like the I'm quoting above. And the fact that this is happening here is exactly the point of why these kinds of threads are better in the private venue, which in turn drives this information under ground. Counter productive, don't you think???

If we didn't have responses like these, maybe the information wouldn't be in a private discussion group. :uch:

Best,
Ron
Oh settle down Ron. I didn't mean to offend you.:)
Me thinks people take themselves too seriously.:D
There are private, super-secret discussion forums all over the internet. Just not my cup of tea is all. After all, familiarity breeds contempt you know.:p

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2007, 10:55 AM
I'm not offended, and I certainly don't mean any offense. But I think my point stands...

Best,
Ron

Chuck Clark
08-22-2007, 10:57 AM
Course, I also think everybody should grow up having done hard, manual labor, participated in combat sports and contributed to a theatrical or musical production (we all have our own biases) . . .

Sounds like we had a similar background in those activities, Budd. When I was fourteen, my dad and I, along with one of his brothers and two sons, cleared five acres of blackjack oak... stumps and all. I became very proficient with a double bit axe, crosscut saw, an old John Deere tractor, and a team of Arkansas mules (along with many ways to survive blisters and assorted ailments. I also worked on my grandparents farm every summer helping with harvest from age 8 until 17. I also took a very active part in many years of vocal music training, competitions, freestyle and dance skating, and ballroom dancing for many years. At the same time, I was learning budo in the form of (old style) judo, jujutsu, and karate-do and beginning aikido in my late teens. I'm not doing farming anymore, or dancing, or skating, just a bit of singing around the house, and have never stopped budo practice.

Thanks for igniting some old memories... :)

Mike Sigman
08-22-2007, 11:02 AM
Hi Ron:

I think I mentioned this in some earlier articles, videos, etc., but the idea is still valid. One of the great obstacles to learning ki/kokyu skills is what we call "SPD" or "Self Perception Disorder". It turns out that everyone sees himself as a nice guy and the new stuff.... well, they're already doing that, or close enough that there's no real difference. Being motivated and willing to question oneself (as well as others) is actually pretty rare. ..... But enough of these armchair musings...... ;)

Best.

Mike

Budd
08-22-2007, 11:07 AM
Thank you, Clark Sensei . . . My Dad had me in judo then later wrestling since I was school-age, my grandparents had me working their 400-acre tree farm since about that time as well.

When I got to high school, it turned out that there was a sincere lack of men anxious to be in the theatre productions. Simple mathematics calculated that the guy:girl ratio made the activity at least worth exploring (plus, I've never had a problem looking dumb - pretending to do it intentionally came easy). Which continued into college, which led to voice/singing and dance training -- that circled back into how I paid attention to breathing and different aspects of movement in sports and budo.

I still swear that they're all related - can't claim greatness in any of them, but I can think of pieces that have contributed to where I've progressed on my budo journey.

Thank you, Sensei, for sharing your perspective.

Best/Budd

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2007, 11:18 AM
Don't sweat it Budd, I'm just jealous! I always wanted to be in productions, but have a devil of a time memorizing lines. Finally, in college, I was in Finnegan's Rainbow as the college educated waiter. :D Very few lines, but big laughs! Heck, you may have even seen it! Would have been around '82 or '83...

Best,
Ron (Story of my life, few lines, big laughs...)

Budd
08-22-2007, 11:40 AM
Dude, no offense, sweat or anything negative taken! And I probably should clarify (so I don't commit any more of an SPD) that I don't think it's necessarily something that makes you understand "the baseline skills" so much as it encourages you to 1) Be well-rounded 2) Used to working hard on seemingly endless mundane tasks 3) Unafraid to step outside one's comfort zones.

gdandscompserv
08-22-2007, 12:06 PM
I grew up milking cows and bucking hay. Put myself through college twistin mink necks. Was studying kung fu, Wun Hop Kuen Do style, way back then. Now, I'm a desk jockey learning aikido. Sure do miss farming.

Budd
08-22-2007, 01:09 PM
Ricky - Cool, so if you have a diverse background and a genuine interest to seek out this stuff (which I assume you do, since you seem to keep posting those "look at me" one-liners in threads on this topic), what's stopping you?

Or are you just looking for attention? I don't take it seriously or with offense (nor do I mean to give any), it just sorta has me scratching my head . . .

Erick Mead
08-22-2007, 01:17 PM
Look, they don't hand out fancy belts or awards. It's a discussion group. And the reason it is private is responses like the I'm quoting above. And the fact that this is happening here is exactly the point of why these kinds of threads are better in the private venue, which in turn drives this information under ground. Counter productive, don't you think???

If we didn't have responses like these, maybe the information wouldn't be in a private discussion group. :uch: I might tend to agree, but when those who participate in these discussions are asked to discuss matters in terms of reference that do not reflect a self-enclosed jargon, there is resistance to the very idea that it MIGHT just have a more general physical basis that can usefully be examined in more generally accessible terms. When some discussions do tend that way, the fall-back is into areas that are less than generally accepted, such as "fascial" theories of action. I do not deny that there is some basis of biomechanical action that is not muscular in the leverage sense, but that does not mean it has no adequate basis for description in physical mechanics.

The implication is that generalizing the debate surrenders control over the terms of reference -- which is true, and a strong hallmark of concern. One can avoid any critical question if you get to define the terms of reference, or if they are so ill defined as to make any answer impossible to question further. The history of jargonized charlatanism in this arena is too well documented (and deep in history even in China and Japan) to allow for breezy dismissals of the "uninitiated."

Holistic terms of traditional understanding are fine as far as they go, but they are not in opposition to or incompatible with western mechanics. The Chinese have a space program, you know. Japan has submarines and its own satellite programs.

When you hear hooves think horses not zebras -- that's all I am saying. Lectures from anyone about what I or anyone does or does not hear, are worse than pointless, as are suggestions that only certain people can allow me to hear them, or that useful descriptions of even extremely subtle physical action are not within the realm of physical concepts. I have heard them -- now let everyone get down to the taxonomy of the equine hoofbeats already, and leave the classification of the snarkbeasts for some other forum..

Budd
08-22-2007, 02:03 PM
I think there's jargon in any discipline, depending on what/whom you learn from. The most scientifically accurate description of what the throat/diaphragm are doing when singing correctly might not help anyone actually "do it".

By the same token, I'd be willing to bet that plenty of budo practitioners that have been around the block have techniques/principles that result in certain effects without them being precisely aware "why" they happen. Or they may offer a pseudo-scientific reasoning that may or may not be factual of complete.

But then I also think it ultimately comes back to learning to replicate desired skills from the people that "have" them. Again, like many disciplines worth studying, it's usually going to be on the teacher's terms, not the student's.

And I guess in some areas, I would rather train to be able to replicate a skill, then follow-up with polishing and making it my own - than necessarily be able to describe it in terms that will pass muster with the scientific community. I agree that the latter concept is worthwhile, but maybe secondary, depending on one's viewpoint.

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2007, 02:11 PM
Eric,
Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about...

Best,
Ron

gdandscompserv
08-22-2007, 04:50 PM
Ricky - Cool, so if you have a diverse background and a genuine interest to seek out this stuff (which I assume you do, since you seem to keep posting those "look at me" one-liners in threads on this topic), what's stopping you?

Or are you just looking for attention? I don't take it seriously or with offense (nor do I mean to give any), it just sorta has me scratching my head . . .
Budd,
I don't know if my background is diverse or not.
Money and time are the only things that keep me from seeking "this stuff" out, whatever "this stuff" is. But don't get me wrong, I spent 10 years in Okinawa learning "this stuff." I am actively seeking a job at Yokosuka Naval Base so's I can learn some more of this stuff. I am nothing but a sincere student of budo.
I regularly train at as many different dojos as I can. Don't know if I'll ever get "this stuff" but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Don't scratch your head over me, I aint nobody.
:D

Erick Mead
08-22-2007, 06:33 PM
I think there's jargon in any discipline, depending on what/whom you learn from. The most scientifically accurate description of what the throat/diaphragm are doing when singing correctly might not help anyone actually "do it".

By the same token, I'd be willing to bet that plenty of budo practitioners that have been around the block have techniques/principles that result in certain effects without them being precisely aware "why" they happen. Or they may offer a pseudo-scientific reasoning that may or may not be factual of complete.

I do that (sing) actually. And it is true that imagery used in voice coaching can be quite figurative, even silly-sounding. I do not disparage that, but it is acknowledged as imaginative feedback on actual quality of sound and associated sensation, and the imagery is wholly arbitrary, even when effective.

As to the latter -- you might be surprised at what has been learned and applied: http://www.inner-act.com/Media/Article/?plugin:dataview:Media:11:status=1

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=FPL2006058005363

But then I also think it ultimately comes back to learning to replicate desired skills from the people that "have" them. Again, like many disciplines worth studying, it's usually going to be on the teacher's terms, not the student's. On this we differ. I think there is a basic aspect of fundamental human movement that is involved and is a natural as singing and as basic in its mechnics as it is potentially superlative or as near effortless in its performance as human movement can be when handling a given load. This occurs when given right attention (nen) with an openennes to the right intuitive sensibilities (kan) working toward effortlessness. If it was too hard, basically it was done wrong, now we figure out why it was too hard and don't do it that way again. The mind/body refines itself to the shape of the energy of the interaction with enough repetition and attention to critical form. I actually do not think that the methods used or discussed by those here are bad at all, I just think they are unduly exclusive in their assumptions of effectiveness.

Technical training is largely critical -- in "unlearning" bad habits that result in unneeded effort (a thread of this discussion that does keep cropping up) or inelegant form (always a measure of efficiency) . In singing as in physical movement, attention to form and effortlessness brings sure results. Effort for efforts sake, regardless of the form of training does not necessarily bring anything, except general fitness, other than by happy accident.

And I guess in some areas, I would rather train to be able to replicate a skill, then follow-up with polishing and making it my own - than necessarily be able to describe it in terms that will pass muster with the scientific community. I agree that the latter concept is worthwhile, but maybe secondary, depending on one's viewpoint.But polish requires finer and finer grit. Physics is the finest grit we got. It has its uses even in less refined settings, too.

Budd
08-23-2007, 07:25 AM
Erick - fine, but on one hand you're acknowledging that the way certain things are transmitted comes from hands on re-wiring and feedback based on focused imagery that yields the correct results (am I talking about singing, teh Internals or both). Most everybody here working on these things has said that it needs to be felt in person.

