View Full Version : What is "IT"?
There is allot of discussion on IT. Does Aikido have IT, what is IT, Doesn't Aikido have IT. What art does have IT which is missing in Aikido, etc. etc. etc. Some look at IT as I see it, as a Holy Grail. Something many go out in search of that isn't easy to find. Something that is coveted highly, but seemingly elusive. Will IT ever be found? Does IT really exist? What is IT, is there a general consensus among those searching for IT, or those who say they have IT? Is IT suppose to be a holy grail of sorts?
Seriously, IT is getting like Ki. It has so many different takes on IT, it is hard to define and everyone has their own definition of what IT is! So I ask what is IT? :crazy:
I am assuming that people are referring to "internal training" when they are referring to "IT" in many of the current threads.
Does that sufficiently answer your question, Philip?
-- Jun
Yes, and thank you. Seriously, I didn't know. I have nothing against Chinese internal training, but I didn't know ,that is, what IT meant. I thought it was a specific abstract principle of sorts that was escaping me. Now come to think of it, is as an object of its own self. Or IT is refering to the Chinese internal arts? I will assume the latter, or until other wise kindly corrected. :)
I was reading Ellis's last post in another thread and realized "IT" could mean so many things. And from all the posts I read it is treated in many post so differently. Like I said and was meaning in my first post, the meaning itself is like the Holy Grail. It is something eluding me. That was all.
Thanks again, Jun. :)
YI have nothing against Chinese internal training, but I didn't know ,that is, what IT meant.
It's not just Chinese internal training. Some Japanese people who have IT and got it from (mostly) Japanese sources: Morihei Ueshiba, Sokaku Takeda, Yukiyoshi Sagawa, Tetsuzan Kuroda, Minoru Akuzawa.
Reading recommendation in this regard: Hidden in Plain Sight by Ellis Amdur.
Charles Hill
09-23-2009, 01:13 AM
It has so many different takes on IT, it is hard to define and everyone has their own definition of what IT is! So I ask what is IT?
Mike Sigman promotes IT to develop IS (internal strength) and Dan Harden uses the word "aiki." Are these two things the same? I know that the two gentlemen have some differences of opinion, but do they agree on the result of IT?
Also, how would one know if someone had mastered IS/Aiki? What are the specific things they can do?
Mike Sigman promotes IT to develop IS (internal strength) and Dan Harden uses the word "aiki." Are these two things the same? I know that the two gentlemen have some differences of opinion, but do they agree on the result of IT?
Also, how would one know if someone had mastered IS/Aiki? What are the specific things they can do?
The specific feel, if you've never felt it before is downright weird. You feel your balance taken on the point of contact, even before they visibly move. As for specific demos, look at youtube for old videos of Ueshiba taking pushes to the head, the jo trick, and other situations which seem to require a lot of "strength" to accomplish.
Aiki as I see it, is a manipulation, a subset of IS(kill), backed by IS(trength).
Akuzawa holding someone back who's pushing on him while he stands on one leg is a specific demonstration of I(Strength & Skill).
You're in Japan, you should come check us out when you're in Tokyo ;)
Mark Uttech
09-23-2009, 06:47 AM
Onegaishimasu. This may seem an American, an eclectic, or even an outlandish zen answer, but IT is you. Once you understand that, you are already on the journey of your practice; the practice of your journey.
In gassho,
Mark
Basia Halliop
09-23-2009, 09:19 AM
OK, that's hilarious! I read a big chunk of that discussion, and if I recall even responded to something, and I actually never made the connection that IT was an acronym for internal training, even though everyone kept talking about IT and internal training constantly in the same sentence.
I honestly thought IT was being used to denote 'it', i.e., to say there's this thing that's important but hard to define or at least hard to get people to agree on a name for, so we're just going to keep calling it 'it', in capitals so we know it's a BIG 'it'.
The whole thing reads so differently now :).
Alfonso
09-23-2009, 11:30 AM
go back to the archives a few years, follow the perps
The whole thing reads so differently now :).
indeed it does
Dan Richards
09-23-2009, 12:18 PM
Babies seem to have IT. IT seems to be that natural, intrinsic force and energy imbibed and emanating from what some might call god or nature or higher self. As we develop our ego - that artificial construct handed to us by society to get around in the world - we identify with the false self created by that ego, and IT becomes distorted and its flow through us, as channels, becomes blocked off to varying degrees.
Over time those blocks become dis-eases. If, and as, we learn that this false-ego ego is not who were are, we're then able to begin the journey - the return - to what, to us, seems like a higher and more true state. We begin to awaken from our slumber. At that point, and various points and planes along the way, we experience and "witness" something greater taking place. We - by disconnecting the rigid hold of our egos, and it's often erroneous ideas - begin to allow IT to work and flow and create through us again.
That's 2¢ from me, and 2¢ from IT.
Onegaishimasu. This may seem an American, an eclectic, or even an outlandish zen answer, but IT is you. Once you understand that, you are already on the journey of your practice; the practice of your journey.
In gassho,
Mark
and
Babies seem to have IT. IT seems to be that natural, intrinsic force and energy imbibed and emanating from what some might call god or nature or higher self. As we develop our ego - that artificial construct handed to us by society to get around in the world - we identify with the false self created by that ego, and IT becomes distorted and its flow through us, as channels, becomes blocked off to varying degrees.
Over time those blocks become dis-eases. If, and as, we learn that this false-ego ego is not who were are, we're then able to begin the journey - the return - to what, to us, seems like a higher and more true state. We begin to awaken from our slumber. At that point, and various points and planes along the way, we experience and "witness" something greater taking place. We - by disconnecting the rigid hold of our egos - begin to allow IT to work and flow and create through us again.
That 2¢ from me, and 2¢ from IT.
In my experiences, neither of the definitions above are what "IT" is in relation to the "Internal Training" that has been the focus of attention in recent years. I would refer to Rob John's post if I wanted to read what "IT" meant. And if you wanted to understand further what "IT" comprises, buy Ellis Amdur's new book, Hidden in Plain Sight. Read through the new threads about Ellis' book. And read through some of the threads in the Non-Aikido Martial Forum, specifically those where Rob, Dan, and Mike are posting.
The whole thing reads so differently now :).
Oh no, you mean IT doesn't mean Internet Technology???:)
David
Mike Sigman
09-23-2009, 03:59 PM
Mike Sigman promotes IT to develop IS (internal strength) and Dan Harden uses the word "aiki." Are these two things the same? I know that the two gentlemen have some differences of opinion, but do they agree on the result of IT?
Also, how would one know if someone had mastered IS/Aiki? What are the specific things they can do?Well, look at Tohei's "ki tests" and Ueshiba's many demonstrations of the same phenomena.... they refer to it as "ki" or "ki strength". The term "ki" was originally used in Japanese to mean the same things "qi" means in Chinese: like so many other things, what ki is and what ki does has been established for a very long time.
Sokaku Takeda taught a form of aikijujutsu. He demonstrated ki skills and the use of ki skills to perform "aiki" is an old concept in Asian martial arts. The only confusing thing is the number of terms people have used in various arts (both China and Japan) to refer to those basic skills. So whatever personal skills Takeda demonstrated in terms of ki skills, they were based on the known ki skills from very far back. BTW, "Ju", as in "jujutsu" seems to also refer to "internal strength":
from
http://www.judoamerica.com/coachingcorner/kano-kata.shtml
The soft or internal arts were known popularly in China as jou-chuan, the characters for which are read in Japanese as "ju-ken," meaning "soft fist." It was common throughout that period to refer to all internal arts by this name. This may have played some role in the eventual popularity of the term jujutsu for these rough-and-tumble martial arts. Kano and others argued that there was nothing "gentle" or "soft" about Jujutsu, and that ju was hardly the over-riding principle of the arts. The arts were called "ju-arts" or jujutsu because they were based on internal methods and ki (internal energy), not because they employed no strength or force 7.
The training of internal skills is done with internal exercises aka "nei gong" and the styles that specialize in those developments are the "internal styles" aka "nei jia". They develop ki/qi skills and use the dantien to manipulate those skills. "Aiki" is just another term for the usage of those skills in a blending manner with an opponent's forces.
I think that sometimes the conversation is so Aikido and Daito-ryu focused that people lose sight of the fact that these skills have been around many hundreds (probably thousands) of years and Takeda didn't originate the skills, even though he certainly developed his own personal take on them in regard to the martial abilities he had. I.e., Takeda got his ki skills from someone (probably his father) and he worked on them and developed them as he did.
So, yes, we're all talking about the same things, generally. The only caveat that I repeatedly make is that there is a whole spectrum of levels and gradations of these skills out there. I.e., no two people had exactly the same abilities (think, e.g., Ueshiba and Tohei) in the same way that there are, for instance, guitar players who play blues, some play classical, some jazz, etc. Continuing the guitar analogy a bit, let's say that Ueshiba played classical guitar Aikido and that Tohei plays neo-Flamenco Aikido... people have to be careful and make sure (i.e., do thoughtful practice) that they don't wind up grabbing a guitar but playing Bluegrass Aikido. ;)
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Alfonso
09-23-2009, 05:24 PM
Oh no, you mean IT doesn't mean Internet Technology???:)
David
information technology if you want to be anal
The training of internal skills is done with internal exercises aka "nei gong" and the styles that specialize in those developments are the "internal styles" aka "nei jia". They develop ki/qi skills and use the dantien to manipulate those skills. "Aiki" is just another term for the usage of those skills in a blending manner with an opponent's forces.
I think that is clear and lucid as you can hope for a definition of "Aiki"
BTW, "Ju", as in "jujutsu" seems to also refer to "internal strength":
so is aiki jujutsu an oxymoron?
Mike Sigman
09-23-2009, 07:16 PM
so is aiki jujutsu an oxymoron?Well, the specialized physical strengths of "internal strength" have to do with harnessing the groundpath strength and the weight strength (Earth and Heaven) and manipulating them in the body (Man), but that would be one topic, the specialized strengths. Manipulating the specialized strengths in relation to an opponent's incoming force so that the two forces result in the attacker's force being negated, that's "aiki". What the Chinese refer to as Hua-jin ("neutralizing jin") or other names. Since all the styles use different names for the basic forces it can get confusing.
So "jujutsu" could just be the "techniques using internal strength", but "aiki jujutsu" would be "techniques using internal strength that blend with an opponent's forces and neutralize his attack" (opponent defeats himself). A good interview with Minoru Inaba translates this as "shut down your opponent's power", but I think it's more because the interpretter didn't fully understand what was meant (same idea, though):
http://funkybuddha.multiply.com/links/item/45 (about 2/3 way down)
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Tenyu
09-23-2009, 08:42 PM
So, yes, we're all talking about the same things, generally. The only caveat that I repeatedly make is that there is a whole spectrum of levels and gradations of these skills out there. I.e., no two people had exactly the same abilities (think, e.g., Ueshiba and Tohei) in the same way that there are, for instance, guitar players who play blues, some play classical, some jazz, etc. Continuing the guitar analogy a bit, let's say that Ueshiba played classical guitar Aikido and that Tohei plays neo-Flamenco Aikido... people have to be careful and make sure (i.e., do thoughtful practice) that they don't wind up grabbing a guitar but playing Bluegrass Aikido. ;)
A great artist doesn’t limit oneself by what a genre is supposed to be, going beyond the norm is in part what helps define and keep it alive. As long as the artist acts according to the principles: maintains good center and ground, plays in time and in key, is aware of the instrument’s(uke) implicit demand, then one has freedom to create music and Aiki. That’s what O Sensei did. There really are infinite katas of infinite beauty, yet they are all highly defined and limited by upstream determinative principles. I’ve noticed much of O Sensei’s Takemusu Staff had recurring and recombinant Short Form Sets. I may eventually be compelled to transcribe all his recorded staffwork in notation if only because no one else has ever taken the time to do so. It’s also fascinating to actually discover what’s hidden in plain sight. Some of his work can be visually deceptive, appearing simple but difficult to perform.
Erick Mead
09-23-2009, 09:24 PM
Well, since we are using esoteric terms... ;)
IT is a combination of deeply interrelated mechanical and perceptual manipulations illustrated by a number of traditional images or concepts (juuji, asagao, ki, kokyu, etc.) that in practice form a seamless action. In purely Western terms, IT involves:
1) Asymmetrical, orthogonal & inverse stresses
2) Cusp stability behavior
3) Torsional shear strain conversion/dynamic precession
4) Complex harmonic motion
5) Remote tactile structural sense
6) Ambiguously perceived load paths
7) Resonant oscillatory buckling
8) Induced flexor/extensor reflexes
Or -- IT's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. :p
http://www.ghostbustershq.com/egons/staypuft.jpg
(Not as much of a joke as you may think, or so says Monsieur Poisson)
The use of the natural body structure,body mechanics, biotensigrity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ajowL0T4bM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNPgqS3EfRw&feature=related
David
Here's my unbiased opinion.
You can take the advice of people waxing poetic about the zen of "IT" or you can go train with someone who actually has the Internal Training skills.
You can take the advice of amateurs trying to mechanically or with physics explain what "IT" is or you can go train with someone who actually has the Internal Training skills.
You can take the advice of people going on about infinite katas, etc or you can go train with someone who actually has the Internal Training skills.
As one small example:
It's pretty obvious that Ueshiba had people push on him constantly, throughout his years. And people couldn't move him. So, ask yourself, are you listening to people who can replicate this? It's been posted here that people with good "IT" skills can do this. Who do *you* want to listen to?
Mike Sigman
09-24-2009, 07:34 AM
Cutting to the chase, correct IT is about relearning how to move; weight-lifting is done by moving in the same old way, unless you have fairly good IT skills and you know how to adjust the weight-training. The people who don't understand that will think weight-training is OK to do with Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, Wujiquan, etc. Some of those will even be certain they at least have a grip on I.S. I've seen all of these discussions going on for years. ;)
BTW, one of the big problems with these conversations is that there are a lot of levels of development in these skills. A beginner/neophyte unintentionally gives away what he knows/doesn't-know by what he says. But more experienced people also give away what they know/don't-know by what they say, too, because they're not fully aware of later developments-to-come. So all of these conversations are going to repeat themselves for years. Brace yourself. ;)
FWIW
Mike Sigman
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Tenyu
09-24-2009, 12:42 PM
It's pretty obvious that Ueshiba had people push on him constantly, throughout his years. And people couldn't move him. So, ask yourself, are you listening to people who can replicate this?
Is holding ground, being immovable, doing nothing the ultimate goal of Aiki?
O Sensei was creating symphonies, with open eyes and ears how can one not be interested in them? What value is Aiki without beauty?
Fred Little
09-24-2009, 12:53 PM
Is holding ground, being immovable, doing nothing the ultimate goal of Aiki?
Probably not even close to being an ultimate goal; almost certainly rather closer to a beginner's finger exercises at the outset of the keyboard harmony training that generally precedes symphonic composition.
There is, after all is said and done, a difference between "going beyond" and "skipping over."
YMMV,
FL
There is, after all is said and done, a difference between "going beyond" and "skipping over."
Word.
Skill level aside as push tests can convey various levels of skill --
We have, by numerous accounts, something that Ueshiba routinely did. ( http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14991 )
We have something that Ueshiba thought well enough of that he allowed himself to be taped. Remember the incident with Ohba where Ohba attacked earnestly and Ueshiba was furious? ( http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=501 ) Ueshiba seemingly only wanted to show specific things on demonstrations. It would appear push tests were in line with what Ueshiba wanted shown.
So, we have something which Ueshiba seemed to place some very high value on in that he did it quite often, was taped doing it, and very few could replicate. And those push tests *are* an indicator of "IT".
People can relegate push tests to some obscure corner if they want. They can rationalize them away. They can "replicate" them by not having the pusher use 100% effort. And they can completely ignore them. But, the fact is push tests were something Ueshiba valued.
thisisnotreal
09-24-2009, 01:15 PM
Is ...doing nothing the ultimate goal of Aiki?
m 2 c,
it is an exercise...and it is certainly not done through doing nothing... but by doing very specific things.. dynamically. hidden in front of your eyes...right there..... under the skin, in the muscles (effort) and the bones (alignment skill)
thisisnotreal
09-24-2009, 01:21 PM
And those push tests *are* an indicator of "IT".
.
Anybody got any more indicators of IT you'd mind sharing?
C. David Henderson
09-24-2009, 01:28 PM
Is holding ground, being immovable, doing nothing the ultimate goal of Aiki?
O Sensei was creating symphonies, with open eyes and ears how can one not be interested in them? What value is Aiki without beauty?
Why are you asking about "ulitmate goals," etc. in the context of this thread about IT, aka "internal training?" Do you disagree with what someone is saying that IT constitutes? Do you think it unimportant or inappropriate for aikido? I don't understand what you are trying to contribute to the conversation.
Ron Tisdale
09-24-2009, 01:52 PM
Plonk....