On the other hand, the attention to form and effortlessness is in both activities, but you think the vocabulary used to describe the latter is too exclusive. That's your opinion and you have your right to it, but I don't think much of the discussion here, in general, is doing a lot more than giving people the indication of whether or not they want to follow up in person and "feel" what people are doing (okay, admittedly, I'm projecting, cause that was the case for me).

At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it".

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 08:02 AM
At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it".The problem is that not all the exact processes are known which contibute to the total strength. I have some theories about how some of the things *may* work, but no studies have ever been done on the full mechanisms of breath strength, etc. So to talk about a rigorous exposition is sort of silly. Besides, as has been noted before, a number of us unrelated "searchers" seem to communicate reasonably well without needing matrices and linear determinants. Not only that, but the "path" idea is the one that I have a number of illustrations for in China and Japan, so using that approach isn't some innovative new idea, by any means.

Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat. ;)

Best.

Mike

Budd
08-23-2007, 08:19 AM
Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat. ;)


Yeah, that was kind of my original point (and I apologize for beating the singing correlation past the point of demise), but I had or knew more than a few "voice" teachers that I didn't think could sing worth a damn. They all had scientific diagrams/explanations of the mechanics involved, blah blah, but they lost credibility quickly when the music started.

On the flip side, there may be coaches in plenty of activities that can't necessarily perform at certain levels, but are able to train people to elite levels. But, per one of your other points, I'd guess that would be in areas where the exact processes involved that contribute to overall performance are more widely known and catalogued.

Anyhow, I'm sure not in any position speak about what I can "do" or how the heck it definitively "works". I guess I just keep circling back to my original position of "get out there and see what people are doing".

gdandscompserv
08-23-2007, 08:45 AM
Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat. ;)
That's quite a bold statement there Mike. I think math and physics is rather important to our development and well being as human beings thereby giving us more time for luxury's like budo training and blogging. Granted, it is a two-edged sword, but I certainly would not dismiss it as a waste of time.
And what should we be learning in our study of budo?
Does one have to be able to manifest something "physically" for it to be of worth. I have enjoyed many a good book that defy that reasoning.
I'm still not quite sure what I should be physically manifesting in my training. The thing that I am ultimately curious about is what I feel like. One can never really know that. We are always relying on someone else's opinion of what we feel like. If the budo Kami would grant me one wish it would be for me to be able to feel me. Oh what progress I would make then.

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 08:52 AM
Erick - fine, but on one hand you're acknowledging that the way certain things are transmitted comes from hands on re-wiring and feedback based on focused imagery that yields the correct results (am I talking about singing, the Internals or both). Most everybody here working on these things has said that it needs to be felt in person. Two points. One-- Nobody is saying that one can sing in theory. At the same time what works in coaching typical singing is not descriptive, but affective (and maybe even effective) in other words, adjusting "feel" of the action in a non-descriptive way.

Good examples are singing "through the top of your head," and things like "head voice" and "chest voice." which bear, at best, only a passing attachment to what is physically occurring in the body. Most of the training methods or modalities discussed here are affective in that way, adjusting a non-descriptive "feel." The reason for this is simple. The body does not have fine sensory neurons in the deep tissues to provide direct detailed feedback. Since it works for many people here, apparently, they defend it for what it does for them, but I think, in my case in anyway, it is not actually being attacked, only their understanding of what it means in concrete terms is being critiqued.

Second point. The assumption of many in this discussion is that the course of aikido training in the major schools CANNOT show "it." I deny this. I have practiced many places, in different traditions and have experienced or felt all I need to feel to know what it is that I am working on. I have no idea if my experience is typical, but then neither do those on this discussion who feel that they have missed somethign that they dimly perceived along the way to be importnat but did not get. Whether or not any one person's practice is "typical" is beside the point since the issue is not resolved by a poll.

At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it". That is why I am working on it at this level of detail, in a way different from the level of detail you may be working on. That's why I am working on it from a concrete physical perspective.

To you or me in practice our own feeling has immediate concrete meaning even if it is only affective, as with singing, because we do not have the sensory apparatus to directly sense what is physically occurring to make the movement, we only sense the resulting kinesthetic change flowing from the movement. We will it, and we move and our motor cortex does not do a lot of talking back about what it is doing, moving or why. That is one level of subjective disconnect from objective reality in "feeling."

A further level of disconnect exists in trying to "feel" it from anyone else. To anyone else another person's feeling is just a ghostly outline, a faint sketch. A good teacher is imaginative and adaptive and can give good affective corrections based on their "feel" and make that ghost a very lively and brightly colored image to try and replicate. But it remains an image. Most aikido, and most martial arts for that matter, is taught in this way, and has been for a very very long time.

Sometimes the flights of imagination used in training may seem silly to those who have not trained in that particular paradigm of imagery. Thus, we have frequent snarkfests about people's training and "those idiots" trying to "sing through the top of their heads." The critique is both valid and completely misplaced at one and the same time.

My study and my practice is in trying to put some objective flesh on the wispy ghost of subjective "feeling," in order to make both perspectives -- in one's own individual practice and in trying to receive or give teaching -- more effective. It should not supplant imagery of feeling, especially not those of long tradition in their effectiveness, but will better map that imaginitive feeling onto an objective foundation.

It can make the imagery used in training MORE real -- with fewer castles built out in the thin air, or at least they will be more obvious and therefore more easily avoided. And "more real" should not be suspect in terms of its likely efficacy. It is about the only common ground where the very different affective training modes can meet and discuss real questions to help one another out instead of snorting and laughing over beer at one another (not that there's anything wrong with that) .

Budd
08-23-2007, 09:02 AM
I'm still not quite sure what I should be physically manifesting in my training. The thing that I am ultimately curious about is what I feel like. One can never really know that. We are always relying on someone else's opinion of what we feel like. If the budo Kami would grant me one wish it would be for me to be able to feel me. Oh what progress I would make then.

The irony here is that it seems one of the main points of "this stuff" (caveat emptor, my opinion based on my very limited knowledge and exposure to it) is to work on you, to allow you to get better in synch with you, so that under pressure you're still working on maintaining you . . . you, you, you . . . me, me, me (I swear I'm not singing - okay, maybe a little).

Budd
08-23-2007, 09:15 AM
My study and my practice is in trying to put some objective flesh on the wispy ghost of subjective "feeling," in order to make both perspectives -- in one's own individual practice and in trying to receive or give teaching -- more effective. It should not supplant imagery of feeling, especially not those of long tradition in their effectiveness, but will better map that imaginitive feeling onto an objective foundation.

I can't argue against your desire to improve the pedagogical method of transmission and delivery. I believe that was one of Kano's aims for judo. But I think in order to have the "moral authority" to improve upon an existing concept, or the transmission of said concept, there, in all likelihood, needs to be a recognized proficiency in said concept.

If your practice has already included the development of this proficiency, then maybe the next logical step would be to get together with people also on this specific path (working the "baseline skills") to work stuff in person, since most practitioners still seem to be on the level of believing and applying the mantra, "it needs to be felt".

To be clear, I'm not trying to tell you what to do by any means, just musing out loud.

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 09:45 AM
I can't argue against your desire to improve the pedagogical method of transmission and delivery. I believe that was one of Kano's aims for judo. But I think in order to have the "moral authority" to improve upon an existing concept, or the transmission of said concept, there, in all likelihood, needs to be a recognized proficiency in said concept. And in traditional terms of various approaches to affective trainng for the "feeling" you would be right. There have been many castles of charlatanry built on air, as I indicated earlier. Persuasive imagery without pedigree or demonstration is lacking in bona fides, and it requires that vetting to give some witness to its basis in truth and usefulness. Even with demonstration, though, it may not be a hedge against mere clever showmanship (which you must admit is a historically significant risk of the "you have to go see X, who has 'it' " school of thought. This is expressed by some critics here, causing a degree of distaste among others. On this point, though if you have not watched Derren Brown's show, you really should. People can be manipulated in the most startlingly simple ways, and the concern is not overstated as a general case.

That's the advantage of physical mechanics as an approach. There is no moral anything, and no authority either, for that matter. Either a physical description is accurate and can be observed just as accurately by someone else looking at the same thing it describes -- or it isn't. No vetting required. Also no personality contests or "my Shihan's physics is better than your Shihan's physics." It may or may not be true -- but it can be shown whether it is or isn't true -- regardless of one's loyalties or lack of reasons to trust a proponent on a given point. It does not require math, just a knowledge of the physical principles used to described motion and their known operations and relationships, although math can be used to check the descriptions more rigorously if one wants.

Budd
08-23-2007, 10:24 AM
I don't know that people are arguing against physical mechanics being "bad", maybe just not as useful, at this point, since it seems to be a phenomenon that needs to be "felt", rather than observed - at least until the experts agree on all the physical mechanics and appropriate methods to measure them - not to mention the agreed upon crtieria for one's qualificaitons to even be able to "observe" the phenomenon with any degree of accuracy.

But now we're really just waxing on and off about stuff that might not be relevant if we can't actually "do" any of it.

MM
08-23-2007, 01:39 PM
That's the advantage of physical mechanics as an approach. There is no moral anything, and no authority either, for that matter. Either a physical description is accurate and can be observed just as accurately by someone else looking at the same thing it describes -- or it isn't. No vetting required. Also no personality contests or "my Shihan's physics is better than your Shihan's physics." It may or may not be true -- but it can be shown whether it is or isn't true -- regardless of one's loyalties or lack of reasons to trust a proponent on a given point. It does not require math, just a knowledge of the physical principles used to described motion and their known operations and relationships, although math can be used to check the descriptions more rigorously if one wants.

I disagree with your points. There are always personality contests and there are most definitely my teacher's physics is better than your teacher's physics. Groups of physicists have disagreed on theories for as long as they've been alive and kicking.

Physical descriptions can be inaccurate. And can be wildly inaccurate at that. Ask law enforcement about it. What one person sees is not necessarily what another person sees. Not only that, but some things can be missed entirely.

Here, take this example:

Person A is young and weighs 90 pounds.
Person B is bigger and stronger and weighs 270 pounds.

Now, person A stands with feet side by side in a relaxed posture. Person B stands behind A. B puts his hands under B's armpits.

Now, B lifts A into the air about 2-3'. B puts A down. A again stands the same way. B tries to lift A and can't. B strains and his face turns red. A stands relaxed. Looking at the scene, there is no difference in A. The difference is that B picks up A and then B can not (as in physically unable to) pick up A.

There is no physical principles of motion here. A does not move, but merely stands relaxed. Anyone viewing from the outside (someone who is neither A nor B) would have no clue as to what is going on. Video will show nothing at all on what is really happening (In fact, most will not believe what they are seeing and think it is staged). All anyone will see is first A is picked up and then second B is straining with A not moving. Unless you are either A or B, you have no clue as to what is really going on. And even B doesn't necessarily know what's happening.

Mark

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 03:18 PM
I disagree with your points. There are always personality contests and there are most definitely my teacher's physics is better than your teacher's physics. Groups of physicists have disagreed on theories for as long as they've been alive and kicking. and those debates have been immensely fruitful, but truly, we are talking about classical mechanics here, and these are very well understood in their operation. Hawking and his detractors may still go toe to toe, but the mechanics at issue here are not remotely that debatable.

Physical descriptions can be inaccurate. And can be wildly inaccurate at that. Who said that they could not be? A description in physical terms can be repeatedly compared to the thing described , and if accurate, the comparison maps to a high degree -- objectively. If not, it doesn't. No one said that mechanics is a fool-proof method if there are poor observations, just that it helps to remedy poor observation and potentially make it more critical and observant of relevant detail.
Person A is young and weighs 90 pounds.
Person B is bigger and stronger and weighs 270 pounds.

Now, person A stands with feet side by side in a relaxed posture. Person B stands behind A. B puts his hands under B's armpits.

Now, B lifts A into the air about 2-3'. B puts A down. A again stands the same way. B tries to lift A and can't. B strains and his face turns red. A stands relaxed. Looking at the scene, there is no difference in A. The difference is that B picks up A and then B can not (as in physically unable to) pick up A.

There is no physical principles of motion here. A does not move, but merely stands relaxed. Anyone viewing from the outside (someone who is neither A nor B) would have no clue as to what is going on. Video will show nothing at all on what is really happening (In fact, most will not believe what they are seeing and think it is staged). All anyone will see is first A is picked up and then second B is straining with A not moving. Unless you are either A or B, you have no clue as to what is really going on. And even B doesn't necessarily know what's happening. I beg to differ, the mechanical principles are quite well understood -- even if their application is matter of art.

The unliftable body (a showmanship demonstration) uses the simple fact that the only way for two people to lift another person from either side holding his arms is to form a stable arch across his shoulder girdle. If the liftee ensures that he maintains at least four relaxed hinge joints in that chain -- he cannot be lifted, because a four hinged arch is a mechanism and will not bear any load using arch action. Since the joints are under voluntary control, the configuration of hinges can be constantly adapted to shifting conditions of lift to defeat a load path. In mechanical terms, angular momentum (free rotation) is being used to defeat the moment (pinned potential rotation) that creates arch action.

In your specific example -- by one person lifting from the armpits from behind -- you are trying to establish the same arch action across the shoulder girdle between the lifting hands. There are the following exploitable hinges, 1) where his hands connect to you, 2) your rotator joints he is lifting against, and 3) the complex scapular/clavicle/cervical joint, or six in all. Two can become isolated and locked and the remaining four are still in play. Each of them is three dimensional in its play. And the head can serve as a counterweight to control weight distribution.

By adaptively relaxing these joints so as to put his lifting force out of plane in any of the three axes available, his lifting energy cannot be applied directly upward -- sapping his effective force. By adaptive altering of the relaxations/tensions in these joints -- weight can also be distributed to one side and then the other by selectively isolating hinges -- while exposing the only potentially liftable load path on the fully weighted side, which of course he cannot lift with only one arm in play, as he has no leverage.

Defeating a lift denies a useable load path and/or movement that constrains the lifting options to unmanageable positions. I will grant that what is being done in defeating a load path is more subtle, but it is not done without betraying the movement used to achieve it, nor in violation of any mechanical principles. It is an adaptive problem, but knowing the principles that are in operation makes it easier to train for the necessary real-time adaptations. .

Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 03:32 PM
I beg to differ, the mechanical principles are quite well understood -- even if their application is matter of art.

The unliftable body (a showmanship demonstration) uses the simple fact that the only way for two people to lift another person from either side holding his arms is to form a stable arch across his shoulder girdle. If the liftee ensures that he maintains at least four relaxed hinge joints in that chain -- he cannot be lifted, because a four hinged arch is a mechanism and will not bear any load using arch action. Since the joints are under voluntary control, the configuration of hinges can be constantly adapted to shifting conditions of lift to defeat a load path. In mechanical terms, angular momentum (free rotation) is being used to defeat the moment (pinned potential rotation) that creates arch action.

In your specific example -- by one person lifting from the armpits from behind -- you are trying to establish the same arch action across the shoulder girdle between the lifting hands. There are the following exploitable hinges, 1) where his hands connect to you, 2) your rotator joints he is lifting against, and 3) the complex scapular/clavicle/cervical joint, or six in all. Two can become isolated and locked and the remaining four are still in play. Each of them is three dimensional in its play. And the head can serve as a counterweight to control weight distribution.

By adaptively relaxing these joints so as to put his lifting force out of plane in any of the three axes available, his lifting energy cannot be applied directly upward -- sapping his effective force. By adaptive altering of the relaxations/tensions in these joints -- weight can also be distributed to one side and then the other by selectively isolating hinges -- while exposing the only potentially liftable load path on the fully weighted side, which of course he cannot lift with only one arm in play, as he has no leverage.

Defeating a lift denies a useable load path and/or movement that constrains the lifting options to unmanageable positions. I will grant that what is being done in defeating a load path is more subtle, but it is not done without betraying the movement used to achieve it, nor in violation of any mechanical principles. It is an adaptive problem, but knowing the principles that are in operation makes it easier to train for the necessary real-time adaptations. .

Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.

Mike

MM
08-23-2007, 03:35 PM
Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.

Mike

LOL. Well, in today's world, Mike, you can be "special". ;) It just depends on how you're defining the word.

Mark

MM
08-23-2007, 03:39 PM
Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.

Well, how would you wrap your mind around things if there was a way? No movement but still defeating the initial lift from a bear hug?

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 03:45 PM
I don't know that people are arguing against physical mechanics being "bad", maybe just not as useful, at this point, since it seems to be a phenomenon that needs to be "felt", rather than observed - at least until the experts agree on all the physical mechanics and appropriate methods to measure them - not to mention the agreed upon criteria for one's qualifications to even be able to "observe" the phenomenon with any degree of accuracy. implying that it is 1) a phenomenon unknown to ordinary mechanics 2) the subject of more than generally attainable knowledge or sensitivity to observe or feel its mechanical operation, and 3) something that cannot be observed or felt, even if only infrequently, in other less deliberate training settings. I would not agree with any of those assumptions as they are contrary to my experience on all counts.

But now we're really just waxing on and off about stuff that might not be relevant if we can't actually "do" any of it. Stephen Hawking might have a thing or two to say about the the relationship between effective observing and relevant commentary versus the doing of much of anything. Of course, maybe I would be better at mechanics if I were in a wheelchair, but I doubt that has much to do with it either.

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 04:00 PM
Well, how would you wrap your mind around things if there was a way? No movement but still defeating the initial lift from a bear hug?Of course, there is a way. Just tie yourself to the floor. By all means, please tender some video of your ability in this regard, preferably without the rope or adhesive on the shoe soles. And as I said someone of suitable strength, lifting you in the first instance. Of course, your demonstration is only as valid as the trust we have in your partner's legitimate effort, so video is not adequate in this instance, unless we have reliable measures of the effort -- even though I would still like to see it.

So try this instead. I explained what is involved from my perspective in your example from directly comparable examples I have seen and done.

Please just explain carefully how you do it, in whatever way you feel comfortable describing it. We are all here to learn.

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 04:08 PM
Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.

By all means come and play, Mike.

Please, tell us your way. And ringing his bells doesn't count as "not moving."

:)

statisticool
08-23-2007, 04:22 PM
The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.


This has been my experience too 100% in the people I've seen in person or on video claiming these amazing skills.

Or they'll do something like claim to be able to hit you without moving, but their legs move instead of their hand, or their hand moves in relation to their body because their waist is turning therefore justifying (in their minds) saying the hand does not move.

gdandscompserv
08-23-2007, 04:30 PM
I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei.
That should come as no surprise. You did teach it to them didn't you?

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 04:34 PM
The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.

By all means come and play, Mike.

Please, tell us your way. And ringing his bells doesn't count as "not moving."

:)I already have told you. You weren't listening.... well, more likely the description didn't conjure up the proper image because you were unfamiliar with what I was talking about, which would also happen even if I tried to explain it with very detailed physics. But regardless, people have seen me do this sort of thing and it's a "trick", but it's a trick that goes exactly according to how I've explained it right here on this forum. No big deal, except it does take some practice and the development of some odd skills. Like any magic trick, it seems impossible until someone shows how it's done.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 04:54 PM
This has been my experience too 100% in the people I've seen in person or on video claiming these amazing skills.I think we're all quite sure that has been your experience, Justin. Interestingly enough, Robert W. Smith wrote that sometimes when he met Cheng Man Ching, Cheng liked to have Smith push on him from different directions and show that Smith's (relatively moderate, of course) pushes didn't move him. Now if you spent more time thinking about that and how it's done, instead of frantically trying to say something negative every chance you get, you might develop the logic to realize what I'm talking about and how it's done. But then..... maybe Cheng was a charlatan; a lot of people think his claims were fraudulent, so who knows?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 05:08 PM
I already have told you. You weren't listening.... well, more likely the description didn't conjure up the proper image because you were unfamiliar with what I was talking about, which would also happen even if I tried to explain it with very detailed physics. Try me, please.

But regardless, people have seen me do this sort of thing and it's a "trick", but it's a trick that goes exactly according to how I've explained it right here on this forum. No big deal, except it does take some practice and the development of some odd skills. Like any magic trick, it seems impossible until someone shows how it's done.Oh, well. Magic tricks involve the deliberate concealment of the effective action, i.e. -- lying to the observer. Also known at one time as charlatanism -- that is, portraying something ordinary as something extraordinary to impress or deceive. And you wonder why the likes of Justin take issue. You directly invite it by such comments and the willful misdirection of plain and legitimate questions.

I said "bear hug." Wu Qin Xi works for bears -- doesn't work on snarks. Completely different set of techniques involved there. Snarks are a very different qigong animal.