Sorry, I now return you to your regularly scheduled channel...
Best,
Ron
Mike Sigman
09-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Probably not even close to being an ultimate goal; almost certainly rather closer to a beginner's finger exercises at the outset of the keyboard harmony training that generally precedes symphonic composition.
There is, after all is said and done, a difference between "going beyond" and "skipping over."
YMMV,
FLThat was beautiful, Fred.
Rei. Domo. Osu. Cowabunga, Dude.
Mike
Shadowfax
09-29-2009, 11:29 AM
I think each individual has to decide for their-self what IT really is and perhaps IT changes as the individual grows in their training and life experiences.
Right now for me IT is connection and being able to feel and respond to that both as Uke and as Nage.
I think each individual has to decide for their-self what IT really is and perhaps IT changes as the individual grows in their training and life experiences.
Right now for me IT is connection and being able to feel and respond to that both as Uke and as Nage.
Have you read Ellis Amdur's new book?
There are specifics for "IT", aka Internal Training. If you're interested in learning more, read Ellis' book and/or peruse some threads in the Non-Aikido Martial Traditions forum. There are quite a bit of posts out there about "IT", aiki, Internal Skills (IS), etc. I hope you keep an open mind and read.
Shadowfax
09-29-2009, 08:42 PM
Always looking for something new to read. I'll put it on my list. And I always try my best to have an open mind. :) I'm sure that as I progress in my aikido this concept will become more clear to me.
Always looking for something new to read. I'll put it on my list. And I always try my best to have an open mind. :) I'm sure that as I progress in my aikido this concept will become more clear to me.
I think the chances of you finding internal power to any appreciable level in aikido are slim to none. Personally, I have never met anyone in Aikido with internal power /aiki. Nor have I seen a video of any teacher- Japanese or otherwise -who exhibited much. I would love to hear of someone, somewhere who does-particularly if they have a video out I haven't already seen.
I would consider looking for those teachers in Aikido who's current training is specifically focusing on IT. In time they will be the best (if not the only) bet on getting IT in aikido.
Good luck in your search.
Dan
Shadowfax
09-30-2009, 06:43 AM
OK, that's hilarious! I read a big chunk of that discussion, and if I recall even responded to something, and I actually never made the connection that IT was an acronym for internal training, even though everyone kept talking about IT and internal training constantly in the same sentence.
I honestly thought IT was being used to denote 'it', i.e., to say there's this thing that's important but hard to define or at least hard to get people to agree on a name for, so we're just going to keep calling it 'it', in capitals so we know it's a BIG 'it'.
The whole thing reads so differently now :).
LOL I'm even slower than you... I just figgured it out myself. :p
Now maybe I can get to understanding how I might apply IT in my life. :D
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 08:17 AM
All points of IHTBF properly acknowledged and set aside -- for purposes of these forums Jun has invited us to use linked video for illustration -- which has been noted in this discussion. But as a matter of plain fairness, when one asserts that this or that thing is not displayed in a given video of a unnamed person one ought to show such a video and identify such a person so that 1) they or those with knowledge of their practice have an opportunity to defend their practice (or the point demonstrated in that video), and 2) so that the error, if it may be shown thereby, can actually be avoided by others.
And more importantly, if the assertion is that IT (or lack of IT) may be seen in video, one ought to actually show that in video illustrating the points affirmatively by way of comparison with the videos of those criticized, to illustrate the points of contrast or comparison.
Blanket criticisms of nameless shihans on unidentified video without video of a correct comparison or an exemplary contrast are worse than pointless to those trying to understand what we might mean. Critical comparison or contrast of specific examples is education -- it teaches by "dissemination of information." Merely enticing enthusiasm or inciting derision without informing -- that is defined as "propaganda." Right or wrong as to its intended point -- it is not informative. A well-informed showing of error teaches vastly more than an uninformed (or uninforming) statement, however correct.
All points of IHTBF properly acknowledged and set aside -- for purposes of these forums Jun has invited us to use linked video for illustration -- which has been noted in this discussion. But as a matter of plain fairness, when one asserts that this or that thing is not displayed in a given video of a unnamed person one ought to show such a video and identify such a person so that 1) they or those with knowledge of their practice have an opportunity to defend their practice (or the point demonstrated in that video), and 2) so that the error, if it may be shown thereby, can actually be avoided by others.
And more importantly, if the assertion is that IT (or lack of IT) may be seen in video, one ought to actually show that in video illustrating the points affirmatively by way of comparison with the videos of those criticized, to illustrate the points of contrast or comparison.
Blanket criticisms of nameless shihans on unidentified video without video of a correct comparison or an exemplary contrast are worse than pointless to those trying to understand what we might mean. Critical comparison or contrast of specific examples is education -- it teaches by "dissemination of information." Merely enticing enthusiasm or inciting derision without informing -- that is defined as "propaganda." Right or wrong as to its intended point -- it is not informative. A well-informed showing of error teaches vastly more than an uninformed (or uninforming) statement, however correct.
I think that is an excellent idea for you to show. I think a lot of people would love to see you do a video where you correctly and critically compare and contrast specific examples.
Since you have gone on record here at Aikiweb as defining "IT" quite often, I think it would be extremely helpful of you if you would show a video comparing and contrasting your usages of "IT". What an exemplary example you could set for all those out there.
Going further, I think that you should also include your teachers as examples because if you have "IT", then they must also, too. So, maybe you could get video of them to help all of us compare and contrast so that others can avoid errors.
What a brilliant post you provided us. When can we expect your videos?
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 11:05 AM
I think that is an excellent idea for you to show. I think a lot of people would love to see you do a video where you correctly and critically compare and contrast specific examples. Well-- the comment wasn't about me, was it? I said the blanket statement assuming the evidence was unfair to many other people. I am not criticizing the performance of unnamed others on unspecified video -- so the moral burden in this respect does not fall on me.
Regardless of what you might think of me were I to respond to your challenge, my complaint would stand unaffected. It is simply more helpful and more fair to those criticized (categorically, mind you) to make those comparisons overtly and specifically with examples rather than by generality and assumptions.
Hmmm. A video yaburi forum? But then, I don't like watching most sporting contests, either, so it has about the same appeal. ;)
Since you have gone on record here at Aikiweb as defining "IT" quite often, I think it would be extremely helpful of you if you would show a video comparing and contrasting your usages of "IT". What an exemplary example you could set for all those out there. Great idea. First you point out a definition you challenge and tell us why it is wrong, and then maybe I will respond with some video illustrating the point ... if specifics are set against specifics, maybe we all learn a little. :)
I honestly thought IT was being used to denote 'it', i.e., to say there's this thing that's important but hard to define or at least hard to get people to agree on a name for, so we're just going to keep calling it 'it', in capitals so we know it's a BIG 'it'.
The whole thing reads so differently now :).
IT got defined from 'it' to 'IT' in this thread. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16496&page=29.
The meaning started out more like " this thing that's important but hard to define or at least hard to get people to agree on a name for,"
and evolved into " internal training".
David
Well-- the comment wasn't about me, was it?
We are, after all, contributors to a public thread. Whether we want to or not, by posting, we make the commentary about us ... in some manner.
Or, as some teachers/instructors/trainers like to say ... "Oh, you have a suggestion. Congratulations, you've just volunteered." ;)
Or, by critical posts throughout the length and breadth of the topic of "IT", you have made the comments about you. Just as I have done the same.
Any old way you slice it, tag, you're it. :)
I said the blanket statement assuming the evidence was unfair to many other people. I am not criticizing the performance of unnamed others on unspecified video -- so the moral burden in this respect does not fall on me.
Let me get this straight ... you criticize by using physics/math/etc on threads regarding "IT", but because you fail to criticize the performance of others on video, you're exempt from video, but yet can suggest that others use video?
And you're exempt from the same criteria that you are suggesting others use? For example, using your teacher's videos, you could do exactly that which you suggested. Contrasting it to other videos, you could "identify such a person" and give comparison or contrast. With your background and abilities, you could lead the way instead of pointing a finger at ... video ... and saying someone else should show.
Regardless of what you might think of me were I to respond to your challenge, my complaint would stand unaffected. It is simply more helpful and more fair to those criticized (categorically, mind you) to make those comparisons overtly and specifically with examples rather than by generality and assumptions.
Hmmm. A video yaburi forum? But then, I don't like watching most sporting contests, either, so it has about the same appeal. ;)
Great idea. First you point out a definition you challenge and tell us why it is wrong, and then maybe I will respond with some video illustrating the point ... if specifics are set against specifics, maybe we all learn a little. :)
Even trying to turn things around (I certainly didn't complain about video), there is no ground here upon which to stand. But, for the sake of ... well, just because ... let me address this issue.
Posting.
Me: Certainly quite a bit of posts about "IT".
You: Certainly quite a bit of posts about "IT".
Experience with main "IT" participants.
Me: Rob John, Mike Sigman, Dan Harden
You: ???
Video.
Me: Youtube videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/wvmark
You: ???
With that last part, let me return to your topic of videos and illustrating points. I've done so. 8 videos, all addressing some topic of "IT".
And here in this thread of which you have decided to participate, I have asked that you, with your abilities (and those of your teachers from which you have learned), to step up and help others by doing that which you, yourself, suggested. Unless of course that is something beyond what you ... want to ... do.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The question was asked and a statement offered that the person could look forward to finding it in Aikido.
I offered an opinion as to the chances of that happening to any significant degree.
I would be thrilled to feel or see expert level aiki or expert level internal power from anyone in the aikido community. I have never personally felt it from anyone in Aikido up to 8th dans, and I have never seen even what I would consider good mid-level structure or aiki on any video anywhere.
I am confused as to why you would want more video.
Everyone has been encouraged to offer input-yet not everyone's opinions are equally qualified are they? There are levels of IT. Some can deliver a little bit and some can deliver in spades. It serves no purpose to lie or inflate skills of aikido teachers that are simply not there. They can be hoped for. We can wax nostalgically for teachers we wish had IT to a higher degree but I've never seen it. I would be happy to touch hands, or better yet rock and roll with someone you think has IT to a substantial degree.
As for replicating and teaching it to others? For faults-all their own making-I am uninterested in Japanese teachers as a source. They have, for all intents and purposes, failed to deliver! They don't get aiki. And of the few who might- they have proven themselves to be unable to teach it in a methodical sense to the next generation. At what point do we wise up and stop caring what they say or do?
I think the future of aikido is being written right now. The previous generation of Japanes teacher's failure to teach aiki is becoming obvious to an increasingly educated student base under them. I have been hearing of Japanese Shihan being unable to respond to direct questions about aiki and the means to train the body by their own students, who are increasingly going outside of aikido find it. The Shihan are bereft of advice on what to do and why and where it leads. The American teachers under them are just not talking about it publicly.
Thankfully more and more American teachers are becoming aware of that and are just looking at the Japanese teachers influence (as a source) nostalgically; more akin to the comment from Abe Shosaburo in Dave Lowry's book: "Autumn lightning"
“In the Changing of the times they were like Autumn Lighting, a thing out of season, an empty promise of rain that would fall unheeded on fields already bare.”
We can do better amongst ourselves…heck we already are.
I don't see what the worry is though. I see it in a very postive light. What is left to argue when Aikido's senior teachers and Shihan are now stepping outside the art to learn aiki...I mean ...hello?
Cheers
Dan
mathewjgano
09-30-2009, 01:09 PM
Let me get this straight ... you criticize by using physics/math/etc on threads regarding "IT", but because you fail to criticize the performance of others on video, you're exempt from video, but yet can suggest that others use video?
I understand my sample rate is low in these conversations...and lower as of late...but my sense is that criticizing others' training is not what Erick tends to do. My impression is that he mostly applies his set of language to what he perceives as going on and then folks tell him how he doesn't know what he's talking about...FWIW...I'd like to reiterate I understand this is merely my perception, but that is how it appears to me.
And you're exempt from the same criteria that you are suggesting others use?
Again, I've not read him as making many, if any, claims on the quality of others' training. I see him as applying certain physical principles to his understanding of I.S. and then getting criticized.
Maybe another way to put it is that it seems some folks are more interested in "debunking" Erick's notion that he understands something about I.S. than in the issue of I.S. itself. Again, I understand I haven't been tracking these conversations very well, so I appologize if I'm mischaracterizing the situation.
I understand my sample rate is low in these conversations...and lower as of late...but my sense is that criticizing others' training is not what Erick tends to do. My impression is that he mostly applies his set of language to what he perceives as going on and then folks tell him how he doesn't know what he's talking about...FWIW...I'd like to reiterate I understand this is merely my perception, but that is how it appears to me.
Again, I've not read him as making many, if any, claims on the quality of others' training. I see him as applying certain physical principles to his understanding of I.S. and then getting criticized.
Maybe another way to put it is that it seems some folks are more interested in "debunking" Erick's notion that he understands something about I.S. than in the issue of I.S. itself. Again, I understand I haven't been tracking these conversations very well, so I appologize if I'm mischaracterizing the situation.
You are absolutely correct.
David
David Orange
09-30-2009, 01:41 PM
I see (Erick Mead) as applying certain physical principles to his understanding of I.S. and then getting criticized.
Well, that's because the topic is not just wide open. The discussion concerns a very specific set of skills and the internal work that develops and allows those skills to work. Though Erick has commented extensively on many of these threads, he's said very little that compels me to think that he understands the topic at all. It's a lot like another poster recently trying to completely redefine "internal strength" to "true internal strength". Which is a lot like that guy always posting videos about "real aikido" which are just very roughly done normal aikido.
The difference between aikido and aikijujutsu is not just being more brutal and in my opinion the only difference between aikido and "real aikido" is that real aikido does contain "internal strength". And I haven't seen any evidence of that in the "real aikido" videos.
So it's the same with Erick's comments as with Buck's. They don't relate at all to the experience of the people who have trained with the top exponents of Internal Strength training and moreover give the feeling that the elaborate wording of his posts are an attempt to obscure their relative lack of meaning.
Maybe another way to put it is that it seems some folks are more interested in "debunking" Erick's notion that he understands something about I.S. than in the issue of I.S. itself.
Well, how many times can one say "That's not what we're talking about"? It's true the IS and IT threads need a lot more explication of how IS works and how IT is trained, but maybe we could get more of that if we had less unrelated commentary which draws flies who want to cling to that stuff and claim that they, too, have "IT".
I'm sure Erick is well intentioned, but after all these years of discussion, I'm not aware that he has ever made any contact with anyone widely recognized to have internal strength skills. Well, I only met Akuzawa and Dan Harden this year, myself, but I did it because I had read closely what they were saying and I recognized that I was "not" doing what they were talking about.
If Erick really believes he is doing the same things, I think he should get out there and match up with Dan or Ark and put all the speculation behind him.
Best to you.
David
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 02:15 PM
With that last part, let me return to your topic of videos and illustrating points. I've done so. 8 videos, all addressing some topic of "IT". And you may notice, I have not commented upon them, critically or otherwise. I respect the fact that you are willing to show what you are working on going along -- and I leave it at that. For me the work has been to better categorize and try to physically define something that has greatly lacked that kind of definition, and I have been willing to show what I am working on going along -- and I leave it at that ...
... I have asked that you, with your abilities (and those of your teachers from which you have learned), to step up and help others by doing that which you, yourself, suggested. Unless of course that is something beyond what you ... want to ... do. If somebody suddenly throws a short hook in my general vicinity, something interesting will almost certainly happen. I doubt that will be on video -- so anything else is more or less contrived for purposes of instruction -- so --- to continue our discussion on the useful purposes of video -- What would you want to see that I have defined or that you would question in my definitions ? As for my teachers, you would have to ask them. What I learned, I learned from training with them, from what they did, less than from what they intended to show. I am sure I missed a great deal of what they intended. Very often what I learned may not have been what they were teaching at the time. They certainly did not use my definitions in teaching me, which is not a point of even remote criticism, but a simple and quite happy fact. Heck, I don't even use them on the mat except in passing to better explain a point of structural or dynamic correction and why the condition I pointed to was incorrect, and why the correction works better. They are a different way of expressing just what the traditional terms do, but also serve as a good check against the more "airy" interpretations or attempted applications of those traditional terms, and the often ambiguous references that seem to creep in. But I find that they they very usefully inform my observations and my own depth of training to no end.
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 02:49 PM
Well, that's because the topic is not just wide open. The discussion concerns a very specific set of skills and the internal work that develops and allows those skills to work. Though Erick has commented extensively on many of these threads, he's said very little that compels me to think that he understands the topic at all. That's because I am not writing to compel you. If I respond it is because I recognize something put forth in their terms and wish to work it through in mine, and it might tangentially be of value to someone looking at the physical issues involved, since I have kinda thought this through at this point. If it does not work for you -- then go with God ...