1550-odd posts in this thread alone. Point to one, please. I will address it in this context. And just as an aside, why is it that you are so down on aikido when you were introduced to this aspect of movement or strength by an aikidoka? Why do we who follow the tradition given us have it so wrong, if it was introduced to you in aikido?

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 05:21 PM
Oh, well. Magic tricks involve the deliberate concealment of the effective action, i.e. -- lying to the observer. False. Many "magic tricks" involve simple physics that the observer is unfamiliar with or with skills the observer is unfamiliar with. Your haste to say something negative has tripped you up! 1550-odd posts in this thread alone. Point to one, please. I will address it in this context. Sorry. If I explain how to do it too clearly, you might figure out how to do it. Sort like how I began to skirt the issue of "fascia" once David Orange began to get a glimmer of what we were talking about. A year or two ago, I might have been more forthcoming (actually, I was more forthcoming, but I don't expect anyone to read through all those posts to find where I said something pretty clearly about how to do a few things), but lately I've begun to feel that some people just have "bad heart" and I really think the good guys should be the ones that these things are explained to. Trust me, though, I have been showing a fair number of people (including Aikidoists) how to do these things and I'm assured that a number of them read these exchanges on AikiWeb, enjoying the moment since they already know how to do these things and they can now tell who knows what when they post.

Kind Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 05:34 PM
Trust me, though, I have been showing a fair number of people (including Aikidoists) how to do these things and I'm assured that a number of them read these exchanges on AikiWeb, enjoying the moment since they already know how to do these things and they can now tell who knows what when they post.Regrettably, nothing more is forthcoming to add to the discussion. I am intrigued, however, by your service to my fellow aikidoists. Since you first were exposed to "these things" by an aikidoka, how is it that aikido has it so terribly, terribly wrong? After all, I suppose we cannot tell just by watching someone move, can we?

http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm

Your primary focus in the martial arts is "Internal Strength", but that phrase might mean almost anything: can you give me a few words explaining what "Internal Strength" means to you?
No, not really: it has to be shown. Originally, I did Judo and Karate extensively and met all kinds of people; then I ran into a Japanese guy who did Aikido. While he was showing me some things I realised he was using a very unusual form of strength: my definition always hinges on people who can manifest that kind of strength.
And that's sort of validated by the fact that other people - not everyone - but somebody who is reasonably intelligent and has some physical skills will say "Wow: that feels odd": so they know it too. When you meet somebody who doesn't have a vestige of that, I don't care how many forms he knows, techniques and applications that he does, if he's not able to manifest that, he doesn't use Internal Strength. In my getting support for that over the years, there have been a number of Chinese who are recognised as being really good who have recognised it the same way as I do. They sit there and just like me they watch somebody - at a certain level, you don't need to really touch somebody, just watch them move - and the question is always in their mind: "does he have this form of strength or not."

statisticool
08-23-2007, 05:38 PM
Interestingly enough, Robert W. Smith wrote that sometimes when he met Cheng Man Ching, Cheng liked to have Smith push on him from different directions and show that Smith's (relatively moderate, of course) pushes didn't move him.


That's nice, but I'm wondering what your bringing up of Smith (martial artist and historian) and Manqing (grandmaster of taijiquan the world over) have to do with anything here.

I don't think they claimed they could not be picked up, which was what was under discussion. Moreover, Zheng talked about "there are no secrets", despite the secret mongering that typically goes on.


.... maybe Cheng was a charlatan; a lot of people think his claims were fraudulent, so who knows?


These "a lot of people" are interesting. Who are they? And again, Zheng could have killed baby seals in his spare time too... wouldn't have much to do with anything we are specifically discussing here, Mike.

Justin

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 05:46 PM
Regrettably, nothing more is forthcoming to add to the discussion. I am intrigued, however, by your service to my fellow aikidoists. Since you first were exposed to "these things" by an aikidoka, how is it that aikido has it so terribly, terribly wrong? Your words, not mine. I think the discussion that *most* people in Aikido, including quite a few who are "teachers", have not learned how to do these things. In fact, that thought has so pervaded discussions for the last couple of years that I'm surprised that you missed it and are astonished at my comments. But at least you indicate that you have an open mind about new material; I'm sure someone will eventually pass these things your way (it does take hands-on, not internet writings) and you'll be able to look at my posts to see if even once I said something wrong or tried to mislead anyone. That's why I've always been very careful about my descriptions. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-23-2007, 05:52 PM
That's nice, but I'm wondering what your bringing up of Smith (martial artist and historian) and Manqing (grandmaster of taijiquan the world over) have to do with anything here. What have you got to do with anything here, for that matter, Justin? You're a self-styled Cheng worshipper so I thought you might be able to identify more with the problem if it was focused on Cheng or on You. I don't think they claimed they could not be picked up, which was what was under discussion. Moreover, Zheng talked about "there are no secrets", despite the secret mongering that typically goes on.It's the same principle, Justin. Instead of hurrying to find some insinuation or telling jape, you should do as I suggested and think about what I said.... perhaps you'll come up with an answer. Obviously Cheng used the same skills and you purport to be a "follower" of his, so really this is something you should already know by now right?

In terms of "there are no secrets", the only Cheng disciple who harped on that point was Wolfe Lowenthal who proved beyond doubt that indeed there must be secrets simply because he didn't know anything.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Budd
08-23-2007, 08:44 PM
implying that it is 1) a phenomenon unknown to ordinary mechanics 2) the subject of more than generally attainable knowledge or sensitivity to observe or feel its mechanical operation, and 3) something that cannot be observed or felt, even if only infrequently, in other less deliberate training settings. I would not agree with any of those assumptions as they are contrary to my experience on all counts.

Actually, the way it looks to me is that you're changing the arguments around because (and I don't mean any offense, just calling it the way it looks to me) 1) You aren't able to communicate in common terms with the other people working on this stuff that seem to be able to do so just fine - so therefore you argue that it needs to be described in a fashion more according to terms acceptable to you. 2) You insist that you already have learned and/or are already doing this stuff in your practice of aikido, so the miscommunication must be because of someone else's shortcomings. 3) Anything that you might not know or not be currently doing should be explained to you or shown via terminology/media that you deem appropriate.

If I've gotten your perspective wrongly, then I apologize, but I fundamentally disagree with this and go back to my unfortunately-now-too-familiar-pose of "Go see what other people are doing". I hear there's a seminar on the West Coast in Seattle this November that should be VERY illuminating - sure wish I could make it.

statisticool
08-23-2007, 10:03 PM
What have you got to do with anything here, for that matter, Justin?


I'm not sure exactly what you're complaining about here.


You're a self-styled Cheng worshipper ..


I think we've been over this too, Mike. Can you reveal to me how I worship him? Any rational person can see that having a small webpage is not worship.


, you should do as I suggested and think about what I said....


I'm not sure why you believe I'd value your advice, especially after insulting two well known practitioners, saying I worship things, and refusing to answer the most basic of questions.


..and you purport to be a "follower" of his,


Where do I do that? You used quotes, so where is my quote of me saying I am his follower?


In terms of "there are no secrets", the only Cheng disciple who harped on that point was Wolfe Lowenthal..


The fact is that others did.and do. One example, that you probably should have known is Smith, who said of Zheng


He always said that there were no secrets; he couldn't give us a pill. There was only the work of relaxing and sinking (and we know how hard that is), or 'investing in loss' and thereby winning by losing.

But the main point is that Zheng himself said it. As opposed to a bunch of modern master mystery mongers aka 'there is no way I can describe my physical movement to you' type of stuff.

It is odd that Wolfe didn't know anything, according to you. People closest to Zheng back up Wolfe. Must be some conspiracy, right?

So you brought up Smith and Zheng, what point were you attempting to make?

I see you avoided answering


These "a lot of people" are interesting. Who are they?


as well.

Justin

Erick Mead
08-23-2007, 11:10 PM
Actually, the way it looks to me is that you're changing the arguments around because (and I don't mean any offense, just calling it the way it looks to me) None taken. Call it like you see it. Ditto here. 1) You aren't able to communicate in common terms with the other people working on this stuff that seem to be able to do so just fine - so therefore you argue that it needs to be described in a fashion more according to terms acceptable to you. Not what I said or meant. The problem with "common terms" is that they are not generally precise, or are used in other contexts making them at much greater risk of being read as ambiguous or subject to differing interpretation. Cross-cultural terms are several multiples more at risk for these problems.

I am simply pointing out that methods of reorienting forces and manipulating them are the ordinary bread and butter of physical mechanics -- and yet this is one area in which there is a great lack of serious work on describing aiki and its operation. Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up.
2) You insist that you already have learned and/or are already doing this stuff in your practice of aikido, so the miscommunication must be because of someone else's shortcomings. 3) Anything that you might not know or not be currently doing should be explained to you or shown via terminology/media that you deem appropriate.Both of these presume I wish to impose a terminology of my own. I don't want anything explained to me, I want it explained for general consumption in unambiguous terms, that do not presume the knowledge that one is trying to convey. That tail-biting is the circle I am trying to move away from. The terms for proper mechanical description are well-established across language and cultural barriers providing a foundation that avoids much opportunity for the misunderstanding that often crops up otherwise.

As to any imposition, I have not and would never say that the perspective of mechanics is necessary to be able to do or to learn the things that are done in this way. I suggest it may be helpful to improve the learning, at least for some. But it may be absolutely critical to extend their application to areas and to other practices that have not previously seen them used and applied. "Feel" does not necessarily translate to different applications, but mechanics does.

Mike Sigman
08-24-2007, 09:43 AM
Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up. This is like deja vu all over again. You're the only one suggesting that you understand what is being talked about. So far, you've never convinced me, Rob, or others that it's true. Not by a long shot. You're pretty much by yourself with your descriptions and explanations. That's what Budd was suggesting. It's been suggested before and the suggestion has been made that you meet up with other people to back up your assertions. And by now, there are enough people who have seen and understood basic elements to be able to say "that's the same thing" or "that's very different from what everyone is talking about". Frankly, the pretense that you can do all these things but you don't recognize the descriptions, etc., Just doesn't fly. Budd was also suggesting that point in a polite way.

It's going to be interesting when it happens, though. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

HL1978
08-24-2007, 10:11 AM
Erick, there are a couple of Aunkai seminars coming up in November. If you are interested in these body mechanics, why not check one out?

Erick Mead
08-24-2007, 10:17 AM
So far, you've never convinced me, Rob, or others that it's true. Not by a long shot. You're pretty much by yourself with your descriptions and explanations. Mike, I've long since given up trying to convince you of anything.

... suggesting. suggested .. suggestion Innuendo. Persuasive.

Frankly, the pretense that you can do all these things but you don't recognize the descriptions, etc., Just doesn't fly. Mike. I am not your enemy, nor your opponent nor do I have any need to justify myself, physically, philosophically or otherwise. The insult reflects only on your character. I have have successfully avoided falling into kindergarten bragging and whup-ass contests, and for a few decades now. I don't intend to start.

Engage the ideas or ignore them. I don't care if you engage the ideas constructively or destructively, as both can be productive exercises. But the ideas do not depend on my merit or anyone's vain and ignorant presumption in that regard, even less because I choose not to engage your terminology for reasons of precision in what I am doing. There are no rules or definitions in this regard that you have any warrant to enforce. Remove me and the ideas remain.

Erick Mead
08-24-2007, 10:34 AM
Erick, there are a couple of Aunkai seminars coming up in November. If you are interested in these body mechanics, why not check one out?In Seattle? Love to. Lessee, four kids, law practice, trials, house renovation, church work and aikido. Never mind Thanksgiving at my place this year. Not happening. I'm lucky to get twenty minutes here and there to think clearly before moving on to the next thing. Heck, I can't make time to get down to Orlando for Shihan seminars, and it's even odds whether I get to Tallahassee coming up.

Please post reports here, though. From all accounts, it should be good training. I've never said otherwise, regardless how strangely defensive some people seem to be about the tack I am following. I'd be most interested in Ledyard's perspective.

Budd
08-24-2007, 10:55 AM
I hope you're not finding me to be too defensive, Erick, if anything, I'm just trying to encourage you (and everybody else - that's me, The Encourager!) to embrace my philosophy of "I may not know, so I'll go find out" . . . especially if you feel obliged to participate in these Non-Aikido discussions ;)

Ron Tisdale
08-24-2007, 11:04 AM
That, to me, is the issue. People want to participate in the discussions, but they don't want to do the hard work of actually getting out to see, feel, and understand what people are talking about.

It's like training in this stuff. Everybody says, "oh, well, we already do that"...but no one seems to actually want to do the solo work it entails (me too, just as lazy as anybody).

Best,
Ron (BSing and physics on the internet is easy...doing the actual travel, exploration, and work is hard)

Mike Sigman
08-24-2007, 11:18 AM
I have have successfully avoided falling into kindergarten bragging From your previous post: Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up. Engage the ideas or ignore them. I don't care if you engage the ideas constructively or destructively, as both can be productive exercises. But the ideas do not depend on my merit or anyone's vain and ignorant presumption in that regard, even less because I choose not to engage your terminology for reasons of precision in what I am doing. There are no rules or definitions in this regard that you have any warrant to enforce. Remove me and the ideas remain.The topic remains; whether you and your ideas have much to do with the actual topic has not been shown by you. Your insistence that everyone's descriptions conform to your standards when you have yet to show that you understand the topic is what the comments are trying to indicate. If you want your ideas respected, try doing the best you can in the approved "path" approach (the same approach I've seen diagrammed and explained by both Japanese and Chinese trying to put these things in writing) or go meet someone knowledgeable and show them what you can do. As you will remember, your insistences about "resistance" pretty much shot you out of the water as a knowledgeable commentator.

Regardless of everything else, progress is slowly being made. So I look at it all fairly positively.

Incidentally, I saw some video taken at the recent Rocky Mountain camp and I was able to watch more the focus of what Ikeda Sensei and Ushiro were pointing at. I got to see first hand what they were actually doing coupled with the way they tried to explain it. I think I see a good part of the problem and "hidden in plain sight" or "difficult to describe when English idiom isn't there" leap to mind. I need to think about this, having just watched it, but I can see in a positive way that it's probably only an epiphany away for a lot of people.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Walker
08-24-2007, 11:24 AM
It's like training in this stuff. Everybody says, "oh, well, we already do that"...but no one seems to actually want to do the solo work it entails

It is interesting, the question of "we have that." What has happened for us is a discovery that we did "have" it, but we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined in our practice.

I can't say where it came from other than our teacher who was a student of Ueshiba, but since meeting Rob and via discussions like these we have renovated and revivified this practice. People already complained about us being "too strong" before, now, just you look out. evileyes

Another thing. "We have that" is a dangerous idea as well. Many is the time when I have heard that phrase and what has followed was not the same at all. The proof always is in the execution.

Mike Sigman
08-24-2007, 11:25 AM
:rolleyes: It's like training in this stuff. Everybody says, "oh, well, we already do that"...but no one seems to actually want to do the solo work it entails (me too, just as lazy as anybody).Hi Ron:

One of the great nuggets of interest I've seen over the years (not just with Aikido people; all styles) is that someone (usually a teacher) will be at a workshop and it is apparent to everyone there learning that the teacher simply has no previous skills in these things. In fact, often a complete newbie can do much better than the teacher. So there is an embarrassing silence while everyone simply works and progresses. Near the end of the work, the teacher has achieved a modicum of skill in some minor steps that are meant to be what he/she starts their new training on. Instead, the modicum of skill is turned into a "see, I already knew this stuff".... he/she and the students troop back home and continue working the same wrong stuff they've worked for years. Next time I see them.... no progress. :rolleyes: Ego is the biggest killer of progress..... and the years keep rolling by.

Best.

Mike

gdandscompserv
08-24-2007, 11:32 AM
(BSing and physics on the internet is easy...doing the actual travel, exploration, and work is hard)
Whaat???
Well, if I wasn't posting I would be working.;)
I think everybody understands this basic tenet.
I know if I won the lottery I would spend a whole lotta time traveling and learning from all sorts of folks.:D
Oh where are the budo Kami when you need them?

Ron Tisdale
08-24-2007, 11:36 AM
This is exactly why I keep finding aikido is sooo difficult. There are so many pitfalls, so many misdirections, so many places to get off the path. I do that already, oh that's nice, but you ignore the full import, the play acting, etc.

You guys are lucky on a couple of fronts...the connection to Shirata Sensei, being surrounded by different traditions that explore the same material from different angles...it really helps.

Someone joked once about me going after Daito ryu at one point, and now going after this...I think they missed the point that sometimes to find and really understand what you have at home, you have to put all that aside and go elsewhere for a time. The exposure to Daito ryu was not in any way wasted...and this won't be either, even if I never get beyond the basics.

Best,
Ron

It is interesting, the question of "we have that." What has happened for us is a discovery that we did "have" it, but we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined in our practice.

I can't say where it came from other than our teacher who was a student of Ueshiba, but since meeting Rob and via discussions like these we have renovated and revivified this practice. People already complained about us being "too strong" before, now, just you look out. evileyes

Another thing. "We have that" is a dangerous idea as well. Many is the time when I have heard that phrase and what has followed was not the same at all. The proof always is in the execution.

Ron Tisdale
08-24-2007, 11:39 AM
I think everybody understands this basic tenet.

Not so sure myself. In this very thread, in just the last 2 pages, we have folks listing their priorities...and getting out to see and feel this isn't on the list.

If everyone understood...oh, never mind.

B,
R

Erick Mead
08-24-2007, 12:08 PM
I hope you're not finding me to be too defensive, Erick, if anything, I'm just trying to encourage you (and everybody else - that's me, The Encourager!) to embrace my philosophy of "I may not know, so I'll go find out" . . . especially if you feel obliged to participate in these Non-Aikido discussions ;)Not at all. I fully agree with it. No issues.

I am used to following my own perception of the traditional framework. It has been fruitful for me, so why would I abandon it? In part I see things differently in many areas owing to either my nature, experience or both. Other paths, and where people fall ahead or behind on any path do not really concern me, as long as we can at least try to help one another. No one's help should be refused with a demeaning opinion given about the value of the offer, even if it is refused for that reason. I try to live by that rule. It is simply rude, and therefore per se poor budo. Giving offense without cause or provocation is simply bad strategy, among its many other faults.

As you say "I may not know" and certainly do not know completely, but I know what I know and do what I do, and it requires no validation by anybody. The threshold for me to up and go see if what I know is at variance -- in what parts or in what degree or in what terminology --from whoever else there may be, at my pleasure, is rather high.

After all, if mind-body-ki unity is to be approached through training we must attend to each of them. Lots of discussion about the body and feeling through the body. The mind part is lagging, as is broadening the terms describing the nature of ki in operation, and of relating the mind to the body and to thoperaiton of ki in their interaction. Why shouldn't you make the brain work as hard as the body to properly train and expand your mental perception and critical observation and insight as much as your physical perception and strength? There's my focus.

Ron Tisdale
08-24-2007, 12:15 PM
The mind part is lagging, as is broadening the terms describing the nature of ki in operation, and of relating the mind to the body and to thoperaiton of ki in their interaction.

I'm a little confused...are you saying what folks are describing is lacking the mind?

The mind leads the qi. The mind is perhaps the most crucial part of setting up the pathways I can think of.

Best,
Ron

Budd
08-24-2007, 01:02 PM
Have to concur with Ron (again - sheesh, people will start talking). . . it's been said more than once that these force-manipulations are mind-directed. Another person has said more than once that when training this stuff, the mind gives out before the body.

Erick, I'm glad you have confidence in knowing what you know. I am usually lucky enough to know what I think I know right now, on any given day, which may conflict with the previous day - I mean I try to develop and maintain a corporate body of knowledge that grows, expands and remains integrated with appropriate joins and indexes (dammit, my DBA nature is showing), but I also try to keep it linked to the transactional processor in my noggin - where things are always in flux and getting updated with new input.

Ultimately things get run through filters, but I try to keep them a little further behind the scenes so that I don't prevent, block or firewall off my exposure to important data.

Erick Mead
08-24-2007, 02:19 PM
I'm a little confused...are you saying what folks are describing is lacking the mind? Hardly. The focus of what they are describing is more predominantly focussed on the body's sensation and the action premised on that sensation mediated by the mind, whereas I am looking critically at the mind's perception of the action and the objective action that is occurring. The fact that the descriptions used (even if highle effective for your training) are more figurative and mine more technical is to be expected because of what I am looking at. One is not "better than the other anymore than my right is "better" than my left for hitting people. It depends on the need and the circumstance is all.