So it's the same with Erick's comments as with Buck's. They don't relate at all to the experience of the people who have trained with the top exponents of Internal Strength training and moreover give the feeling that the elaborate wording of his posts are an attempt to obscure their relative lack of meaning.Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework. Certainly not those guys -- which is again NOT a criticism, simply a point of fact. Nor even some of the technically minded people they have worked with, who have been mentioned. The reason is that the categories of information involved on either side (East and West) do not map on-for-one between data sets. The traditional terminology and concepts in the history of these arts and the more common mechanical conventions and concepts that we would use (usually force-vector or f=ma) cannot be trivially substituted. To do so is meaningless and misleading. But they are BOTH coherent and they BOTH relate -- once you break them down into parts and definitions that WILL relate correctly . There are many more than one convention available to use in defining a physical problem or dynamic state. This is what I have done, and it does not take more than a knowledge of a certain branch of 18th c. mechanics and a little late 20th c. knowledge of neuro-muscular functions to grasp the essential working points on the Western side. I am frankly constantly amazed at the resistance to trying to look at it in this way. Amazed, I say. Who knows, they might even prove me wrong....
They are working on what they are working on, by all accounts successfully and satisfactorily to those who work on it with them. I don't criticize them. I do criticize the manner of criticism of others in discussion, but that is a different issue relating more the usefulness of criticism in a discussion -- which is very valuable if done right, and pointless if done wrong.
I'm sure Erick is well intentioned, but after all these years of discussion, I'm not aware that he has ever made any contact with anyone widely recognized to have internal strength skills.... I had read closely what they were saying and I recognized that I was "not" doing what they were talking about. I have also read them closely. :) I will leave you to judge how closely I can read.
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 03:00 PM
The question was asked and a statement offered that the person could look forward to finding it in Aikido.
I offered an opinion as to the chances of that happening to any significant degree.... I have never personally felt it from anyone in Aikido up to 8th dans, and I have never seen even what I would consider good mid-level structure or aiki on any video anywhere.
I am confused as to why you would want more video. ... Video was the point raised. Simple specifics were urged ... for the same two reasons I stated -- and which, as yet, remain points in question.
Russ Q
09-30-2009, 03:02 PM
Hey all,
I'm not saying I know anything about IT (I just got the acronym myself - Har!) but as for video.....here it goes. I think this demonstrates it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvWiYcxTm2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuhU8uouNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlvGlCP9R8Q&feature=related
Whaddya think? Perhaps someone with experience in IT can tell us why or why not these folks show it.....
Cheers,
Russ
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 03:05 PM
Again, I've not read him as making many, if any, claims on the quality of others' training. I see him as applying certain physical principles to his understanding of I.S. and then getting criticized. For the record -- criticizing physical principles is all useful criticism...
Maybe another way to put it is that it seems some folks are more interested in "debunking" Erick's notion that he understands something about I.S. than in the issue of I.S. itself. ... and that is not useful criticism ... :)
thisisnotreal
09-30-2009, 03:12 PM
This is an exceptional thread and a good reminder of `what's what`
How Long and In What Manner to Great Mastery?< (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14753)
David Orange
09-30-2009, 03:36 PM
That's because I am not writing to compel you. If I respond it is because I recognize something put forth in their terms and wish to work it through in mine, and it might tangentially be of value to someone looking at the physical issues involved, since I have kinda thought this through at this point.
Erick, the problem is that all your statements, whether you wish them to compel or not, simply show that you just don't understand what the major IS proponents are even talking about. It's like someone trying to get into a discussion between neurologists by talking about a Paul McCartney song. There's just no relevance. So when you post this stuff because you "wish to work through it" in your own terms, you just have to expect people to say (sooner or later) "Mmmm....I'm afraid you don't know what we're talking about."
Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework.
First, your "this stuff" seems completely unrelated to the "this stuff" described by those who are recognized as having pretty deep mastery of "internal strength" and "internal training." I know they can do it and I have felt what they can do and it's not something you will find in any mainstream aikido dojo I've ever visited. In fact, most aikido places I've visited seem intent on watering down people's ability to have and express any kind of strength at all. You water it down to the teacher's level or you get out. With Dan and Ark, certainly, I can say that their strength is distilled to a more potent and higher degree than anything I've met, including in Japan.
and again
Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework.Certainly not those guys -- which is again NOT a criticism, simply a point of fact.
But it's not a fact. It is clearly wrong because they have all discussed the precise internal mechanics involved in producing the awe-inspiring results of internal strength training. Dan, especially, in his seminar, went into great detail about the internal body structures used and precisely how they are used. They have also gone deeply into "intent," which I don't think you or anyone else has described in a "rigorous bio-mechanicalframework."
And the more important point is that you really seem to be talking about something entirely different from what they are describing. My five-year-old has rigorously explained to me why he has had a lingering cough lately: he swallowed a fly while his mother was talking to him and the fly is down in his knee, now, making him cough. He showed me very exactly how the impulse to cough originates in his knee, moves up his thigh, traverses his abdomen, moves into his lungs, and emerges in his throat as a cough. The doctor, needless to say, dismisses that explanation, but we did get an x-ray to see if there's an obstruction in his airway.
I'm afraid the responses you get are along those same lines for more or less the same reasons.
Nor even some of the technically minded people they have worked with, who have been mentioned. The reason is that the categories of information involved on either side (East and West) do not map on-for-one between data sets.
Well, you know, you don't seem to be using any of the data sets they're using, but trying to substitute a lot of unrelated statements as "alternative" explanations.
The traditional terminology and concepts in the history of these arts and the more common mechanical conventions and concepts that we would use (usually force-vector or f=ma) cannot be trivially substituted. To do so is meaningless and misleading. But they are BOTH coherent and they BOTH relate -- once you break them down into parts and definitions that WILL relate correctly .
Not if you're not using the same information they're using. And it seems clear that you are not. Mark's call to post videos of yourself is an offer for you to show that you're even in the same book, much less on the same page.
There are many more than one convention available to use in defining a physical problem or dynamic state. This is what I have done, and it does not take more than a knowledge of a certain branch of 18th c. mechanics and a little late 20th c. knowledge of neuro-muscular functions to grasp the essential working points on the Western side. I am frankly constantly amazed at the resistance to trying to look at it in this way. Amazed, I say. Who knows, they might even prove me wrong....
It's not necessary to prove you wrong. You do that, yourself by addressing something totally unrelated in your tortuously elaborate rationalizations. But you are talking about something entirely different--maybe "ordinary" aikido technique, but not IS aikido. But if you don't accept that, you need to step up and put your hands on someone like Dan or Ark and you won't need more than a moment to understand why everyone has been telling you for months that you don't get the point. I'm constantly amazed at your resistance to doing that. It's easier than writing down a single one of your posts. Save yourself some years, man, and go find out the truth. If you can do a fraction (20%) of what Dan does, I will buy you a bottle of champagne.
David
Tim Fong
09-30-2009, 05:41 PM
Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework. Certainly not those guys -- which is again NOT a criticism, simply a point of fact. Nor even some of the technically minded people they have worked with, who have been mentioned. The reason is that the categories of information involved on either side (East and West) do not map on-for-one between data sets. The traditional terminology and concepts in the history of these arts and the more common mechanical conventions and concepts that we would use (usually force-vector or f=ma) cannot be trivially substituted. To do so is meaningless and misleading. But they are BOTH coherent and they BOTH relate -- once you break them down into parts and definitions that WILL relate correctly . There are many more than one convention available to use in defining a physical problem or dynamic state. This is what I have done, and it does not take more than a knowledge of a certain branch of 18th c. mechanics and a little late 20th c. knowledge of neuro-muscular functions to grasp the essential working points on the Western side. I am frankly constantly amazed at the resistance to trying to look at it in this way. Amazed, I say. Who knows, they might even prove me wrong....
Bogus. You aren't putting the movement of aikido into a rigorous biomechanical framework. This is because doing that would require you to conduct instrumented testing to objectively verify your conclusions. You haven't done that.
What you have is narrative. You are using the tools of legal analysis, i.e. hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics). You pick out some bio-mechanical concept and try to show, through narrative and definitional games, how it is "the same" as a certain aikido movement. This is standard first year legal reasoning, which is entirely appropriate in court. It does not analyze motion.
One should not use kinematics to resolve thorny social problems. Likewise, one should not use hermeneutics to analyze motion.
eyrie
09-30-2009, 06:15 PM
LOL.... Busted AND pwned!
raul rodrigo
09-30-2009, 06:21 PM
Good post, Tim.
Bogus. You aren't putting the movement of aikido into a rigorous biomechanical framework. This is because doing that would require you to conduct instrumented testing to objectively verify your conclusions. You haven't done that.
What you have is narrative. You are using the tools of legal analysis, i.e. hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics). You pick out some bio-mechanical concept and try to show, through narrative and definitional games, how it is "the same" as a certain aikido movement. This is standard first year legal reasoning, which is entirely appropriate in court. It does not analyze motion.
One should not use kinematics to resolve thorny social problems. Likewise, one should not use hermeneutics to analyze motion.
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 07:29 PM
Erick, the problem is that all your statements, whether you wish them to compel or not, simply show that you just don't understand what the major IS proponents are even talking about. Fine argument to make. So show that. Demonstrate something that I have stated that shows that. I've said alot -- ;) pick something...
There's just no relevance. That I will categorically deny. Well understood physics, bio-mechanics and neuro-muscular actions are completely relevant to any action involving the human body. My position on the application of that information might conceivably be shown to be physically wrong, but the information is completely relevant -- and since I do in fact apply it in action and correction of action, I would say, purely empirically -- it is not completely wrong, either....
It's not necessary to prove you wrong. You do that, yourself by addressing something totally unrelated in your tortuously elaborate rationalizations. Non intellego ergo non vero ? Complex = wrong? Uncommon = wrong? While we are at it, let's just set the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle at three and save ourselves the nasty math headache.
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 07:50 PM
Bogus. You aren't putting the movement of aikido into a rigorous biomechanical framework. This is because doing that would require you to conduct instrumented testing to objectively verify your conclusions. You haven't done that. What you have is narrative. Bogus back. The mechanisms are well-documented. The application is not well-described. That is a narrative task. What we have are simply competing narratives. But they really are NOT in competition.
You are using the tools of legal analysis, i.e. hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics). This is standard first year legal reasoning, which is entirely appropriate in court. It does not analyze motion. Uh. No. What law school did you go to? In Louisiana maybe -- civil law uses a hermeneutic method because there is only the text to consider. Legal reasoning according to the common law method of cases goes like this. "In such and so case, such and so court decided that X is like Y in Z setting. Such and so court is binding/persuasive authority, and this case is the same as/analogous to X and/or Y and/or Z so the decision here must/should be the same or similar." THAT is legal reasoning. Stacking Analogies. I am doing nothing of the kind -- I am not talking in analogy -- and there is no text.
Likewise, one should not use hermeneutics to analyze motion.... Or a counter-hermeneutic to a physical problem ...
phitruong
09-30-2009, 08:02 PM
whoa! you folks still here try to define the "IT"? you realize that the IT that can be defined is not IT? unless the IT comes up and kicks you in the nuts, then it's IT. of course, by then, you don't really care about IT, unless IT is a bag of ice. :)
<snip>
Erick, the heart of the matter is, until you've been vetted, by meeting someone with I.S. skills (Ark, Mike, Dan, or someone else), or someone that's met someone with I.S. skills, no one's going to pay attention to you.
Have you met anyone that's met Ark, Mike or Dan, and had them feel your tech?
HL1978
09-30-2009, 09:25 PM
I am an engineer by education as well as occupation. My understanding of engineering concepts has done little to further my progress of developing "it" nor recognizing when others possess "it".
Only hands on time with people recognized in having it and a lot of solo training has develop any understanding of "it" and when others possess some variation of "it." The Aunkai in tokyo has more than a few members with science/engineering degrees all the way up to the PhD level and I am fairly certain they would agree with my opinion.
A more productive discussion of what is it and what isn't would center around where we do see movement in uke/tori and where we don't, what it feels like etc rather than describing the mechanics.
thisisnotreal
09-30-2009, 09:49 PM
couple of points that keep rattling around in my poor brain:
-it is 'fun' to have a 'villain'. look at all the talking points that have (over time) been focused at one/them. it's done a lot to keep things lively (at the very very least). Will it be missed when the 'scientific-objectioners or questioners' inevitably lose their motivation? Was there a purpose served by the 'madness'?
-IT will never ever be 'stolen'. It may be given freely, or shared..but it will not be wrested by any act of violence (logical, scholarly or otherwise)
-Surely those that can do IT well (i.e. at high levels of skill) have thought long and hard and specifically about what exactly (mechanically, muscularly, fascially, intentionally, etc) is going on. They will not be goaded into explaining it; or correcting a wrong explanation of it. That goes to the previous point. Shared or given away...but not to be stolen or tricked.
-I like what Hunter said: "A more productive discussion of what is it and what isn't would center around where we do see movement in uke/tori and where we don't, what it feels like etc rather than describing the mechanics." I'm a fan..but it does not happen all that often here on Aikiweb.
-Regarding the more productive discussion: it seems to me that those who certainly know and those who are working on it are less and less inclined, these days, to have that conversation. I wonder why ?
just some late night random thoughts.
I think the chances of you finding internal power to any appreciable level in aikido are slim to none. Personally, I have never met anyone in Aikido with internal power /aiki. Nor have I seen a video of any teacher- Japanese or otherwise -who exhibited much.
Dan
I agree and disagree- its a ying and yang thing. :) And I don't care to explain too much other than the way of these bullet points:
1. Aikido doesn't have Internal Power according to the ownership and design of and by the Chinese martial arts defining Internal Power. Yet, Aikido has its own Internal Power. O'Sensei clearly demonstrated it, as many of his deshi did as well. But, it may not be classified as such according to the Chinese's martial art's definition.
2. I have read that some people define Internal Power by their own definition of what they do which they don't associate with Internal Power as being of the Chinese martial arts.
3. Is there a standardize definition of Internal Power, the Chinese martial arts is the model. But theterm is subjective as definitions exist and vary greatly depending on whom you talk to. And who you consider on not consider an expert in Internal Power. And there are some who use Internal Power as a term interchangeable with the words or concept chi or ki.
5. If Internal Power is Physics applied say to Kinesiology then it is a matter of skill, and knowledge of creating internal power. In stead of relying on muscular development and use. Personally, I think that is what the old books by Chinese masters are referring to when it comes to internal power. They are early scientists without the scientific langauge or training to covey their findings. Physics existing in Aikido allows for Aikido's principles to be internal power.
6. If Internal Power isn't physics, and is related to another function, such as stated by some by the use of the fibrous connective tissue sheath of the body to create power as martial art technique coupled or not couple with #5. Or a force such as chi or chi gong etc. then it varies widely on the definition depending on who you are talking to. This allows for Aikido's principles to be internal power too.
I think this topic will be argued and will create many opinions regarding it. But, until there is an ultimate authority on what is or isn't internal power, because it is a subjective term, it will be a term of debate. It will be right up there with all similar debates of religion and God.
Erick Mead
09-30-2009, 10:22 PM
I am an engineer by education as well as occupation. My understanding of engineering concepts has done little to further my progress of developing "it" nor recognizing when others possess "it".What sort of engineering? It has aided mine. My background is in aerodynamics and architectural structure -- hands on applied rather than purely conceptual. My own design-built treehouse, fwiw, survived two direct hit Cat 3 hurricanes, the first of which topped or toppled fifteen mature trees in my yard -- so my structural and dynamic intuition is hardly idle. Shear mechanics, shifting moments and rotations and resonance are my background -- and are key focus of my observation and effort on these topics -- Their neuro-muscular relationship to spinal reflex arcs is a point I have only recently uncovered.
A more productive discussion of what is it and what isn't would center around where we do see movement in uke/tori and where we don't, what it feels like etc rather than describing the mechanics.I tend to agree but that is why I've done that. But why should we not seek to visualize the feel according to the proper mechanics ? These are concrete images for the structures of the body -- not equations -- images like multiple pendulums and complex harmonic motion, and Coulomb's arch of spheres in static funicular loading. http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/whips-and-chains-2960/. Furitama is the resonance frequency of the human body -- not an idle concept to apply destructively. http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/rattling-bones-3214/
Tenchi follows torsional shear stress arcs. http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/aiki-physical-model-structure-dynamic-3259/ So do asagao forms of motion which convert shear stresses and displacements between different coordinate planes, a kind of precession of moments as well as rotations. I can receive compressive stress in one shear stress spiral and relieve it with stretching along the other shear stress spiral, and gain kuzushi without pushing back into or altering the compression connection. That is just Poisson ratio volumetric change in torsional shear with an adaptive control.
Now I know that these are all correct because I saw them operating intutively, worked to relate them conceptually to known mechanics and I apply them consistent with the mechanics I have identified. . I see people like Ark applying some of them, notably in his strikes, his postures and his destabilizations. I see people like Dan and Mike talking about things like windings and ground which are perfectly correct impressions of the things I am addressing.