The reason the respective views may sometimes seem fuzzy is because we are on opposite sides looking at each other through the same darn crystal ball. Which is a great metaphor, actually. We can each appear distorted and upside down to the other, whereas objectively both of us are upright. Understanding the disconnect of intense perception is better if we broaden our gaze a bit, and allow for the two modes of perception at the same time.

The body can lie to the mind, the mind can lie to the body and either one can lie to itself. If this were not true then deception would not work in war and, of course, it does, and marvelously well. Merely assuming that all perceptions are objectively true as I perceive them to be can cause serious conflicts, internally and externally. Objective reasoning from critical observation is a part of the mind that cannot be dispensed with, even if it is also not the entire truth.

statisticool
08-24-2007, 03:57 PM
If you want your ideas respected, try doing the best you can in the approved "path" approach (the same approach I've seen diagrammed and explained by both Japanese and Chinese trying to put these things in writing) or go meet someone knowledgeable and show them what you can do. As you will remember, your insistences about "resistance" pretty much shot you out of the water as a knowledgeable commentator.


On the contrary, his ideas are pretty interesting. He certainly doesn't have to fit the identical mold of how a few people believe force works.

As far as this "approved path approach". I don't think anyone is doubting that people write in those terms. What is curious, is that apparently no one can seem to explain precisely how it is different from regular ol movement but most say that it is different. :)

Justin

Erick Mead
08-24-2007, 06:15 PM
As you will remember, your insistences about "resistance" pretty much shot you out of the water as a knowledgeable commentator. Debates over nuance of idiomatic translation aside, the concept of interacting with "no resistance" of whatever degree has distinct and very applicable mechanical meaning to exactly what I am talking about, and have described in operation.

Upyu
08-25-2007, 01:43 AM
Hardly. The focus of what they are describing is more predominantly focussed on the body's sensation and the action premised on that sensation mediated by the mind
Not really Eric, it takes both.
Which is why more than a couple bujutsuka have said that this stuff isn't for those lacking in the IQ department.

Lets put it this way,
lets say for a second you are right. That your descriptions are spot on. I don't see how they help train or improve the skills being discussed. Of course, that might change with a hands on session and you showed me "how" to train and what to focus on. But if I were a betting man I'd say you wouldn't be able to show anything substantial.;)

Mike Sigman
08-25-2007, 09:14 AM
I am used to following my own perception of the traditional framework. It has been fruitful for me, so why would I abandon it? In part I see things differently in many areas owing to either my nature, experience or both. Other paths, and where people fall ahead or behind on any path do not really concern me, as long as we can at least try to help one another. No one's help should be refused with a demeaning opinion given about the value of the offer, even if it is refused for that reason. I try to live by that rule. It is simply rude, and therefore per se poor budo. Giving offense without cause or provocation is simply bad strategy, among its many other faults. See, this is where my experience says that there is not really any "help" involved in the discussion. It's more of a cry for "face".... "gimme face, even if I don't quite know this stuff, because a lot of my life is invested in 'being somebody'". That's more the way I read it. Because "help" has already been given with discussion, facts, diagrams, and so forth. Help in relation to issues that are easily reconciled with traditional training in both Japan and China and the terminology and functional deeds that they do. That's help. A number of people with disparate experience recognize both the discussion and help and are able to communicate. You cannot.... but you want sort of an "equal" if not "superior" recognition and you revert to techno-speak. And there is no reason to cater your whim, as far as I can see.

From the beginning, this has been an interesting dialogue on AikiWeb. I'm fully aware that anything I say can and will be examined in the future for basic mistakes, so I'm very careful when I suggest something that it's not open to coming back and biting me in the butt in the future. It's very basic stuff. If it's gets the least bit more complicated, I'm careful to caveat "if's" and "maybe's". And none of it is stuff that can't be shown to be the same as traditional ki/kokyu stuff.... much of it is explained in darned close to the same explications found in more-focused literature from Japan and China. That's the functional "help" I've tried to provide. What deliberate help have I gotten in return from you, Erick? Or people like Justin or Ricky Wood or etc.?

What it all boils down to is that this is a difficult time for a lot of people in Aikido. I've been through the same things and had to go back to scratch about 3 times.... thank god I wasn't a "teacher" and didn't have any status/position I felt I had to safeguard; I probably would have had a far worse time.

Now, I'm not going to suggest anyone in particular, because everyone seems to have a different facet of the overall knowledge and a different approach to teaching it, but I'd suggest that rather than getting stuck in this "we're all equals in this knowledge and we must 'help each other'" stuff, you simply get out there and enlarge your data-base. The gods help those that help themselves.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

gdandscompserv
08-25-2007, 12:23 PM
What deliberate help have I gotten in return from you, Erick? Or people like Justin or Ricky Wood or etc.?
Sorry Mike. I didn't know you were asking for help.;)

Erick Mead
08-25-2007, 12:31 PM
It's more of a cry for "face".... "gimme face, ... That's more the way I read it. If you ever decide to go into psychology -- don't give up your day job.

Bottom line. I have found use in thinking in these terms and taking things apart conceptually and then physically to put them back together. That's the root meaning of discipline -- taking things apart to understand them. I am fully aware it is but one part of that understanding.

I post my thoughts for two reasons. One -- to see if anyone is interested in discussing these things in these terms, as there is very little place elsewhere for that realistic possibility. And two -- to see if useful and comparative things can be learned with people who are deepening knowledge in other terms. On the latter point a few have offered their good faith observations here and in PM in that spirit of useful exchange of ideas. Some have not. I'll leave it others to decide which is the wiser course.

As to the first point, few here appear interested in that approach, which is fine, and merely means I need to keep working on it alone. Whether it seems more likely or not from anyone else's perspective to bear fruit they are interested in is sort of beside the point.

Walker
08-25-2007, 03:50 PM
It is interesting, the question of "we have that." What has happened for us is a discovery that we did "have" it, but we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined in our practice.

It has been brought to my attention that my statement might be misread/misunderstood to read that we have added elements to our curriculum that were not present in our practice prior to these discussions. I did not mean to imply that at all.
I believe Allen is planning to make a statement about this point.

Allen Beebe
08-25-2007, 04:57 PM
Hi Doug and Ron,

I read your posts and had a minor heart attack. I think I understand what you both meant but I am concerned that what you wrote might be misconstrued by others with negative implications for the reputation my teacher.

Specifically, I want to avoid the implication that I am adding to, or changing in anyway, what I was given by my teacher. I have tried for decades NOT to do this. It simply isn't necessary. Believe me when I say that there is already PLENTY there to begin with, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The years have simply served to drive that point home.

Ron, I agree that having trained with Shirata sensei is an advantage. He provided a terrific example of someone, who was widely recognized as being "one of a kind," willingly sublimating his ego to pursue further insights into the teaching of his teacher. That, along with his insistence that what is practiced must actually function, makes it easier to sublimate my ego and willingly keep my eyes open for clues as to what I'm "not getting" about what I've been taught and adjust myself accordingly. This process takes place every practice, and hopefully throughout my life.

Furthermore, he faithfully transferred his understanding of Aikido in an open way which included the contents of the Daito Ryu Mokuroku taught to him by O-sensei to the summation of his learning well after O-Sensei's death. That is an advantage too because there is so much contained therein.

As near as I can figure, this happens to include (for those with the eyes to see) everything required to achieve the "promises" of Aikido. The trick is, my understanding of what he taught (and perhaps his understanding too) has been, and continues to be, limited by what I was, and am, capable of learning/understanding. So, as I've said in other posts, I've made "self discoveries" of things that I realize he explicitly taught earlier . . . I just didn't "get it" at the time. Still, the knowledge/potential was contained in the form, so to speak, and I've faithfully tried to maintain the form. That investment is "paying off" and I'm beginning to understand and have those understandings confirmed.

As far as outside influences are concerned, I actually try to be on guard against my pre-conceptions. We always learn and understand based on past knowledge, so prejudice is almost inevitable, however I at least try to be aware that this could be happening and be ready to "try on" new ideas. I try to do this as much as possible when learning from others.

So the advantage of studying other things isn't in allowing those other things to change or influence the content of my Aikido, I try NOT to do that. Rather, the advantage is in gaining new perspectives, conceptions, nomenclature, and most particularly experiences. These all work globally to change how one thinks, and that can change everything to a certain degree.

As far as my school goes, "we" have what "we" have. It isn't necessarily the same "it" that others do, but it would seem (based on physical interaction) that what I was taught certainly holds much in common in both training and, based on my limited interaction, with the potential results. (BTW, I couldn't have made the claim for similar results 10 years ago . . . but then I'm a slow learner!)

I only agree with the statement that "we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined" to the extent that that statement applies to EVERYTHING we do. But then again, I'm Doug's Aikido teacher so my opinion/perception might simply be biased and/or defensive. There is a delicate balance to be maintained. One can have internal skills but no martial ones, and one can have martial skills but no internal ones. I'm trying to teach and develop both. It isn't easy.

I have found that my very limited (but most enjoyable) training with Rob, and reading the discussions included here, have "renovated and revivified this practice" to the extent that these experiences have influenced my thinking about what I've been doing for decades. Furthermore, in the case of Rob, he specifically has had a "renovating and revivifying" effect on one particular practice that I was instructed to pursue when I was first introduced to Shirata sensei's Aikido by Nakajima Masanori Shihan, and that is the practice of Shiko. (That is the sumo squat thing.) Thank you most kindly for that and everything else Rob! I look forward getting together again soon. I still stink though . . .

So there you go, my long-winded response. :rolleyes: Hope it isn't overkill, but my teacher's "Cred" is very important to me.

Now, back to the regular programming I hope! :)

It is interesting, the question of "we have that." What has happened for us is a discovery that we did "have" it, but we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined in our practice.

I can't say where it came from other than our teacher who was a student of Ueshiba, but since meeting Rob and via discussions like these we have renovated and revivified this practice. People already complained about us being "too strong" before, now, just you look out.

Another thing. "We have that" is a dangerous idea as well. Many is the time when I have heard that phrase and what has followed was not the same at all. The proof always is in the execution.

This is exactly why I keep finding aikido is sooo difficult. There are so many pitfalls, so many misdirections, so many places to get off the path. I do that already, oh that's nice, but you ignore the full import, the play acting, etc.

You guys are lucky on a couple of fronts...the connection to Shirata Sensei, being surrounded by different traditions that explore the same material from different angles...it really helps.

Someone joked once about me going after Daito ryu at one point, and now going after this...I think they missed the point that sometimes to find and really understand what you have at home, you have to put all that aside and go elsewhere for a time. The exposure to Daito ryu was not in any way wasted...and this won't be either, even if I never get beyond the basics.

Best,
Ron

statisticool
08-25-2007, 05:25 PM
Bottom line. I have found use in thinking in these terms and taking things apart conceptually and then physically to put them back together.
...
I post my thoughts for two reasons. One -- to see if anyone is interested in discussing these things in these terms, as there is very little place elsewhere for that realistic possibility. And two -- to see if useful and comparative things can be learned with people who are deepening knowledge in other terms.
...
Whether it seems more likely or not from anyone else's perspective to bear fruit they are interested in is sort of beside the point.


Well said!

Justin

tarik
08-25-2007, 07:20 PM
Hi Mike,

:rolleyes: Hi Ron:

One of the great nuggets of interest I've seen over the years (not just with Aikido people; all styles) is that someone (usually a teacher) will be at a workshop and it is apparent to everyone there learning that the teacher simply has no previous skills in these things. In fact, often a complete newbie can do much better than the teacher. So there is an embarrassing silence while everyone simply works and progresses. Near the end of the work, the teacher has achieved a modicum of skill in some minor steps that are meant to be what he/she starts their new training on. Instead, the modicum of skill is turned into a "see, I already knew this stuff".... he/she and the students troop back home and continue working the same wrong stuff they've worked for years. Next time I see them.... no progress. :rolleyes: Ego is the biggest killer of progress..... and the years keep rolling by.

Best.

Mike

I see this at many (most?) clinics and seminars I've attended even at the level of the student executing the exact same error; usually the "my teacher teaches the exact same thing" sort of error and missing some important nugget of information due to the effort spent validating their existing training.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
08-25-2007, 08:02 PM
I see this at many (most?) clinics and seminars I've attended even at the level of the student executing the exact same error; usually the "my teacher teaches the exact same thing" sort of error and missing some important nugget of information due to the effort spent validating their existing training.Hi Tarik:

Yeah, I was just thinking about a rather stunning Aikido example of essentially the same problem that I recently saw. You know, my gut feeling is to avoid the anecdote and tell everyone to not trust anyone (not even me!) and go and see the best representatives of all the different arts that you can. That's what all really professional/dedicated martial artists do anyway, so let me encourage it, please. Even the "best teacher" you've ever seen and whom you may have modelled your life after can only put on their knickers one leg at a time.... i.e., they're human and may really NOT know everything.

Get Out There And Look.

Mike

DH
08-25-2007, 09:11 PM
Budo guys have been "getting out" there for decades and meeting these "great teachers" who do not show even their own inner guys. Some moving to China, to Japan, coming home with rank and no real power. There is absolutely nothing new in that. And on any other day many have stated -right here-just that scenario happening to them in their own arts, and that, all to often. In fact, so many senior men have said just that very thing on these many threads as to make any debate of it all but moot.

If people are truly serious: try meeting teachers who have something and that have students who can replicate what they themselves are doing. At least to some substantial degree-keeping in mind years-in and closeness. If they don't, consider just what that say's.

You can ignore the nobodies contributing so much noise about these skills here, and give the straight, all too familiar road of "Budo professionals" who are out there teaching a try, and see where it goes. Or, you can get busy thinking, testing, experimenting and finding people who may be willing to share what they do. Then, test them as well.
Either way; think, test, and consider real progress You've only got just so much time.

Thomas Campbell
08-26-2007, 07:28 PM
[snip]Of course, it's not a perfect membership (we even have some guy who surreptitiously sends Dan the QiJin stuff, apparently [snip]
Mike

Curious.

Shannon Frye
08-26-2007, 11:04 PM
I know I'm REALLY late to this party, but neither of the links to the aforementioned videos work anymore.

jennifer paige smith
08-27-2007, 10:49 AM
I post my thoughts for two reasons. One -- to see if anyone is interested in discussing these things in these terms, as there is very little place elsewhere for that realistic possibility. And two -- to see if useful and comparative things can be learned with people who are deepening knowledge in other terms. On the latter point a few have offered their good faith observations here and in PM in that spirit of useful exchange of ideas. Some have not. I'll leave it others to decide which is the wiser course.

As to the first point, few here appear interested in that approach, which is fine, and merely means I need to keep working on it alone. Whether it seems more likely or not from anyone else's perspective to bear fruit they are interested in is sort of beside the point.

As for Eric,
I have consistently found your posts to be helpful in expressing experiences I have actually had in a language of intellect I feel others could relate to. Without any previous ( or, perhaps, current) experience of one another personally I have been grateful for your skills. Because for me, it isn't so much that I'm the one who said it or who knew 1st, but that the information and expression gets out.
There is both help and fruit in that tree. Please continue to branch.
Thanks,
Jen

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Well, Erick, I have to admit that with Jennifer and Justin supporting your methodology and elucidation, it gives people some pause. Hmmmmmm

Regards,

Mike

MM
08-27-2007, 11:23 AM
Well, Erick, I have to admit that with Jennifer and Justin supporting your methodology and elucidation, it gives people some pause. Hmmmmmm

Regards,

Mike

Now, Mike, you need to warn me when you post something like that. I nearly spewed RC all over the monitor. LOL.

And I definitely agree, it does give people some pause. Perhaps not in the way others view it. ;)

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 11:31 AM
Now, Mike, you need to warn me when you post something like that. I nearly spewed RC all over the monitor. LOL.If my lips are moving, I'm cracking jokes. ;)

gdandscompserv
08-27-2007, 12:55 PM
Well, Erick, I have to admit that with Jennifer and Justin supporting your methodology and elucidation, it gives people some pause.
Oh my. Where are the "one liner" police when you need them?:D

Budd
08-27-2007, 02:28 PM
I'm afraid of saying anything more -- because it feels like at any moment one of us could get hit with a YouTube link to Thumper and Bambi . . .

I've seen it happen before, folks . . .

statisticool
08-27-2007, 04:23 PM
Well, Erick, I have to admit that with Jennifer and Justin supporting your methodology and elucidation, it gives people some pause. Hmmmmmm


Apparently if I said I Erick's approach is interesting it means I am supporting him 100% to you. Now that is interesting.

Me and Jennifer's last names are both Smith. Another conspiracy fer ya!

Justin

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 04:49 PM
Incidentally, Justin actually presents himself as a very good example of what is beginning to happen in various martial arts as more and more people suddenly get "in the know". Take a look at Justin's publicly displayed critique and analysis at:
http://www.statisticool.com/internal.htm

Justin is kind enough to put his current knowledge on record (with a bit of an attitude to assist) and for the people in the know, he paints himself as a good example of what is beginning to happen on a larger scale throughout the ranks of asian-derived martial arts. Think of all the books, articles, blogs, speeches, in just one art like Aikido (or your pick of any art, for that matter). Multiply it by the numbers of different asian-derived martial arts AND all the factions thereof. You can see what's on the verge of happening and why it's so fascinating to watch.

My thanks to Justin for providing a sterling example.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
08-28-2007, 08:16 AM
If my lips are moving, I'm cracking jokes. ;)
I can do that without moving my lips.
:D

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 09:37 AM
I can do that without moving my lips.
:DSure, but anyone can do that. Not everyone can do them without moving the lips but also mimic the voice of famous celebrities. Watch this:

"Who am I?"

See if you can guess what that was an impression of.

:D

jennifer paige smith
08-28-2007, 10:14 AM
I'm afraid of saying anything more -- because it feels like at any moment one of us could get hit with a YouTube link to Thumper and Bambi . . .

I've seen it happen before, folks . . .

I resemble that comment:D .

Erick Mead
08-28-2007, 10:46 AM
"Who am I?"

See if you can guess what that was an impression of.

:D Hong Jun Sheng.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021029224812/http:/www.neijia.com :p "It is clear that the fundamentals of taijiquan is the reeling technique. The appearance of the motion in Chen style taijiquan is helical.This form of spiral movement not only appears on the surface of the skin,but also appears inside through the whole body. It causes every joint,muscle bundle, and even every cell to experience motion. Through repeated stretching and twining in the training for a prolonged period of time, the body will naturally attain a resilient and elastic strength that is loose and yet not loose at the same time. This is the silk reeling jing.In the Chen style this is also known as peng jing, or the neijing commonly known in taijiquan literature. Chan Fa, the 'technique of reeling',then, is the various application of this strength." ...

"We must understand how to apply hardness and softness, what is softness, what is hardness, and how hardness and softness can interchange and compliment each other. People who do not study Chen style taijiquan, or study it but don't understand the technique of reeling, when they apply hardness and softness their motion are usually linear. Or maybe they understand how to move in large orbital curves, but they don't have the spin coupling with the orbital motion. The result is that when they use hardness they feel they are resisting, when they use softness they would feel they are letting go. All motion in Chen style taijiquan, whether it is large or small, are spinning. If you turn half a circle, you have 180 degrees of arc composed of points. At the contact point with your opponent, if you meet the motion head on (meeting the point), then you feel hardness; if you meet the motion from the side (meeting the arc), then you feel softness. If your point meets the opponent's arc it will slide over and becomes softness.Only if you meet point with point will the hardness appear. If both sides meet each other head on, however, it becomes resisting force with force. At this point, whoever has bigger strength and faster motion will bounce out the weaker and slower. In Chen style, although you need to use your point to attack the opponent's point, you should use the point in the arc from the spinning motion, so during fajing there is no feeling of resistance." You don't get to invite me to put words in your mouth and get away scot-free. :D

Hmmm. No feeling of resistance. Point to arc. Arc to point. Perpendiculars. [tangent/centripetal] Spiral movement. Orbital and spinning at contact. Yeah, maybe I'm out of my league here. To see this as a merely nominal differnece of terminology of one essential set of concepts in application and engagement of physical forces, is plainly wrongheaded. Guess, I'll just revert to my roots and drop all this pretensifying

Gee. I cain't reckon it. Shore wish us dumb rednecks had us some o' that-there "meckanicks" ta handle this-here "orbital/spinning, helical, arc-point, no resistance" -type stuff. Way over my poor haid. I mean, hoo-eee! Daayum!

[spit some chaw]

I'll jest git some 'shine tuh loosen us right up afore we commence to wrassle summore. Gonna suplex ya sure, this time. Gosh, golly -- "Payng Jeeng?" What could we be talking about ? "Faw Jeeng?" What could that be? If'n don't nobody wanna wrassle -- I'd just haul off an' backhand 'at sumb*tch into next week.