It may or may not help you, but that does not mean it is not there.
Lorel Latorilla
10-01-2009, 02:01 AM
No offense Erick, but your scientifical superspiritual lyrical descriptions are dreadfully boring and it educates no one here maybe except yourself.
I've talked to someone who has met you, and this person reported that you had no internal skills to speak of*. You won't put up a video because you know that you know nothing. The fact that you can unload all this scientific verbiage on us does not hide the fact that you have an authority on the things that Mike, Dan, and Rob talk about. In fact, all that fancy jargon shows that you know nothing--at least on my side it does.
*You can PM me about this and I'll tell you, with permission from the other person, who he is to confirm
<snip>
Erick, the heart of the matter is, until you've been vetted, by meeting someone with I.S. skills (Ark, Mike, Dan, or someone else), or someone that's met someone with I.S. skills, no one's going to pay attention to you.
Have you met anyone that's met Ark, Mike or Dan, and had them feel your tech?
Michael Douglas
10-01-2009, 03:46 AM
...There is, after all is said and done, a difference between "going beyond" and "skipping over."
Splendid comment!
Something for the floppy bunnies ;
In one of the interviews compiled by Aikido Journal and on YouTube here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Sugag-Ncs
Ueshiba is subtitled as saying "One time I carried a weight of over 1,200 pounds" when referring to his physical power.
Whether true or a fib, it is clear he once thought of himself as VERY STRONG INDEED...
We may argue that without becoming VERY STRONG in the first place his later perceived internal skills might not have been able to be achieved.
I've talked to someone who has met you, and this person reported that you had no internal skills to speak of.
Why should I care for the opinion of "someone you talked to"? How skilled is this person? Without that information your post is quite useless. With that information however I can decide how much weight to assign to the opinion of someone who according to Lorel has skill leven N, assuming Lorel knows what he's talking about because he lists "Aunkai" as his dojo on Aikiweb.
Mark Freeman
10-01-2009, 04:46 AM
I think this topic will be argued and will create many opinions regarding it. But, until there is an ultimate authority on what is or isn't internal power, because it is a subjective term, it will be a term of debate. It will be right up there with all similar debates of religion and God.
Can't fully agree with you on this one Buck. There will never be an ultimate authority on what is or isn't internal power. As you say it is a subjective term, and as such it would be like asking for an ultimate authority on 'happiness'. However it is a real phenomenon and due to its very nature, difficult to quantify ones level of skill via text. The only true measure is hands on with another person.
I also see it as anologue rather than digital, in that internal strength skills can be measured on a sliding scale rather than, you either have them or you don't.
The religion/god debate is different, religion is analogue, you can be a little bit or a lot religious. God is digital, he/she/it either is or isn't and so far their is no proof either way!
The thing is, what are we going to do with these skills if we are fortunate enough to aquire them to some degree. Go round berating those that don't have the same skill level? We'd then end up like missionaries bringing the 'real god' to the heathens.
If having these skills does not improve our overall positive contibution to the wider world, then they are not worth having and in that sense, exactly like religion.
For me, internal strength is a core aspect of aiki, without it aiki is unlikely at best. It should be an integral part of all aikido practice. I also know from my own experience that the main component of aiki is 'mind', however, that mind aspect is totally dependant on the correct state of the body (correct posture, alignment, balance, weight distribution, relaxation, etc.). The mental side allows me to engage with a partner before physical contact, to redirect their energy, to upset their intent in some way, to some degree.
Anyway, I might be talking a load of old nonsense as I have not been 'vetted' by any external authorities yet:( . I may well be deluding myself and my students with what I teach them and with what I get from my teachers. However I am happy, they are happy, and my teacher seems pleased with my progress, so hey ho, back to practice I go...
regards,
Mark
Lorel Latorilla
10-01-2009, 05:33 AM
Why should I care for the opinion of "someone you talked to"? How skilled is this person? Without that information your post is quite useless. With that information however I can decide how much weight to assign to the opinion of someone who according to Lorel has skill leven N, assuming Lorel knows what he's talking about because he lists "Aunkai" as his dojo on Aikiweb.
1) I don't care that you care. I directed that comment to Erick, not to you.
2) How skilled? Irrelevant. The person in question has crossed hands with Akuzawa Minoru, Mike Sigman, Toby Threadgill, and maybe Ushiro Kenji (I'm not sure about this one). The point is he knows how guys with internal skill feel like and feeling Erick, he came to the conclusions that Erick did not have what those other fellas had, which is known here in Aikiweb as 'internal skills'. Perhaps Erick may have another definition of 'internal skills' and according to those standards of the definition, his scientific analysis of such a phenomenon could be potentially valid, but it is clear he has no knowledge of the discussions that Rob, Mike, and Dan have about internal bodyskills. This is not to force Erick into a position where he should train his butt off just so 'he can talk to the big boys about grown man things' as it is up to his discretion whether to pursue these bodyskills these men have. Rather, this to make Erick realize that his long scientific descriptions about internal skills are a waste of his time and the time of those who argue with him, because what he talks about is not what Rob, Mike, and Dan are discussing.
3) "With that information however I can decide how much weight to assign to the opinion of someone who according to Lorel has skill leven N"--Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said that this person had internal skills or not.
Also, admittedly, I'm a beginner in internal skill training, but I never entered the discussion on this thread so you don't need to 'assume' how much I know. However, we can talk shop about internal skills if you like, not to 'show' you how much I know, but to help each other progress in this path.
Mark Freeman
10-01-2009, 06:20 AM
1), Rather, this to make Erick realize that his long scientific descriptions about internal skills are a waste of his time and the time of those who argue with him, because what he talks about is not what Rob, Mike, and Dan are discussing.
Hi Lorel,
Rob, Mike and Dan have been posting on Aikiweb for quite a while, and although they are all active in the discussions, they don't always agree and see things eye to eye. They each seem to come to the subject from their own particular corner, so although they are in the same ring, they don't all use the same tactics.;)
regards,
Mark
p.s. I like Ericks attempts to describe the phenomena in such a scientific way, most of it goes right over my head, but he may well have a line on what is actually happening, even though knowing this information doesn't actually give you access to the 'how to' of the skills in question.
I don't care that you care. I directed that comment to Erick, not to you.
Then perhaps a PM would have been more appropriate?
How skilled? Irrelevant. The person in question has crossed hands with Akuzawa Minoru, Mike Sigman, Toby Threadgill, and maybe Ushiro Kenji (I'm not sure about this one). The point is he knows how guys with internal skill feel like and feeling Erick, he came to the conclusions that Erick did not have what those other fellas had, which is known here in Aikiweb as 'internal skills'.
Damn, you got me there. :)
If crossing hands with a few people that have internal skill is not enough to know what's it about, there would be little point in trying to learn it, as it would have no observable effect on your opponent/training partner...
However, we can talk shop about internal skills if you like, not to 'show' you how much I know, but to help each other progress in this path.
Cool! I'll start a new thread as soon as I come up with a good subject.
p.s. I like Ericks attempts to describe the phenomena in such a scientific way, most of it goes right over my head, but he may well have a line on what is actually happening, even though knowing this information doesn't actually give you access to the 'how to' of the skills in question.
For your consideration:
1. Brightest minds in the robotics area in Japan are *not* using the human body as a basis to program their top of the line robots. They use a foundation of "what ifs" for their programming. In other words, even they don't know how to program/code/define what the human body does to replicate it in an artificial environment.
2. Brightest minds in the physics world can't define what happens in the human body between our walk-run cycle. In other words, they are clueless as to how to use their very profession, a profession they study in depth their whole life, to define something the human body does naturally, with ease, every day.
3. Even top level CGI studios aren't using human internal analysis to generate special effects. Gollum from Lord of the Rings movies wasn't driven by some computer generated program, but by motion capture devices.
4. All of these people are top level scientists in their field and they don't have a way to define internal human body interactions.
5. As has been noted from Mike, Rob, Dan, etc, there have been Ph.D. level scientists from various fields who *have* felt what these internal people are doing and these Ph.D.s don't have a clue how to define what's going on.
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 06:51 AM
No offense Erick, ....
I've talked to someone who has met you, and this person reported that you had no internal skills to speak of*. You won't put up a video because you know that you know nothing. The fact that you can unload all this scientific verbiage on us .... Oh, that is rich. My comment reasonably criticizing using nameless shihans in nameless videos to defame countless persons, is rebutted by a nameless secret vetter showing I do not know -- what, specifically and exactly? What did we train ? What made it the be-all app-killer test? Should I put on shows every day, twice on Sunday to make sure I don't fail to impress my secret admirers? Name names, man. There is no privilege here.
If you will re-read this thread, my "verbiage" was brought in, not by me, but by those who objected to my comment about lack of specific criticism on shihans and videos. Instead of offering the specific illustrations requested it was demanded that I provide bona fides before I would be entitled to complain about it. Then we did not move on to some specifics showing those criticisms of videos or specific persons in specific settings but moved deeper into a similar broadside counterattack against non-specific things I "seem" to say that no one "seems" to be bothered to even think through or address -- you know ... specifically?
That approach to the discussion reveals more than I care to say. It is not that I care about the attacks, it is that I understand precisely why they occur (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/girard.html), and wish to call attention to it. Several of you, plainly, do not realize the pattern you are repeating -- since as a group you all (aren't broadsides just too easy ?) respond in a remarkably consistent, predictable, and dare I say, reflexive, rather than reflective manner. If you think such patterns make effective budo -- then God bless you. You'll need it. :)
No, instead of answering the very basic concern about making a criticism of classes of people specific (and therefore rebuttable), David decided that I "seem" to not say what these guys say, because I don't talk like them -- that is -- I choose not to imitate the group. (As an aside, do we have a name for generic, stereotyped class-based attacks on other people who do not imitate a group, in order to control what people in the group do or say ...? Scapegoating (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now), is it? )
I am, quite clearly, and quite specifically trying to describe things in different and more concrete terms. You all know this. It is not news, and therefore it is hardly even an ad hominem rejoinder to a request for specifics when criticizing others.
No one, notably, responded to Russ -- who actually put some specific video up for comment (Thanks, Russ) --That was all I asked about.
Now, ... would anyone care to take apart one or more of the videos Russ kindly offered to specifically document the otherwise useless general broadsides...? Like I asked. I find them very interesting, and well-chosen. Nicely edited, too.
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 07:17 AM
For your consideration:
To summarize:
1. They don't know.
2. They don't know.
3. They don't know.
4. They don't know.
5. They don't know.
Which says what exactly?
Point 1 is wrong. More effective methods are now acknowledged to be imitative (http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss02/p26.pdf) and probabilistic (http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss02/p26.pdf), not using inertial parameters or predictive inertial models.
Point 2 is wrong -- FWIW, and gait transitions are period doubling dynamics and have to do with input energy and rhythm and have little to do with specific structure -- the same laws apply to a horse's dynamic rhythm as to a person's dynamic rhythm as apply to a dripping faucet. Reread what I have said about furitama IOW.
Point 3 is simply evidence that the human perception can easily detect even slight hedges in approximation from real animal motion (-- a survival thing, actually), and which I am saying makes honing one's own critical perception on valid mechanics more and not less important in understanding. It is less a matter of book larnin' and more a matter of critical perception and correct categories in which to place those perceptions. It's not diffy-q.
2) The point is he knows how guys with internal skill feel like and feeling Erick, he came to the conclusions that Erick did not have what those other fellas had, which is known here in Aikiweb as 'internal skills'. Perhaps Erick may have another definition of 'internal skills' and according to those standards of the definition, his scientific analysis of such a phenomenon could be potentially valid, but it is clear he has no knowledge of the discussions that Rob, Mike, and Dan have about internal bodyskills.
.
This reminds me of a young evangelical preacher I know who on a retreat to India had a brief chance to meet and talk to Mother Teresa. Talking about the brief encounter he came to the conclusion that she ( Mother Teresa ) was not holy. Perhaps this preacher had another definition of holy.
David
Lorel Latorilla
10-01-2009, 07:25 AM
Oh, that is rich. My comment reasonably criticizing using nameless shihans in nameless videos to defame countless persons, is rebutted by a nameless secret vetter showing I do not know -- what, specifically and exactly? What did we train ? What made it the be-all app-killer test? Should I put on shows every day, twice on Sunday to make sure I don't fail to impress my secret admirers? Name names, man. There is no privilege here.
If you will re-read this thread, my "verbiage" was brought in, not by me, but by those who objected to my comment about lack of specific criticism on shihans and videos. Instead of offering the specific illustrations requested it was demanded that I provide bona fides before I would be entitled to complain about it. Then we did not move on to some specifics showing those criticisms of videos or specific persons in specific settings but moved deeper into a similar broadside counterattack against non-specific things I "seem" to say that no one "seems" to be bothered to even think through or address -- you know ... specifically?
That approach to the discussion reveals more than I care to say. It is not that I care about the attacks, it is that I understand precisely why they occur (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/girard.html), and wish to call attention to it. Several of you, plainly, do not realize the pattern you are repeating -- since as a group you all (aren't broadsides just too easy ?) respond in a remarkably consistent, predictable, and dare I say, reflexive, rather than reflective manner. If you think such patterns make effective budo -- then God bless you. You'll need it. :)
No, instead of answering the very basic concern about making a criticism of classes of people specific (and therefore rebuttable), David decided that I "seem" to not say what these guys say, because I don't talk like them -- that is -- I choose not to imitate the group. (As an aside, do we have a name for generic, stereotyped class-based attacks on other people who do not imitate a group, in order to control what people in the group do or say ...? Scapegoating (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/apocalypse-now), is it? )
I am, quite clearly, and quite specifically trying to describe things in different and more concrete terms. You all know this. It is not news, and therefore it is hardly even an ad hominem rejoinder to a request for specifics when criticizing others.
No one, notably, responded to Russ -- who actually put some specific video up for comment (Thanks, Russ) --That was all I asked about.
Now, ... would anyone care to take apart one or more of the videos Russ kindly offered to specifically document the otherwise useless general broadsides...? Like I asked. I find them very interesting, and well-chosen. Nicely edited, too.
Erick, the comment still stands. If you like, you can skip over my comment as an unverifiable anecdote.
That approach to the discussion reveals more than I care to say. It is not that I care about the attacks, it is that I understand precisely why they occur (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/girard.html), and wish to call attention to it.
Come on Eric, you can't seriously expect those who won't try to understand your explanations to try to understand the article you linked to.
David
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 07:33 AM
Talking about the brief encounter he came to the conclusion that she ( Mother Teresa ) was not holy. Perhaps this preacher had another definition of holy.Actually, she would have told him so, herself, so who can blame him... ? ;)
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 07:35 AM
Come on Eric, you can't seriously expect those who won't try to understand your explanations to try to understand the article you linked to. :D
"Why so ... serious...?"
"Why so ... serious...?"
Nice one, Erick! Although I don't think David will appreciate the on-topicness of your reply. ;)
Mark Freeman
10-01-2009, 08:45 AM
:D
"Why so ... serious...?"
he definitely brings out the joker in you doesn't he?:D
I think this topic will be argued and will create many opinions regarding it. But, until there is an ultimate authority on what is or isn't internal power, because it is a subjective term, it will be a term of debate. It will be right up there with all similar debates of religion and God.
All due respect, you are wrong Mr. Burgess.
This topic has never once been successfully argued or disputed - in person- by any aikido teacher I have ever met. Why, because they have nothing to offer in a physical debate against “IT.” I.T. is so startling and so obvious in person that it is inescapable and absolute; upon meeting, without fail, all debate-ENDS. It isn't a "conversation" -no matter how it may first appear or how you perceive it on the web.
You will only continue to think so until you meet a man who knows his business and engages you. I'm not much into ki tricks-though I can do them, or wrist grabs and waza which I know....in spades. In person, I choose to either spar, or fight- if there is any doubt as to just who has IT and can actually do aiki. Why? “IT” has a marked tendency to unplug people’s ears and then a real conversation and partnership can unfold.
It is worth noting that the teachers in your art that I have trained with are so convinced of IT-that they will never go back to doing Aikido™ ever again. They simply do not want to. Why, because “IT”- makes the aiki in Aikido™ work. IT is the aiki that the Japanese either did not know or cannot or will not teach. As I stated earlier, personally I don’t give a damn about the Japanese anymore. I wrote them off. We are going to put it back in the aiki arts and let them deal with us later when they can’t do anything to us.
For now, it is clear enough that an ever growing number of Aikido teachers are finally training aiki and they now want to do Aiki...do (the way of aiki) and have all but turned their backs on Aikido™ as we know it.
In light of that, why would I want to continue to debate it with you or anyone else here- when your own shihans and other senior teachers are making the shift- every time they feel it? What I read here is those who have absolutely nothing to offer in the debate. So for me, it becomes a game of trying to be polite and avoiding being so direct that is painful. But in the end it is what it is. In other words; you can't do it -therefore your opinion of I.T. is all but meaningless to those in Aikido who have gone out and met those with IT.