I'm jest stumped.

:D

jennifer paige smith
08-28-2007, 10:51 AM
I resemble that comment:D .

oops......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Bbt9extsg

Erick Mead
08-28-2007, 11:19 AM
oops......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Bbt9extsg

A different "Thumper," though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPFxBzlFe94

Ron Tisdale
08-28-2007, 04:25 PM
Hi Allen, understood, and I really hope we get to train together some day soon! Maybe even in November... :D

Best,
Ron

statisticool
08-28-2007, 06:40 PM
Justin is kind enough to put his current knowledge on record (with a bit of an attitude to assist)
...


I'm wondering why one has any issue with someone talking about what they've experienced with others' conceptions of "internal". Certainly your own posts show you don't have a problem with "attitude", so that can't be it.

I'd think that pointing out that the diagrams and even terms of what some call internal are found in some arts considered external is interesting. Well, it interests me anyway, even at my low level, rudimentary, rookie knowledge level.


Think of all the books, articles, blogs, speeches, in just one art like Aikido (or your pick of any art, for that matter). Multiply it by the numbers of different asian-derived martial arts AND all the factions thereof. You can see what's on the verge of happening and why it's so fascinating to watch.


I'm no expert, so could you please tell us what exactly is on the verge of happening?

And then if you really feel like answering questions, maybe say exactly what you hoped to accomplish by pointing out my webpage. It isn't too clear.

Justin

Allen Beebe
08-28-2007, 10:09 PM
Thanks Ron,

November sounds good. (Although if the training is anything like last time, I might not be able to walk, much less train. :p ) BTW, if you are ever in Portland, please consider visiting the dojo. I'll buy you a beer and give you a place to stay if you need one.

Regards,
Allen

ChrisMoses
08-29-2007, 12:53 AM
Hi Allen, understood, and I really hope we get to train together some day soon! Maybe even in November... :D

Best,
Ron

Very likely, rumor has it that both parties are likely to be in town! :D

Nice comments Allen. I don't know if it's because I already know you and Doug, but when I read Doug's comments, I assumed the context you presented. Don't beat him too bad for running his mouth off... :yuck:

See y'all soon.

Allen Beebe
08-29-2007, 09:42 AM
Hi Chris,

Thanks for putting "things" together. I'm really looking forward to it. I'll have P.P.$ for you soon. (I'm waiting to get paid.)

I don't "beat" Doug. He likes it too much :eek: , makes me feel uncomfortable! :crazy: BTW, he is a year older today!

My students would probably say: "How do you know when Allen is running off at the mouth? His lips are moving!" Knowing this, I can't be too critical AND I try not to post much.

Some random thoughts relating to this forum:

While I recognize that teaching can lead to self discovery (That is what I do as a profession, along with Budo and Buddhism), as a rule of thumb, I think that it is hard to learn with one's mouth open. Although, intelligent questions and paraphrasing for clarification can be useful.

On the other hand, if it were just one "expert" teaching, there wouldn't be nearly the degree of diversity in exchange. I can see where the Open Forum format leads to both the best and worst sharing of info. I certainly am grateful for the jewels that are shared and try to avoid contributing or encouraging the pits. Having started well before the internet age, I think in many ways the net has improved the field.

Ron Tisdale
08-29-2007, 11:26 AM
Happy birthday Doug!

Best,
Ron (hmmm, enjoys the beatings, does he??? ;))

TomW
08-29-2007, 08:42 PM
I don't mind beating Doug, I think it's kinda fun.:freaky:

and anyway, he does it to me when he's nage, so why not.:D

I think his birthday is actually on the 4th of Sept., big Four-Oh you know.

Chris, I'm in Allen's boat and will P.P. you when I get paid.

ChrisMoses
08-29-2007, 09:24 PM
Ok, so if you're coming to the Akuzawa semiar from the Portland dojo, just be sure to share your "safe" word with your partners from out of town... :D

Walker
08-30-2007, 01:12 AM
Chris, didn't you read Tom's signature? There are no "safe" words... well maybe "ouch! that f-ing hurts you @-hole!" (sure sign of a good technique is potty mouth ;) ) (actually potty mouth also seems to accompany bad technique too...) (now I'm just confusedly talking parenthetically. :hypno: )

As for B-days, you're all wrong. Not today. And as for beatings, they don't call me "doughboy" for nothing. :cool:

Walker
08-30-2007, 01:19 AM
Ron, you are obviously a gentleman and a scholar so I apologize in advance for myself and my fellow semi-ambulatory ground monkeys. (if we make the cross we can just about stand upright) :D

TomW
08-30-2007, 10:37 AM
As for B-days, you're all wrong. Not today. And as for beatings, they don't call me "doughboy" for nothing. :cool:

I dunno, but last year the ninjas said it was September 4th, so I'm bettin' it's that day again this year.;)

Walker
08-30-2007, 10:47 AM
I dunno, but last year the ninjas said it was September 4th, so I'm bettin' it's that day again this year.;)

See, this is what comes from listening to ninjas -- off just enough to be as good as wrong while being close enough to fool the unwary. evileyes

Ron Tisdale
08-30-2007, 12:49 PM
LOL, just don't call me Sir, I WORK for a living! :D

Best,
Ron (oh, don't call me late for dinner, either! ;))
Ron, you are obviously a gentleman and a scholar so I apologize in advance for myself and my fellow semi-ambulatory ground monkeys. (if we make the cross we can just about stand upright) :D

MM
08-30-2007, 01:02 PM
LOL, just don't call me Sir, I WORK for a living! :D

Best,
Ron (oh, don't call me late for dinner, either! ;))

How about if I call you a bum? ;) Choosing to associate with all those Northwesterners instead of sticking around here. (Is my jealousy showing through yet? LOL! It should be!)

Ron Tisdale
08-30-2007, 01:06 PM
;) Just wait til I catch you in Harrisburg! :D

Best,
Ron (better make class next time, or you'll NEVER hear the end of it!)

MM
08-30-2007, 01:12 PM
;) Just wait til I catch you in Harrisburg! :D

Best,
Ron (better make class next time, or you'll NEVER hear the end of it!)

LOL! yeah, I'm sure you don't want to be the only one there that taps out to Budd's groundwork. ;)

Ron Tisdale
08-31-2007, 12:43 PM
Oh no, Budd taps everyone on the ground! ;)

Last time I couldn't even tap...knee on chest, trap two hands with one, pound face. :D

Best,
Ron

Budd
08-31-2007, 02:09 PM
Gentlemen - need I remind you of the first rule of Fight Club? ;)

Nothing to see here, these days I'm just mostly a teddy bear aiki-bunny. Blue belts in bjj handle me with ease . . .

MM
08-31-2007, 02:27 PM
Fight Club? What's that? Sorry, haven't seen the movie. So, I'm exempt from those rules, right? LOL!

Ha! Teddy Bear Aiki Bunny. Cute. The phrase, not you. ;)

Mark

Budd
08-31-2007, 02:32 PM
Rule Number 1: Don't talk about Fight Club

Rule Number 2: Don't talk about Fight Club

No exceptions.

Hey . . . my wife thinks I'm cute . . . (I hope)

Oh, yeah, . . . and . . er . . . baseline skills are good and stuff . . .

MM
08-31-2007, 02:38 PM
Well, shoot, if there's no exceptions, I'll just have to rent the movie and watch it.

Baseline skills are good? Ack. They're evil ... right down to the core. All they do is cause grief, exhaustion, divided attention spans, funny looks at work, extreme sweating, funny looks at home, compulsive obsessive behavior, and lots more stuff. Can't do them, can't live without them. :)

TomW
09-03-2007, 03:28 PM
See, this is what comes from listening to ninjas -- off just enough to be as good as wrong while being close enough to fool the unwary. evileyes

Happy Birthday Doug-

My ninja sources say today's the day, Big 40:eek: :freaky: :D :crazy:

Thomas Campbell
05-23-2008, 02:35 PM
With all due respect, Dennis (and my respect for you is considerable), I have watched Ueshiba in randori, in the 1935 Asahi film to be precise, and seen him stand still and have a person bounce off him. Twice. Well, that's not entirely true. He did move forward ever so slightly, just as the uke reached him.

Shioda does the same thing at about the 2:30 mark in this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RrV5RgkFf9s).

Phil Davison over at the Aikido Journal forum made an interesting observation the other day about watching the 1935 Asahi film at what may be closer to the actual speed it was originally filmed at, and how that may change the conclusions a viewer would draw:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11895

Apart from martial arts, I'm a video editor by trade.

I've been watching the 1935 film from the Asahi News dojo, and I thought I noticed something wrong. The motion is wrong. They have the jerky motion that you can see in incorrectly transferred silent film.

The professional film standard is 24 frames per second (fps), however you can get acceptable motion at lower speeds. If you shoot at 18 frames per second the result looks OK, although not quite as smooth, and you use less film. Film is expensive. There is no way of knowing what speed an old film was shot at since many cameras were adjustable.

If the 1935 film was shot at 18 fps and then transferred to video at 24 fps this equates to a 33% speed increase, that's a little faster than the way Jackie Chan movies are shot.

So to test this I took the DVD apart and changed the speed to 75% (which is how the math works out) and discovered to my surprise a whole new look on the material.

I am sure the speed is correct when slowed to 75% because when viewed slower the fast movements are still very fast, and the flow of all the movements is much more natural. When seen faster everyone's footwork is almost superhumanly fast, most notably between the techniques as they are getting into position. If you watch the flapping of the hakama they look more natural at 75%.

This will require further study, but here are a few observations -

Ueshiba Sensei's kiai is audible. In two of the multiple grab techniques (e.g. the last technique in the film) on the 24fps video there is a sound like someone trod on a cat's tail. When the speed is lowered the pitch of the audio drops a little as well. The squeak becomes a rather frightening kiai.

The energy level exhibited by Ueshiba ramps up gradually during the film. The opening suwariwaza looks rather casual, the closing section looks much more energetic. Ueshiba looks like he is taking the injunction from the book Budo "Fill your body with ki" seriously.

The overall feel is quite different. The energy does not look nearly so electric. At first I was quite disappointed, but having watched it at the corrected speed I'm starting to revise my opinion. The energy exhibited is different, not necessarily worse. It's very interesting when viewed alongside Ellis Amdur's 'Hidden in pain sight' blogs.