Remember this post and your opinions today, because Aikido™ is never going to go back to the way it was. Not ever. It is going to be replaced with Aiki...do. Anyone who doesn't choose to train aiki is making themselves dinosaurs. In the future no one will mistake them for competent aikiodists.
And an ever increasing number of -you- consider that a good thing….one by one by one.
Cheers
Dan
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 12:43 PM
Anybody gonna address Russ's videos?
Anybody at all?
Just askin' ...
:)
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 01:02 PM
The point is he knows how guys with internal skill feel like and feeling Erick, ... FWIW, "your guy" is not backing you up in whatever you took his opinion to be. I won't drag him in, either, as we had a cordial training session and remain on good terms, and would love to have him back when he is down our way. We have a number of newbs and he was very good and patient with them in a smaller than usual class -- a quality I greatly respect. We did not get together to have the physical debate you want to have happened -- we all just -- trained...
Your enthusiasm is great. I truly hope it sees you through whatever training you are finding of value. I perceive there to be great value to be had in all three of the approaches mentioned -- I just do not find it as uniquely precious or revolutionary as some assume.
For which reason I think that specific criticism (Russ's videos? Anyone? ... Buehler? ... Buehler? ) would go much further to improve the level of discussion. I make no claims of relative comparison with anyone, I simply state what I can see and what I know to be true and useful. Which makes me more careful than some with my words -- not incompetent in my actions... As to relative power, testicular weight, IQ or whatever other measure of alpha dominance one might posit -- I concede without contest, or admission, -- because I am not fighting on that ground -- in fact, I am not fighting -- at all.
:)
Wishing you good training ....
---------------------------------
[Russ's videos -- really -- seriously, -- I mean it .... , I tell you three times....]
lest we forget:
Hey all,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvWiYcxTm2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuhU8uouNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlvGlCP9R8Q&feature=related
Whaddya think? Perhaps someone with experience in IT can tell us why or why not these folks show it.....
Cheers,
Russ
Russ Q
10-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Hi Erick,
Yes, someone addressing the vids I've posted would be helpful....at least it would be helpful to me.....
Thanks in advance,
Russ
rroeserr
10-01-2009, 02:43 PM
snip
Mr. Mead, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-Principal from Billy Madison
Sorry...I couldn't resist
Marc Abrams
10-01-2009, 02:56 PM
Hi Erick,
Yes, someone addressing the vids I've posted would be helpful....at least it would be helpful to me.....
Thanks in advance,
Russ
Russ:
Two of those video clips are of Ushiro Sensei, a man I know quite well (in those clips as well). I am not quite sure what you want to know about those clips. I frankly operate as an empiricist. Instead of simply commenting on video clips of people, I like to reserve my judgment until I have worked with them.
Ushiro Sensei will be at my dojo in Bedford Hills, New York on October 24 & 25. Some posters on this site will be in attendance. I simply think that you need to experience what the person has to offer first before passing judgment of what people think that they can see from video clips and other sources. For the record, I train under Ushiro Sensei and have just begun to work with Dan Harden.
Marc Abrams
Russ Q
10-01-2009, 03:08 PM
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your response. I've heard nothing but good things about Ushiro sensei from George Ledyard sensei (who comes to visit a local dojo here twice a year here). I think Don Angier's movement (while it could be argued he is simply demonstrating) speaks for itself...as does Ushiro sensei's in my book. I am not making any judgements. I put the videos out there so everyone who is interested may view them and then, perhaps, folks with some experience training IT would comment on whether Angier and Ushiro sensei's are demonstrating IT or not (and why they think that....) Perhaps it's something that cannot be written or spoken about and must be felt....I certainly wouldn't think that strange...but it would leave me wondering, if that's the case, what the point of IT threads would be...
I wish you success in your seminar and sincerely hope you post some video at some point. Do you have a dojo website?
Cheers,
Russ
Erick Mead
10-01-2009, 03:37 PM
Mr. Mead, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-Principal from Billy Madison
Sorry...I couldn't resist :D I just LOVE quotes out of context: Billy not only scores his third grade teacher, he ALSO gets the hotel chain. So I'll take that money ... Or to finish the scene:
"Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine."
Marc Abrams
10-01-2009, 04:14 PM
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your response. I've heard nothing but good things about Ushiro sensei from George Ledyard sensei (who comes to visit a local dojo here twice a year here). I think Don Angier's movement (while it could be argued he is simply demonstrating) speaks for itself...as does Ushiro sensei's in my book. I am not making any judgements. I put the videos out there so everyone who is interested may view them and then, perhaps, folks with some experience training IT would comment on whether Angier and Ushiro sensei's are demonstrating IT or not (and why they think that....) Perhaps it's something that cannot be written or spoken about and must be felt....I certainly wouldn't think that strange...but it would leave me wondering, if that's the case, what the point of IT threads would be...
I wish you success in your seminar and sincerely hope you post some video at some point. Do you have a dojo website?
Cheers,
Russ
Russ:
Dan Harden put it quite succinctly, and that is until you feel it, you really do not have a legitimate starting place. As he puts it, you don't know what you don't know. When you feel it, then you can begin to see how much work we have to really "right the ship."
My dojo's website is www.aasbk.com
Enjoy!
Marc Abrams
All due respect, you are wrong Mr. Burgess.
This topic has never once been successfully argued or disputed - in person- by any aikido teacher I have ever met. Why, because they have nothing to offer in a physical debate against “IT.” I.T. is so startling and so obvious in person that it is inescapable and absolute; upon meeting, without fail, all debate-ENDS. It isn't a "conversation" -no matter how it may first appear or how you perceive it on the web.
You will only continue to think so until you meet a man who knows his business and engages you. I'm not much into ki tricks-though I can do them, or wrist grabs and waza which I know....in spades. In person, I choose to either spar, or fight- if there is any doubt as to just who has IT and can actually do aiki. Why? “IT” has a marked tendency to unplug people’s ears and then a real conversation and partnership can unfold.
It is worth noting that the teachers in your art that I have trained with are so convinced of IT-that they will never go back to doing Aikido™ ever again. They simply do not want to. Why, because “IT”- makes the aiki in Aikido™ work. IT is the aiki that the Japanese either did not know or cannot or will not teach. As I stated earlier, personally I don’t give a damn about the Japanese anymore. I wrote them off. We are going to put it back in the aiki arts and let them deal with us later when they can’t do anything to us.
For now, it is clear enough that an ever growing number of Aikido teachers are finally training aiki and they now want to do Aiki...do (the way of aiki) and have all but turned their backs on Aikido™ as we know it.
In light of that, why would I want to continue to debate it with you or anyone else here- when your own shihans and other senior teachers are making the shift- every time they feel it? What I read here is those who have absolutely nothing to offer in the debate. So for me, it becomes a game of trying to be polite and avoiding being so direct that is painful. But in the end it is what it is. In other words; you can't do it -therefore your opinion of I.T. is all but meaningless to those in Aikido who have gone out and met those with IT.
Remember this post and your opinions today, because Aikido™ is never going to go back to the way it was. Not ever. It is going to be replaced with Aiki...do. Anyone who doesn't choose to train aiki is making themselves dinosaurs. In the future no one will mistake them for competent aikiodists.
And an ever increasing number of -you- consider that a good thing….one by one by one.
Cheers
Dan
Dan,
Ahhh...no one is wrong, it’s just a matter of differing opinions, and perspective.
You say Aikido fails and I say, no, the person does. I feel there where deshi of O'Sensei who had great skill, and your criticisms of Aikido don't apply. I say the skill sets are there, the principles are there, the internal power (to borrow a term you use) is there all with in Aikido.
And it isn't up to me to judge whether a Shihan (now or later in their lives) measures up to your criticism or not. It's not my thing to do that. :)
It is a matter of what we want and where we want to go, and who we want to follow, and who we want to follow us. :)
I guess what I am saying is I have never experienced all the shihan's abilities. I can't judge them for that, and because I am not an expert in Aikido, thus unable to judge their skill; what they have or what they don't have. Plus, I don't have the ability to measure or critique principles of one style up against another. To do that I would have to master all the styles I wish to critique.
Aikido has a spiritual nature as described by O'Sensei and that is what is more of Aikido then the single angle of application of defeating another with internal power/ki/chi.
I am not saying the pursuit of power (internal power) isn't good, I am saying there is more than just that. That internal power has a variety of definitions and applications with many perspectives and approaches, yet all come from the same principles.
stan baker
10-01-2009, 08:20 PM
Hi Phillip
I am not sure what you are saying. I think it is ok if you don't understand what aiki is and how it applies to aikido most of us are in the same boat.There are some shihans in aikido that have a certain degree of aiki but from Dan's view point it is not that profound. If you meet Dan it will become clear.
stan
We see in Chinese arts how internal power is used, and then we see how O'Sensei, and others use their internal power that has different results.
There is not perfect art, each art has its strengths and weakness, especially on how it is apply, and not everyone applies it the same or looks at it the same, or uses it the same. There is no art that has only strengths and no weaknesses. Some arts use the same principles packaged differently to shove people across a room, to fight from the ground, to throw, and others who focus on countering, some defensive only, other offensive, some use both. It is like using the same limited ingredients to get a variety of the same dish, with different chefs adding their style to the dish. I am thinking pizza for example. That is what I am saying about internal power.
Some people apply principles better then others, and for every person good at it, there is someone out there better. Not everyone is equal. You have your talented and those who don't get very far. There are a few who make it to the top in skill and understanding, like any field does. Not everyone is or can be a "star."
This is how I look at it. I don't see why there has to be harsh criticism made toward Aikido. Maybe because it is the benchmark, it is the gold standard? Maybe it is the guy everyone wants to beat. Isn't that who you'd want to study from, the gun slinger everyone is gunning for. Who wants to study from the challengers? You want to study from the guy everyone is gunning for.
Aikido offers other things beside just physical skill, there are other dimensions to Aikido. We live in a society, a world, where old combat ways have given way to modern combat, and weapons, and law, and police, and all those things that make martial arts, arts. Because of that there are arts, and people seek them out for a variety of reasons and not all for combatative reasons. If society and the world was different just as in the past, the sole reason to learn to fight and develop "internal power" is because that was the most powerful thing. There was nothing else than, no modern weapons, no laws and all that. So the top of the heap was what we know now is martial arts.
So may be a better measurement of martial arts would be their complexity, intricacies, and that kind of stuff. Because martial arts, most of which are like Aikido and have other sides and philosophies to them. It’s ok to measure them on a single angle, but that only gives us a small slice of what an art is and can do or be.
Hi Phillip
I am not sure what you are saying. I think it is ok if you don't understand what aiki is and how it applies to aikido most of us are in the same boat.There are some shihans in aikido that have a certain degree of aiki but from Dan's view point it is not that profound. If you meet Dan it will become clear.
stan
Stan, I am not questioning Dan's ability or making assessments, or critiques as Dan did in the post I quoted him. Dan's view point is his own. Just as mine is for me. I agree and disagree with him and said why. So your right I haven't trained with him, and thus, I don' t make criticisms of his skills, what he does and all that. I am not an expert in all things to do so. I can only give you is an evaluation of what I would think of the experience and my personal opinion of "internal power, and IT. Now moreover, I disagree or agree with at times is his statements, his opinions, his viewpoints and perspectives. One thing too, is I feel is he is too strong and insulting, at times, in his posts toward Aikido. But....whatcha going to do? :D
Lorel Latorilla
10-02-2009, 12:09 AM
Dan,
Ahhh...no one is wrong, it's just a matter of differing opinions, and perspective.
You say Aikido fails and I say, no, the person does. I feel there where deshi of O'Sensei who had great skill, and your criticisms of Aikido don't apply. I say the skill sets are there, the principles are there, the internal power (to borrow a term you use) is there all with in Aikido.
And it isn't up to me to judge whether a Shihan (now or later in their lives) measures up to your criticism or not. It's not my thing to do that. :)
It is a matter of what we want and where we want to go, and who we want to follow, and who we want to follow us. :)
So what exactly do you want, where exactly do you want to go,and who do you want to follow and why on earth would anyone want to follow you?
Lorel Latorilla
10-02-2009, 12:12 AM
We see in Chinese arts how internal power is used, and then we see how O'Sensei, and others use their internal power that has different results.
There is not perfect art, each art has its strengths and weakness, especially on how it is apply, and not everyone applies it the same or looks at it the same, or uses it the same. There is no art that has only strengths and no weaknesses. Some arts use the same principles packaged differently to shove people across a room, to fight from the ground, to throw, and others who focus on countering, some defensive only, other offensive, some use both. It is like using the same limited ingredients to get a variety of the same dish, with different chefs adding their style to the dish. I am thinking pizza for example. That is what I am saying about internal power.
Some people apply principles better then others, and for every person good at it, there is someone out there better. Not everyone is equal. You have your talented and those who don't get very far. There are a few who make it to the top in skill and understanding, like any field does. Not everyone is or can be a "star."
This is how I look at it. I don't see why there has to be harsh criticism made toward Aikido. Maybe because it is the benchmark, it is the gold standard? Maybe it is the guy everyone wants to beat. Isn't that who you'd want to study from, the gun slinger everyone is gunning for. Who wants to study from the challengers? You want to study from the guy everyone is gunning for.
Aikido offers other things beside just physical skill, there are other dimensions to Aikido. We live in a society, a world, where old combat ways have given way to modern combat, and weapons, and law, and police, and all those things that make martial arts, arts. Because of that there are arts, and people seek them out for a variety of reasons and not all for combatative reasons. If society and the world was different just as in the past, the sole reason to learn to fight and develop "internal power" is because that was the most powerful thing. There was nothing else than, no modern weapons, no laws and all that. So the top of the heap was what we know now is martial arts.
So may be a better measurement of martial arts would be their complexity, intricacies, and that kind of stuff. Because martial arts, most of which are like Aikido and have other sides and philosophies to them. It’s ok to measure them on a single angle, but that only gives us a small slice of what an art is and can do or be.
What do you know about martial arts and its applications?
Lorel Latorilla
10-02-2009, 12:14 AM
Stan, I am not questioning Dan's ability or making assessments, or critiques as Dan did in the post I quoted him. Dan's view point is his own. Just as mine is for me. I agree and disagree with him and said why. So your right I haven't trained with him, and thus, I don' t make criticisms of his skills, what he does and all that. I am not an expert in all things to do so. I can only give you is an evaluation of what I would think of the experience and my personal opinion of "internal power, and IT. Now moreover, I disagree or agree with at times is his statements, his opinions, his viewpoints and perspectives. One thing too, is I feel is he is too strong and insulting, at times, in his posts toward Aikido. But....whatcha going to do? :D
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan's posts.
Rob Watson
10-02-2009, 07:43 PM
whether Angier and Ushiro sensei's are demonstrating IT or not (and why they think that....) Perhaps it's something that cannot be written or spoken about and must be felt....
Russ
While I won't presume to speak for Mr. Angier ... I have laid hands upon him on several occasions (FWIW) and can relay that Mr. Angier does repeatedly say "It's just physics" and sometimes "It's just simple physics" when waxing expositorially on the material he is demonstrating or instructing upon. Perhaps I have misunderstood or taken the comments out of context but Mr. Angier is fairly plain spoken in my estimation.
Whether it is I.S. or aiki or not I leave to others to comment. I, however, will continue to spend 'face time' with Mr. Angier as much as I'm able.
Thanks
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan's posts.
How do you know he has the right IP? How do you know if he has the most effective, most powerful, IP. Do you think he is the only one with IP, probably not. And how does that person measure up, i.e. is he the most effective, etc. If you only feel Dan than of course he is the only one to have it. If you feel others you don't feel have it and feel Dan again Dan has it. I think to make a good solid evaluation and to be fair you would have to experience most experts in IP, and not the ones only in Aikido. If you wanted to do it right, that is. That is the hard thing about all of this.
See it is my belief we all have IP, it isn't always used the same way or looks the same, or done in the same way. Not everyone has the same manifestations of IP. Or doe everyone develop it the same why.
Where is the benchmark of such a thing as IP that is so seemingly elusive in nature, shured in coded langauge and a unique physical experience, somehthing so subjective, and so widely diverse in application, definition, and identification? Who is qualified to set the benchmarks?
FYI Latorila , These questions are not intended to be answered.
Lorel Latorilla
10-03-2009, 03:20 AM
How do you know he has the right IP? How do you know if he has the most effective, most powerful, IP. Do you think he is the only one with IP, probably not. And how does that person measure up, i.e. is he the most effective, etc. If you only feel Dan than of course he is the only one to have it. If you feel others you don't feel have it and feel Dan again Dan has it. I think to make a good solid evaluation and to be fair you would have to experience most experts in IP, and not the ones only in Aikido. If you wanted to do it right, that is. That is the hard thing about all of this.
See it is my belief we all have IP, it isn't always used the same way or looks the same, or done in the same way. Not everyone has the same manifestations of IP. Or doe everyone develop it the same why.
Where is the benchmark of such a thing as IP that is so seemingly elusive in nature, shured in coded langauge and a unique physical experience, somehthing so subjective, and so widely diverse in application, definition, and identification? Who is qualified to set the benchmarks?
FYI Latorila , These questions are not intended to be answered.
Hi Buck.
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan Harden's posts.
Bye!
Hi Buck.
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan Harden's posts.
Bye!
I don't think me having IP or not is the issue. I don't proclaim any great power over others, or knowledge others don't have, or knowledge that will improve other martial art. Honestly, I don't know if what Dan has, would make any difference to me or not, as I think he is just taking a different angle, method of teaching, different approach to the same universal IP principles that has been understood by thousands of martial arts over hundreds of years.
We can all agree that IP, stems generally from the Chinese arts. That is what ever anyone discovers as IP, if it is legitimately effective (not taught by the B.S. artists), can marked in the Chinese arts. That is these principles can be applied differently and have different application. Our thing as Aikidoka is to apply IP in the way and manner as O'Sensei did to get the same results as he did, hence the term Aikido.
What I find interesting is Dan says he has IP either not taught or missing in Aikido. I personally think what might apply over the other is the latter. I don't think any thing is missing in Aikido when it comes to IP. What might be possible is not all of Aikido's IP are not taught, or not everyone is exposed, discovered, or taught IP, and hence is some Aikido it is lost. The other thing to is because of Aikido's spiritual side certain Aikido IP are not practiced in such a way to fully maximize IP, and as a result are curb or not observed. All this varies from Aikido style to Aikido style. But I feel O'Sensei's Aikido and his practice was complete and he made an effort to design IP to function within his philosophy.
Do I have IP, yes, everyone does. But, can I apply it the way and in the manner O'Sensei did...no, and that is the challenge, isn't. And being Japanese, I do think O'Sensei as in tradition set the challenge he met to be like climbing Mount Everest on your own. And all most impossible challenge that if achieved set you among the immortals, or at least up their in the company of the greats who did the seemingly impossible. Are you up for that challenge?
If that challenge is too tough for some, if that challenge doesn't seem to be what you / a person wants, then fine. Not criticisms from me. But, I think it is unfair to say essentially my thing is better than yours, and other harsh criticisms I read. But what can you do?
Lorel Latorilla
10-03-2009, 08:41 AM
I don't think me having IP or not is the issue. I don't proclaim any great power over others, or knowledge others don't have, or knowledge that will improve other martial art. Honestly, I don't know if what Dan has, would make any difference to me or not, as I think he is just taking a different angle, method of teaching, different approach to the same universal IP principles that has been understood by thousands of martial arts over hundreds of years.
We can all agree that IP, stems generally from the Chinese arts. That is what ever anyone discovers as IP, if it is legitimately effective (not taught by the B.S. artists), can marked in the Chinese arts. That is these principles can be applied differently and have different application. Our thing as Aikidoka is to apply IP in the way and manner as O'Sensei did to get the same results as he did, hence the term Aikido.
What I find interesting is Dan says he has IP either not taught or missing in Aikido. I personally think what might apply over the other is the latter. I don't think any thing is missing in Aikido when it comes to IP. What might be possible is not all of Aikido's IP are not taught, or not everyone is exposed, discovered, or taught IP, and hence is some Aikido it is lost. The other thing to is because of Aikido's spiritual side certain Aikido IP are not practiced in such a way to fully maximize IP, and as a result are curb or not observed. All this varies from Aikido style to Aikido style. But I feel O'Sensei's Aikido and his practice was complete and he made an effort to design IP to function within his philosophy.
Do I have IP, yes, everyone does. But, can I apply it the way and in the manner O'Sensei did...no, and that is the challenge, isn't. And being Japanese, I do think O'Sensei as in tradition set the challenge he met to be like climbing Mount Everest on your own. And all most impossible challenge that if achieved set you among the immortals, or at least up their in the company of the greats who did the seemingly impossible. Are you up for that challenge?
If that challenge is too tough for some, if that challenge doesn't seem to be what you / a person wants, then fine. Not criticisms from me. But, I think it is unfair to say essentially my thing is better than yours, and other harsh criticisms I read. But what can you do?
Hi Buck,
What're you trying to say?
Russ Q
10-03-2009, 09:36 AM
Hello Mr. Watson,
You're a lucky man to have access to Angier Sensei.
Cheers,
Russ
Hi Buck,
What're you trying to say?
Just that you're providing me an opportunity to express my opinons and view points and stuff. And I Thank you for that. I look forward to future exchanges with you. :)
stan baker
10-03-2009, 09:53 AM
Hi Phillip,
what are your opinions based on specifically
stan
mjhacker
10-03-2009, 10:12 AM
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan Harden's posts.
If you have True Internal Power, you won't react to this post.
Hi Phillip,
what are your opinions based on specifically
stan
Tools like common sense. Fundamental scientific observational methods, and procedures as best as I can. And stuff like that. I don't base it on fantasy, myth, etc. It is impossible for me to have contact with O'Sensei as he died before I started Aikido. So I have to go on the material he left behind and those who did have contact with him.
I do go out there and get in contact with many other individuals, who are qualified in their arts. I ran into a very impressive Chinese martial artist who was practicing in the park, for example. He's from Taiwan, in his 60's and a doctor of (western) internal medicine. Very down to earth, not mystical or mysterious at all in what teaches or the way he teaches it. I do enjoy my discussions with him even though I don't take formal lessons. He demystified so much and really knows what he is talking about.
I go to other Aikido dojos, and roam around looking for other good martial artists to have exchanges with like for example a kendo / iaido schools, Kungfu, and alike. I have had my share of disappoints as well as not every place you go is going to be gold. The fact is the gold is rare and you might go to 20 places and find only one qualified person at the level I seek. I learn from the decent people as well, who are not frauds or just not that good.
Yea... I have been around the block and been at it long enough to know what is the right formula. To know what I am looking at or know what I am hearing makes or doesn't make sense. I have been impressed but more than that disappointed on what people claim to be or do. I have developed a healthy skepticism, so I do not believe every thing I see, hear, or feel to be the next best thing to sliced bread. So I do believing in testing, and I have a quality testing procedure that mirrors the interview process, oddly enough that works well and for me. In short, sometimes, with some candidates you don’t need to bring them in for an interview to make a decision. They either fail or pass right there and then just through observation.
The other thing I didn't add was my own person experience and development. The stuff I learned as a result of my training, the awareness of my body and what I am doing, the things I have come to figured out, and the stuff I was taught all help me form an opinion as well.
Now all that may not measure up for some others, but I am not using their opinions. :)
Dan's stuff I believe isn't unique, meaning it isn't something that can only be accessed through him. I would like to understand how the fascia aspect of his stuff works. I have asked my doctors in various specializations about this. It is my understanding from talking to Chinese martial artists the idea of the fascia tissue playing a role in a martial arts technique is an old one. I would like to see a scientific study on that because it sounds fascinating! Well because it is easy for anyone to fake it. Or just say I sent him flying across the room because I used my facisa. I am not suggesting Dan is faking it. I am saying I would like to look into it more, and a scientific /medical study would be very tight to read. -Dan being in the study of course if he wanted to, and be something he might be interested in. :)
Erick Mead
10-03-2009, 12:56 PM
If you had true internal power, you wouldn't be reacting to Dan Harden's posts.If you DO have True Internal Power, then you WILL react to this post.
Rob Watson
10-03-2009, 01:07 PM
Hello Mr. Watson,
You're a lucky man to have access to Angier Sensei.
Cheers,
Russ
Yes indeed. Mr. Angier has a fairly regular seminar schedule so is actually accessible for a great many folks. One simply needs to make the effort.
Thanks
If you have True Internal Power, you won't react to this post.
Actually, Mr. Hacker, no. As is the topic of this thread, "IT" is definable and has specifics that are not able to be overlooked. at all. IP, IT, aiki, etc has all to do with a body skill and nothing to do with "harmony". Not that you can't use aiki as a foundation for spirituality, as Ueshiba amply proved.
Once you have trained with someone who has aiki to a level where it can be used in a freestyle environment, you realize that quite a bit of everything else is made of paper-mache.
Imagine top level judoka getting their rears handed to them by Ueshiba. Imagine Tomiki just standing there with his hand out and no one can throw him. Definable quality that is reproducible.
I believe aiki is missing from Aikido. If you take a step outside the box and think ... imagine that aiki is missing from your aikido. What would you do?
mjhacker
10-03-2009, 04:58 PM
I believe aiki is missing from Aikido. If you take a step outside the box and think ... imagine that aiki is missing from your aikido.
1. It was a joke. Thanks for playing.
2. You know who my teacher is and who I have as a peer group.
Lorel Latorilla
10-03-2009, 09:57 PM
I don't have true internal power.
thisisnotreal
10-03-2009, 09:58 PM
neither do i, but it's okay.
thisisnotreal
10-03-2009, 10:30 PM
"IT" is definable and has specifics .. IP, IT, aiki, etc has all to do with a body skill and nothing to do with "harmony".
How about: maintaining and generating harmony in the body..maybe?
iron horse
10-03-2009, 10:35 PM
Interesting thread. I think we are all trying to find IT. How about this vid? One guy is trying to make it work against resistance but he can't - until the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOPWVgiy74
How about: maintaining and generating harmony in the body..maybe?
Maintaining rather than generating. ;)
thisisnotreal
10-03-2009, 11:13 PM
good point.
Interesting thread. I think we are all trying to find IT. How about this vid? One guy is trying to make it work against resistance but he can't - until the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOPWVgiy74
Lot's o' shoulder, and that kind of static resistance is typically the easiest kind to work with.
There is allot of discussion on IT. Does Aikido have IT, what is IT, Doesn't Aikido have IT. What art does have IT which is missing in Aikido, etc. etc. etc. Some look at IT as I see it, as a Holy Grail. Something many go out in search of that isn't easy to find. Something that is coveted highly, but seemingly elusive. Will IT ever be found? Does IT really exist? What is IT, is there a general consensus among those searching for IT, or those who say they have IT? Is IT suppose to be a holy grail of sorts?
Seriously, IT is getting like Ki. It has so many different takes on IT, it is hard to define and everyone has their own definition of what IT is! So I ask what is IT? :crazy:
Here is what started this thread. Initially I was confused on what was meant by IT. But now I know it referred to Internal Powers.
What I also did in asking my questions, is the foreshadowing. I did this because I didn't want the thread to be too narrow limiting discussion or discover of what IT is and what it means to a simply entry of dictionary.
What I am find interesting is IT as discussed by many is no different then chi or ki in how it is looked and defined. IT is some mysterious power that is only defined by, "you have to feel it."
And for some reason Aikido doesn't have IT. Which is the other half of the criticisms suffered by Aikido, which is Aikido doesn't work in the street/ a real. Yet Aikido is more popular then the arts these critics and there are such critics that post here as members and a part of this Aikido forum community. It's just :crazy:
[CORRECTED POST] Here is what started this thread. Initially I was confused on what was meant by IT. But now I know it referred to Internal Powers.
What I also did in asking my questions, is the foreshadowing. I did this because I didn't want the thread to be too narrow limiting discussion or discover of what IT is and what it means to a simply entry of dictionary.
What I am find interesting is IT as discussed by many is no different then chi or ki in how it is looked and defined. IT is some mysterious power that is only defined by, "you have to feel it."
And for some reason Aikido doesn't have IT. Which is the other half of the criticisms suffered by Aikido, which is Aikido doesn't work in the street/ a real fight. Yet Aikido is more popular then the arts of these critics. These such critics are also a part of this Aikido forum community. It's just :crazy
stan baker
10-04-2009, 08:50 PM
Hi Phillip
I think your missing the main point, Like you said you are not a expert in these matters.There are degrees of the IT concept out there, everybody is talking about IT,and some that can actually do.There are less that can show high level and teach in a direct way.
stan
w
Hi Phillip
I think your missing the main point, Like you said you are not a expert in these matters.There are degrees of the IT concept out there, everybody is talking about IT,and some that can actually do.There are less that can show high level and teach in a direct way.
stan
Hey Stan,
Yea, I am not an expert. I am honest about that. The word expert is often over-used, misused, used too much and loosely used. I am realistic on my skills. And, I have tools on determining expertise, and it is more than a mere tip, tweak or trick upon the conventions of Aikido. I feel my perspectives and tools are the standard accepted methods for rational thinking. I am not out to get anyone, am only saying this is what my instrumentation is reading in this matter.
I have access to allot of knowledgable people, doctors, intellects, martial artists of various styles, expertise and ethnicities. I have been exposed to lots of martial arts feats. I don't base my conclusions on a single source. But, rather my conclusions are base on the most extensive research I can possibly do.
In addition, take Dan for example, since we both are aware of him. He has extensively talked about internal power and his abilities. And he has done it in great detail on how it is done. From the volumes of information he has produced I can take that and present it to qualified experts in various fields to evaluate the information. I can also test it myself. From there I get a pretty good picture. And thus, make my evaluations.
There is one thing that catches my attention, Dan's IT isn't something he uniquely created, it seems to be and according to him a composite of stuff he put together and made it applicable to his conventions. He took a bit from here and there and made it a repair kit for Aikido, calling the kit at one time Aiki. He has support from a group of people, and within that group is a couple of high ranking Aikidoka. My question then is, what qualifiable improvement has Dan's IT provided. And what is the scale of measurement of Dan's IT in improving their skill? Lastly, what is the dynamic of Dan's IT. Is a broad dynamic? This is just thoughts, and questions I ask, and I am not soliciting answers. Just providing questions I would ask to gather more information on something. I would, if intending to get answers, ask Dan directly to determine the depth and scope of his skill. I don't have to feel the effects of a stun gun to understand its power or how it works. I can look at its specs for that.
Therefore, I do feel, I am not missing your point. I could be still. There is a possibility. I could be over-looking somethings. But within the scope of this thread I don't think so. Unless, there is someone out there with IT power that is unexplainable, so remarkable, and beyond our immediate intellectual understanding. If so then I would call them an expert. But, I haven't found or see anyone like that yet. Not to say they are not out there, or never where. But there isn't too many immediate, Teslas, Curies, Childes, Jordans, Pershings , Tomyris, Evites, Callas, and so on. Each standing out above the rest to be so notable, and so greatly admired by the world. This too is one of my criteria, benchmarks- those kind of things. It's a package deal kind of thing where I have many tools I use. :)
I may miss the point, by not putting my tools of thought, evaluation, and reason to the side. If that is the case, than I guess, I am missing out. But I would have hate to see how far the western world would have gotten if we abandoned, neglected, or never used such tools. :(
I may miss the point, by not putting my tools of thought, evaluation, and reason to the side. If that is the case, than I guess, I am missing out. But I would have hate to see how far the western world would have gotten if we abandoned, neglected, or never used such tools. :(
The best that the Western world has done by using the tools of thought, evaluation, and reason, is René Descartes. After reasoning "I think, therefore I am."[1], he had to assume the existence of God to make sure that his experiences of the world outside his head are real and not just an illusion.
All other advances made by Western civilization not only made use of the tools you mentioned, but also of the tools of observation and experimentation.
[1] Which should have been:
Major: There are thoughts.
Minor: These thoughts are mine.
Conclusion: Therefore I am.
Lorel Latorilla
10-05-2009, 03:14 AM
Can anyone here translate what the hell Buck Burgess is posting?
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 06:35 AM
The best that the Western world has done by using the tools of thought, evaluation, and reason, is René Descartes. After reasoning "I think, therefore I am."[1], he had to assume the existence of God to make sure that his experiences of the world outside his head are real He could have stopped at "I" ... :p , -- but, really, premising existence on the ephemerality of thought? Foolish really, and cause of much mischief -- picking as we are around the debris of the many palaces-in-air that followed... Ultimately, there is only Desire which causes Movement toward the Desired -- the rest is history ...
Marc Abrams
10-05-2009, 06:44 AM
Can anyone here translate what the hell Buck Burgess is posting?
Lorel:
Translation Provided:
1) All that I am is a keyboard warrior with a lot of writing without anything tangible behind the writings.
2) I NEED attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3) I am a sterling example of "I don't know what I don't know" and "a little bit of information can be dangerous."
4) If you feed my need for attention, you can be sure that I will bite the hand that feeds me.
Conclusions:
The song from Simon and Garfunkel-> "The Sound of Silence"
Marc Abrams
David Orange
10-05-2009, 11:52 AM
Oh, that is rich. My comment reasonably criticizing using nameless shihans in nameless videos to defame countless persons, is rebutted by a nameless secret vetter showing I do not know -- what, specifically and exactly? What did we train ? What made it the be-all app-killer test?
That's the whole point, Erick. If you had been training with the methods of IT and IS, you would understand that no particular "be-all app-killer test" is necessary to know whether you have the skills. Just a moment of hands-on interaction tells the whole story very quickly. For people who have the skills, you can immediately feel things happening in their bodies as they let you put all your force directly into the ground and they keep all their force balanced within their own bodies. And then you can instantly feel the effect of that action rebounding into your own body in a way you cannot reconcile or balance, so that it puts you off balance and maybe off your feet or on the ground.
For years, these two claims have been going around about IT: 1) it has to be felt; and 2) if you have a bit of experience in IT, you can recognize in people's written comments that they don't have it.
So we have one report of someone who has felt IT from some of the most major proponents, who also felt your power and confirmed that you don't have it. So by "IHTBF", we're told you don't have it.
Second, people have been telling you for months or years that, based on your comments, you appear to have no understanding of the topic.
So to answer your own #1 question "What's the be-all app-killer test?", you need to stop posting explanations of this topic you don't understand and get out and apply your test to people who are recognized to have the goods. Not that you're not a nice guy, but you do need that experience before you ought to comment more.
No, instead of answering the very basic concern about making a criticism of classes of people specific (and therefore rebuttable), David decided that I "seem" to not say what these guys say, because I don't talk like them -- that is -- I choose not to imitate the group.
Of course, the only reason I don't drive a Bentley is that I don't want to imitate the group of people who have the money to afford one. Of course, I have the money. Take my word for it. I just want to drive a 20 year old Corolla...
Actually, I'd rather drive the Corolla than make a car payment each month, but the real truth is, I don't have the money for a Bentley.
So you see where this is going?
It's not important for you to "imitate" the group with IS skills. If you really have the skills and you want to talk about them in different terms, that's one thing. But if you're using different terms because you really don't understand what's being described, you shouldn't get defensive when people point up the holes in your stories.
I am, quite clearly, and quite specifically trying to describe things in different and more concrete terms.
But again, no matter how concrete your terms are, you're not describing the same things Mike, Dan and Rob are. And a hands-on report tells us that you're not doing what they do. So you must be describing what you do instead of what they do. Your problem is just that you really don't realize that you're not doing the same as they are.
So the descriptions, while possibly very relevant to what you are doing, are irrelevant to this discussion of Internal Training.
Best to you.
David
David Orange
10-05-2009, 12:15 PM
But, I think it is unfair to say essentially my thing is better than yours, and other harsh criticisms I read. But what can you do?
You can know going in whether you have actual "gold" or just a "gold-plated" piece of tin. Or maybe it's not even gold-plated, but just gold painted.
Or maybe it's just a piece of yellow tin.
When you go to the pawn shop with that, do you complain because the guy doesn't value your yellow tin as highly as he values the 14c gold another guy brought in?
Has is it ever occurred to you that maybe what you have is really less valuable than someone who has put in decades of training at the highest levels?
You should ponder that for awhile.
David
Hi Dave
Eric has never once described anything I am doing or knows how to do it. And even once told me that he acutally does but -I- don't understand his models...I find it all hilarious, and have never taken his discussion points serously. But other than that, I like him.
Speaking from personal experience (as I have never felt Mike or Rob). For me its the same old thing; one hundred thousand words that all end with a single word in person ..."Duh!" Once they feel it and either end up being totally owned or end up on their ass over and over and over. There is simply no more debate. Has anyone from anywhere, of any rank, from any art, from shodan to Shihan from sho mokuroku to Menkyo having trained with me care to debate this topic anymore? Now lets add in ICMA teachers who openly dismissed the Japanese arts as having anything of "depth" and never will again. Now you have a bunch of these guys coming on line and stating this is the aiki in aikido, and Daito ryu.
What's that proverb "A word to the wise is sufficient." I'll leave out the other half of it!!.
Is there any reason to listen to these two and even respond to a single post when all they do is go on and on about nothing.
We all knew Eric had nothing to contribute to this topic. Did anyone really need it "confirmed?" I mean...really? Come on guys. You guys are the ones who continue to talk to these people. With Mr. Burgess now stating "Everyone has IP!" I mean its positively comical. Why bother? Do we really need it "confirmed" that he has nothing to offer either?
They are hold outs from the past; I refer back to Dave Lowry in Autumn lIghting
"In the changing of the times, they are like Autumn lighting. A thing out of season. Bringing an empty promise of rain, on fields already bare."
These two are examples of an aikido that will sooner or later die out. Let them live out the fantasy that they have any part in a discussion of aiki at all. We all need Uke's.;)
In the mean time it is best to hold the door open even if they can't. Sooner of later their "Duh" moment will arrive.
There is an interesting parable about a king. His people all drank from a well that went bad and they went insane. The king had his own well. In time, the people who went mad, rose up against the King, claiming "Our king has lost his mind we must remove him." Hearing this, the king snuck out that night and drank from the well and went mad. Later, all the people rejoiced, shouting "Look! Our king had regained his sanity."
Lets leave the door open. In my opinion its only a matter of time. Everyone who has felt real aiki wants it. One...by one...by one. Aikido is going to change.
So how is the training coming along. I am going to be in Atlanta in Jan visiting family -want to meet up? Maybe we can get Eric to come!!
Dan
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 01:06 PM
That's the whole point, Erick. If you had been training with the methods of IT and IS, you would understand that no particular "be-all app-killer test" is necessary to know whether you have the skills. Just so. Just so.
that action rebounding into your own body in a way you cannot reconcile or balance, so that it puts you off balance and maybe off your feet or on the ground. Yes. I know what that is and what it is doing to you, and how. Can do it, too -- within bounds broad enough to understand what it is and how it works, and how to show it to others. It can be managed, also. BTW. Like anything. Degree? I have no idea nor any concern one way or the other. I am not getting out the sixth appendage tape measure, so don't bother.
So we have one report of someone who has felt IT from some of the most major proponents, who also felt your power and confirmed that you don't have it. So by "IHTBF", we're told you don't have it. Ah. So I cannot know from physical description and my own experience that what I am talking about is the same as what they are talking about but you can say that it is definitively not. No, you don't have that report. You have an enthusiastic acolyte (nothing wrong with that) over-asserting something he says was told by someone he claims said something he won't specify and who won't back him up. I know; the "source' in question volunteered the disavowal to me personally. Point is we weren't doing what Lorel wanted us to have done, but there you are. It was good, all the same.
... apply your test to people who are recognized to have the goods. What test? I have a test? Somebody -- quick -- tell me what it was! What I have is a bio-mechanical description. As for Ark and Mike, I don't have to guess -- I can see it -- in precisely my terms, though in rather different flavors of application, quite plainly.
.., If you really have the skills and you want to talk about them in different terms, that's one thing. But if you're using different terms because you really don't understand what's being described, you shouldn't get defensive when people point up the holes in your stories. ... But again, no matter how concrete your terms are, you're not describing the same things Mike, Dan and Rob are. You need to make up your mind which set of assumptions you wish to argue from, because they are simply that -- assumptions.
If I did not provoke your criticism, I would not be doing anything useful anyway, but constructive criticism is better than simply assuming that you know what I must not know simply because you DON'T understand what I am talking about. It does not follow.
The better approach would be to take me on -- with your experience of these gentlemen on these matters -- and demonstrate WHY it is that you assert that what I speak of cannot be the same as what you have experienced. We could all learn something from that. Asserting it is not the same as explaining it. And "Shut up, now, (please)" is somewhat lacking in explanatory power.
:)
The more important question is why anyone would WANT to have the conversation limited to a certain set of concepts or terminology, and be opposed to a terminology that, being generally applicable, is not within their control. That is the more interesting question.
The more important question is why anyone would WANT to have the conversation limited to a certain set of concepts or terminology, and be opposed to a terminology that, being generally applicable, is not within their control. That is the more interesting question.
Because the discussion is about skill-not rhetoric. Making things artificially complex to mask a profound ignorance of the topic is utterly transparent to everyone-or most everyone here.
So another interesting question is why -you- may be the only one who can't see that.
Cheers
Dan
David Orange
10-05-2009, 02:26 PM
Eric has never once described anything I am doing or knows how to do it. And even once told me that he acutally does but -I- don't understand his models...I find it all hilarious, and have never taken his discussion points serously. But other than that, I like him.
Erick has been nice and supportive of me before and I regret having been less nice than necessary in some earlier posts. But it's like watching someone try to find the strings on a flute so they can play it like a guitar--or trying to figure out where to blow on a guitar to make it sound like a saxophone. You just have to say something after awhile.
So how is the training coming along. I am going to be in Atlanta in Jan visiting family -want to meet up? Maybe we can get Eric to come!!
I'll be there. Just say when and where. And I wish Erick would hop on up, as well. It would be a great opportunity to put all questions to rest, have some eye-opening moments and a lot of great laughs. I'll look forward to January!
Thanks.
David
David Orange
10-05-2009, 02:43 PM
So I cannot know from physical description and my own experience that what I am talking about is the same as what they are talking about but you can say that it is definitively not. No, you don't have that report....
The guy has felt top people and he has felt you and he advises that there is nothing in your approach that even resembles what Dan, Mike, Ark and Rob are doing--in other words, they have IT and you don't.
Now, that fellow has felt them and he has felt you.
You, on the other hand, have not felt Mike, Dan or Ark, but you assure me that you do have the same thing they have, though someone who has felt them says you don't.
I don't know, Erick. You make it very hard to believe you.
If I did not provoke your criticism, I would not be doing anything useful anyway, but constructive criticism is better than simply assuming that you know what I must not know simply because you DON'T understand what I am talking about. It does not follow.
Erick, what Mike, Dan, Ark and Rob are all doing is all rather different, but it does follow the same outlines--like an American jet pilot, a Russian jet pilot and a Chinese jet pilot will all be working with the universal principles of aerodynamics, but each with the peculiarities of his own country's military, engineering and other types of cultures thrown in. Even with that, all these pilots could get together and talk about jet-piloting with a "non-jet-pilot" and all of them would be able to tell very quickly which one of them is the "non-pilot."
And so it is here. It's not just that you're saying "different" things: you're saying things that just are not relevant to the topic and which are very misleading to the real approach taken by those with the real skills.
The better approach would be to take me on -- with your experience of these gentlemen on these matters -- and demonstrate WHY it is that you assert that what I speak of cannot be the same as what you have experienced.
Just re-read the statement above: "It's not just that you're saying "different" things: you're saying things that just are not relevant to the topic and which are very misleading to the real approach taken by those with the real skills."
The more important question is why anyone would WANT to have the conversation limited to a certain set of concepts or terminology, and be opposed to a terminology that, being generally applicable, is not within their control. That is the more interesting question.
Well, go sit down with two or three jet fighter pilots and come into their conversation trying to convince them that the methods and tactics of helicopter flying are exactly the same as those of aerial combat in an F-16. And then ask them "why anyone would WANT to have the conversation limited to a certain set of concepts or terminology, and be opposed to a terminology that, being generally applicable, is not within their control."
I'm sure they'll tell you that what you say is fine within your limits, but irrelevant to what they are discussing. Would you find it a fault in them to do so?
I'm guessing you would.
You should make arrangements to meet up with Dan in Atlanta in January.
Best to you.
David
Erick has been nice and supportive of me before and I regret having been less nice than necessary in some earlier posts. But it's like watching someone try to find the strings on a flute so they can play it like a guitar--or trying to figure out where to blow on a guitar to make it sound like a saxophone. You just have to say something after awhile.
Thanks.
David
Point is I understand the frustration - from both sides, but I've never found a succesfull resolution that equals a hands on experience. And even then it best be with more than just a single guy. It is for no small reason, that I waited a few years till more and more people had gone out to feel people with IP and or aiki and or had any real ability to fight with it real and whole across multiple platforms. Those are not the same discussion points. They are almost three different topics alltogether.
So only speaking personally, everyone who debated just simply stopped. A logical fellow would look at the the shear numbers of people and the diverstiy of their backgrounds and come to a resonable conclusion that there must be something out there that is truly unsusual if it not only stumped such a diverse group but in actual freestyle it managed to handle them to such an extent that it was virtually no contest. Again although a reasonable man might seriously consider that not all are so reasonable.
Decades long, or a few years long.
Remember this is a very old debate for me, and the results have never changed. While I remain obessively passionate about my own training, I have no equal investiture in a public debate. Not even close. In fact my participation has widely been critisized as inconsistent and sporadic. And I think that is fair. But its also fair to say that If it were not for Ellis Amdur I wouldn't even be -in- as far as I am. Other than a hobby and interest in helping others to get this, I could drop this effort tommorrow. No sweat off my back. Therefore I am only compelled to the point of interest that a hobby would extend. So there is no interest in debating with people like these two, when I could be having a discussion with folks who are more reasonable in their assessment of things. IOW, I am unconcerned with battling every detractor out there.
If you guys are talking "past" these two to a larger audiance, thats understandable. But on the whole, direct engagement with these guys seems to be a waste of effort. They are not hearing and never will. Remember the hundred thousands word ending in one..."Duh?" after people try fighting with this?
Think of how I left the door open with you and a couple of others we know so that when the "Duh" moment came...and I boldly (some would call it arrogantly) said it was going to come)...everyone benefited and became friends instead of begrudging cohorts.:D
I know a certain person actually makes fun of me for the "making friends" comments, as if it is a negative. Screw that. Life's too short, and if you can do it- you can have fun doing it as well if you have half a personality.
I'll be there. Just say when and where. And I wish Erick would hop on up, as well. It would be a great opportunity to put all questions to rest, have some eye-opening moments and a lot of great laughs. I'll look forward to January!
I think it might be a case of investiture. It's pretty tough to believe you "get it" and to have spent 40 years of your life in it and to realize after all that time "I missed it." I don't get it all."
Some people not only cannot handle that-they will avoid any opportunity that will prove it. Not everyone wants to grow. They are happy where they are at.
The only difficulty is going to be on you guys, as your understanding deepens and you become like us..knowing full well these people don't have a clue and you struggle with how to address them in a meangingful way all the while knowing one encounter will end the debate.
Er...good luck with that.:rolleyes:
I've been back out again in some MMA gyms, I'll tell you about it when we meet. I'll let you when the date is confirmed.
Cheers
Dan
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 03:54 PM
So, nothing's changed, then ... :)
Shiny.
Do you all know who invented the airplane?
Answer -- nobody in particular. It was a common endeavor of many men, (often antagonistic men) who nonetheless each advanced the art in their own way. Electrical power the same, though the antagonism was deeper, and more conceptual, and is still with us, your appliance motors are all AC but the thing with integraed circuits you are reading and typing on -- those are still DC. DC was easier to envision and apply, but had a lot of transmission loss, required local generation, a lot of complicated tinkering to power motors, and was harder to transmit and convert, whilst AC was easier to transmit and convert for a wider range of high and low power modes.
AC (Tesla's invention) on the other hand required some knowledge of maths and rotating fields to understand how to apply -- whilst DC (Edison's baby) was amenable to brute force experimentations. So here we are ...
If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. ... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.
"Just as certain as death [AC power] will kill a customer within six months," [taking a dog -- Edison placed it on a sheet of metal, bring forth two wires attached to an AC generator] "Ladies and gentlemen, I shall now demonstrate the effects of AC current on this dog."
Tesla is mostly forgotten, and Edison celebrated.
Shiny.
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 04:07 PM
The guy has felt top people and he has felt you and he advises ... Respectfully, David, he tells me different than what you assume he advised. Since he gets shot at for a living (a profession I once shared) I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on what he said and what he meant, since he has made the point of telling me so. You may assume what you like, however, and it troubles me not at all.
I don't know, Erick. You make it very hard to believe you. I do not ask to be believed. What I am talking about does not require belief.
Even with that, all these pilots could get together and talk about jet-piloting with a "non-jet-pilot" and all of them would be able to tell very quickly which one of them is the "non-pilot." Well, go sit down with two or three jet fighter pilots and come into their conversation trying to convince them that the methods and tactics of helicopter flying are exactly the same as those of aerial combat in an F-16. And then ask them "why anyone would WANT to have the conversation limited to a certain set of concepts or terminology, and be opposed to a terminology that, being generally applicable, is not within their control."
I'm sure they'll tell you that what you say is fine within your limits, but irrelevant to what they are discussing. Would you find it a fault in them to do so?Not a fault, but a exceedingly poorly chosen example, and no, not the same. You see, by virtue of the good offices of the United States Navy and its infinite wisdom of training progression for flight -- I can fly under their aerodynamic principles -- but they can't fly under mine ... At least, not without learning the same concepts and the training in their use ...
:D
Why is it so important to prove that Eric does not practice IT or does not know IS.
It seem some of you guys are a bit obsessive about it.
Is he violating a patent or infringing on a copyright?
David
Fred Little
10-05-2009, 06:14 PM
Tesla is mostly forgotten, and Edison celebrated.
Really? (http://www.google.com/trends?q=tesla%2C+edison&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)
The world has built a great deal on the basis of what Edison did. The world is still catching up to Tesla.
But they lived in the same world: in that world, there is no sound statistical analysis of contemporary search queries that would support your conclusion.
FL
thisisnotreal
10-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Tesla was suppressed.
Eric is the one who enters in on discussions of internal power/ aiki with us. To date he has not said anything that the folks with some understanding recognize. Yet...he...continues to enter into these discussions as if he does know the subject, when he clearly does not. As just about everyone knew was going to happen. He was tested and he doesn't know what he is talking about. That's all.
Good luck in your training
Dan
You can know going in whether you have actual "gold" or just a "gold-plated" piece of tin. Or maybe it's not even gold-plated, but just gold painted.
Or maybe it's just a piece of yellow tin.
When you go to the pawn shop with that, do you complain because the guy doesn't value your yellow tin as highly as he values the 14c gold another guy brought in?
Has is it ever occurred to you that maybe what you have is really less valuable than someone who has put in decades of training at the highest levels?
You should ponder that for awhile.
David
Daivd,
If you ever heard of Pyrite, a..k.a. "fools gold?"
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
-Euripides
A great quote my father was fond of saying, I keep that in mind, often musing over it. And I bind that in with, the historical event of the California Gold Rush in the1800's. Specifically how pyrite became known as fools gold. This was because of nearly every knew miner looking for the "mother load" had contracted "gold fever." See almost everyone in those days rushing to California initially and fanatically looking for gold where ignorant of Mineralogy, gold panning and mining believed they found GOLD! when they came across the abundant, wide spread and worthless pyrite.
I ponder such historical events and things as guides in the determination of the value, validity, and the navigation of things. In this way, I am not taken in by things like pyrite as being gold. Its been working pretty well for a number of years. Well enough for me to confidently use it as advice. ;) ;) :)
Eric is the one who enters in on discussions of internal power/ aiki with us. To date he has not said anything that the folks with some understanding recognize. Yet...he...continues to enter into these discussions as if he does know the subject, when he clearly does not. As just about everyone knew was going to happen. He was tested and he doesn't know what he is talking about. That's all.
Good luck in your training
Dan
It says allot. :( :( :( :( :(
I think such rudeness and disrespect is uncalled for, and unnecessary, and it should be reported, and stuff. But whatcha gonna do?
Really? (http://www.google.com/trends?q=tesla%2C+edison&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)
The world has built a great deal on the basis of what Edison did. The world is still catching up to Tesla.
Not true. The world has built a great deal more on the basis of Telsa's invention than Edison's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Westinghouse
" Westinghouse contacted Tesla, and obtained patent rights to Tesla's AC motor. Tesla had conceived the rotating magnetic field principle in 1882 and used it to invent the first brushless AC motor or induction motor in 1883. Westinghouse hired him as a consultant for a year and from 1888 onwards the wide scale introduction of the polyphase AC motor began. The work led to the modern US power-distribution scheme: three-phase AC at 60 Hz, chosen as a rate high enough to minimize light flickering, but low enough to reduce reactive losses, an arrangement also conceived by Tesla."
David
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 08:44 PM
He was tested ... ...they read what they want to read, they see what they want to see, and believe, what they wish to believe -- all on the basis of what was not said or seen -- fighting phantoms is really no fun at all...
Tesla is mostly forgotten, and Edison celebrated....The world has built a great deal on the basis of what Edison did. The world is still catching up to Tesla.
But they lived in the same world: in that world, there is no sound statistical analysis of contemporary search queries that would support your conclusion I wasn't thinking statistics, I was thinking human beings -- This one (http://blindpony.blogspot.com/2009/04/tesla.html) who gave us radio, hydropower, induction motors, long line transmission, 60 Hz AC power, step-down transformers, X-rays, sparkplugs, spread spectrum and electronic logic gates, among other things and died broke in the year before the Supreme Court reversed the Marconi patent on radio in his favor, and whose inventions have had more lasting influence than Edison's did, but little of the credit -- maybe being righted, however belatedly.
Also, he was kinder to small dogs... ;)
Also, he was kinder to small dogs... ;)
And large elephants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_the_Elephant
David
David Orange
10-05-2009, 09:29 PM
...they read what they want to read, they see what they want to see, and believe, what they wish to believe -- all on the basis of what was not said or seen -- fighting phantoms is really no fun at all...
Yeah. So the guy was lying, basically?
So there are no reports out there that you "don't have it"?
But there are also no reports out there that you do.
See, from my experience, when someone really has it, it's a profound and unforgettable experience to touch them or even to be around them. Ark weighed 130 pounds, but putting my hand on his shoulder was like touching a horse: and when he shook, it sent me flying. The same kind of thing with Dan.
When someone "has it" people go away talking about it.
You tell me you have it, but you're the only one I've heard that from, and your written explanations also tell me that you don't have it. So what am I to think?
You shouldn't miss a chance to meet up with Dan.
Best to you.
David
rroeserr
10-05-2009, 11:04 PM
snip
You arguing just to argue? At this point you look like a douche-bag.
Mr Roeserr
Eric and I contend on this issue, but I cannot sit here idle while he is spoken to or about that way. I think we can all do better than this when we disagree.
We can all get under each others skin, but please try to keep in mind that many people here are parents and spouses and lead full and balanced lives outside of budo. You would probably be surprised at how many argue on the net and become friends in person.
Please reconsider the level of your dialogue. There are better and more effective ways to make your point.
Cheers
Dan
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 11:25 PM
Yeah. So the guy was lying, basically? I've said what I've been told -- same as you, only I have it first hand, and he has no support.
See, from my experience, when someone really has it, it's a profound and unforgettable experience to touch them or even to be around them. Ark weighed 130 pounds, but putting my hand on his shoulder was like touching a horse: and when he shook, it sent me flying. The same kind of thing with Dan. . Wonderful. Go train. Why are you concerned with me? I tell you when he shakes @1:02-03 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbvipmVYGzA) that I know what Ark is doing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzVvd4Dk6sw), and how it relates to other aspects of his training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtYDJ_XDVRU&feature=related). I apply it in other ways. I don't pretend to analyze what others don't show or discuss in physical terms. He is gifted without question -- but whatever the relative benefits of his training regimen or anyone else's (and there may be many) what is being trained is evident to me.
The way it is discussed, though, is like saying that principles of sailing exist in exclusive absolutes, rather than being developed in varying degree to varying purpose or optimization. They exist actually quite widely -- well, pretty much wherever you find wind and water. If I am not interested in 45 knot sailboard speed, but in trimming a schooner three points closer to the wind, and one extra knot fully laden, the relative "show" " of the former has no bearing on the understanding or effective applications of sailing principles.
That is the order of what we are talking about -- sailing, vice powerboating or flying. If you fight wars these days you do it with air ordnance, mechanized ground assault, over horizon targeting and stand-off weapons, small unit weapons like LAW , SAW, small arms and 40 mm grenades. Hand to hand engagement is last-ditch warfare, not to be disregarded, but secondary and a mark of a strategic and/or tactical failure. Not to be wished. To fight and kill we have vastly preferable ways of doing that. So while martial effectiveness in the art is crucial -- it is a hallmark -- not an endstate.
... You tell me you have it,... your written explanations also tell me that you don't have it. So what am I to think? It is you that have said it? Well, start by saying what reasons lead you to that thought. What tells you that? I see and read things that make perfect sense in comparison what I actually do in my training. I can explain them -- but not trivially -- they are not trivial things. On which point, I think no one here disagrees.
Erick Mead
10-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Neither Dan nor I wish for a good discussion to be foreshortened, and his caution is well-taken -- by everyone..
rroeserr
10-06-2009, 09:11 AM
Mr Roeserr
Eric and I contend on this issue, but I cannot sit here idle while he is spoken to or about that way. I think we can all do better than this when we disagree.
We can all get under each others skin, but please try to keep in mind that many people here are parents and spouses and lead full and balanced lives outside of budo. You would probably be surprised at how many argue on the net and become friends in person.
Please reconsider the level of your dialogue. There are better and more effective ways to make your point.
Cheers
Dan
Personally I don't see how that is much worse than saying someone is a dinosaur or saying they have nothing to contribute to a conversation.
So do you think he's arguing just to argue at this point? At a certain point you have to wonder. There is a consensus between what you, Mike, and Rob say, there are people that have meant you that back up you can do what you say, there is someone that says Erick can't, ad nausea. Any time there is an interesting IS question Erick will post something on the thread about the human resonance frequency, and then all that happens is there are 15 pages of people arguing with him. What was it, 5 pages back on this thread was a nice answers for what 'IT' is...Maybe he likes the attention?
Anyway, off to work.
David Orange
10-06-2009, 09:51 AM
I've said what I've been told -- same as you, only I have it first hand, and he has no support.
I'm getting behind-the-scenes feedback on this matter and there's more to it than has been said on the board...but none of it supports you.
The other thing is where are all the people who have felt you do what Ark does?
If you can do that kind of thing, people will definitely be talking about you in a strong positive context.
I don't see any of that.
It feels like I've built a big pile of dirt in my back yard and I'm telling everyone it is the equal of Fuji. Should it affect my thinking that everyone who sees my dirt pile tells me it's nothing like Fuji?
Of course, I haven't seen your alternate Fuji, but from everything you've said about it, it just adds up to "nothing like Fuji".
Well, bandwith is (relatively) free. Waste it all you want. But may I suggest that you take it elsewhere? Certainly, what you're describing has no relation to what we're talking about in this thread. Maybe you should just create an alternate thread....
Best wishes.
David
Personally I don't see how that is much worse than saying someone is a dinosaur or saying they have nothing to contribute to a conversation.
Hello
Well not really.
a. Dinosaurs
They are extinct. Aikido as it is currently practiced is going to be replaced by aikido with aiki. It will still be aikido- just done with exponentially more power and control-like the founder had. So those who turn their back on internal training for aiki will in fact be headed the way of the dinosaurs. Hence accurate assessment of current events -not spurious insult.
b. Having nothing to contribute
The discussion of internal power is a subject that is known and has given attributes. There are now any number of aikido teachers and students who are training this way and they can all talk -one to another. Eric has demonstrated that he has no clue in his descriptions and (to no ones surprise) that he doesn't have one clue in real life either. Hence accurate assessment of current events -not spurious insult.
c. His continued and unwelcome presence in threads on a subject he knows nothing about reveals a lot about his character. It does not however make him a receptacle for vaginal cleansing fluid. Which was your less than accurate description of his behaviours and arguments.
So do you think he's arguing just to argue at this point? At a certain point you have to wonder. There is a consensus between what you, Mike, and Rob say, there are people that have meant you that back up you can do what you say, there is someone that says Erick can't, ad nausea. Any time there is an interesting IS question Erick will post something on the thread about the human resonance frequency, and then all that happens is there are 15 pages of people arguing with him. What was it, 5 pages back on this thread was a nice answers for what 'IT' is...Maybe he likes the attention?
Anyway, off to work.
I cannot possibly fathom why he continues to embarrass himself this way, and remain oblivious to how he looks. Moreover, in the face of an ever mounting consensus (of a 100% conversion rate among Aikido teachers and students once they feel it) his argument and others are looking desperate, if not foolish.
The answer to him shipwrecking threads is to put him on the ignore list and stop pasting his quotes in replies. Thus to those who know or are interested in the topics, he becomes a non-entity.
If you think about it the uninformed alternate reality counter "arguments" will vanish to those wishing to have a discussion and for others the Alternate Reality arguments are then reduced to the comic relief that they are. There will be IT discussions and AR discussions!
Cheers
Dan
Ron Tisdale
10-06-2009, 10:32 AM
All anyone has to do is to not respond to people whose posts show that they have nothing to contribute to the topic...yet.
When that changes...start responding. Until then...don't.
No need to be rude, abrasive, disparaging, or to "call them out" with statements from anonymous people who specifically asked not to be involved in such things.
WOW.
Best,
Ron (don't we have better things to do? Don't we respect the wishes of the folks who share with us?)
Erick Mead
10-06-2009, 11:01 AM
I'm getting behind-the-scenes feedback on this matter ... Conveniently vague and suggestive.
Why do I want to doggedly climb up to a high vantage on the geological accident of a pile of ash called Fuji, if I can "do a few calculations according to some theory" and eventually fly above it,and see a much larger context of the terrain? Climbing up gets me no higher point of view than Fuji provides, and leaves me stuck in the spot where Fuji just happened to vomit forth. Not that the views are not splendid, but the height itself is not bound to that path if one employs other methods.
If you can do that kind of thing, people will definitely be talking about you in a strong positive context. See -- that is the difference. I don't care if you talk about me, good or bad. The reasons why these discussions remain so tied up in individual personalities and presumed conflicts is that the ideas themselves have not been developed adequately. At one point you had some thoughts on that score -- and while you may have concluded from your experience that the approach of your thinking at the time was misguided, the impulse to develop generally thought-out concepts was not.
It is precisely NOT about me when I write about the idea. My approach in that regard is only maddening because your focus is so narrowly on the person(s) -- not the concepts -- I am concerned with the thing itself and the ideas that describe it. People manifest the principles involved to whatever degree, or subject to known errors even, but the personal variables are only interesting insofar as they reveal the deeper concept of action.
The fact that everyone who engages this discussion as you are, tries so urgently to MAKE it about me, or about them, or about me vs. them, or them vs. them -- or whatever -- is pointless and inane. The title of the thread is "What is IT?" not "Whose is the baddest whupass mojo thingy ?" or some other sixth appendage length stretching sessions. :)
Certainly, what you're describing has no relation to what we're talking about in this thread. So you keep saying -- and I keep asking -- why do you conclude that? Other than, of course, because Dinsdale told you I had transgressed the unwritten law. 'Cuz, ya know, that's good enough for me with ole Dinsy! ;)
Should I believe you or my lying eyes ? If it is so "certain" then it should be straightforward to explain why. Explaining the concrete reasons for your view would better advance the idea, even if -- and especially if -- I were wrong....
Erick Mead
10-06-2009, 11:21 AM
I cannot possibly fathom why he continues to embarrass himself this way, and remain oblivious to how he looks. Because when it comes to working out ideas, I am oblivious to anything but what is true -- I cannot speak to why anyone else cares about how I look ...
The answer to him shipwrecking threads is to put him on the ignore list and stop pasting his quotes in replies.
Thus to those who know or are interested in the topics, he becomes a non-entity. Well, well. Shunning? .. are we ... Amish? I mean, really. What does that say about the durability of the whole "renovating aiki" project if it can be so trivially threatened by a mere set of ideas ? Why not rebut the ideas with better ideas and then we have all taught everyone a thing or two? Shipwrecks happen because the navigators don't know the shoals -- blaming the shoal doesn't help the essential problem. Get better charts.
Has anyone yet explained to anyone else WHY, concretely, the ideas presented are incorrect? Just asking.
Well, well. Shunning? .. are we ... Amish? I mean, really. It's not shunning as a punishment. I don't control the site, you don't belong in these discussions and you don't have the common decency to remove yourself after being asked to do so over and over. The only recourse here to that kind of behavour is to ignore the person.
What does that say about the durability of the whole "renovating aiki" project if it can be so trivially threatened by a mere set of ideas ?
It isn't threatened. You have done exaclty nothing, had no impact whatsoever, and have no meaningful dialogue to offer anyone on the subject. If you ever do come up with anything worth reading I'm sure those who do know what they are talking about will inform you-if you haven't alienated everyone by then.
My only concern is not for me, but for others who might be looking. You have firmly establish that you don't know anything about the subject, so that's a good thing.
Why not rebut the ideas with better ideas and then we have all taught everyone a thing or two?
I've done one better I have rebutted in person then explained how to do these things to those willing to do the work. There is no need to debate you or anyone. Again for me- one hundred thousand words ends in one...Duh! Once we touch hands.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much more so hands on instruction in a physical activity!!
In the kindest way I am telling you -you have nothing to offer here.
Has anyone yet explained to anyone else WHY, concretely, the ideas presented are incorrect? Just asking.
Yes, in detail.
Come train. When you utterly fail I will do what I always do- show you how to fix it.
We go out and test and then ...and then...actually teach aiki. It's a really neat concept. One I hope the Japanese can learn for themselves. It may be hard- them being Japanese and all. It's a cultural thing. Maybe if they eat more mash potatoes.:D
Cheers
Dan
David Orange
10-06-2009, 11:56 AM
Conveniently vague and suggestive.
It should be enough to say that the results are running something like 98% against you, 1.5% pitying you and Buck and David Skaggs supporting you.....which really ought to make you do a double-take on your position.
Why do I want to doggedly climb up to a high vantage on the geological accident of a pile of ash called Fuji, if I can "do a few calculations according to some theory" and eventually fly above it,and see a much larger context of the terrain?
And there you go. That's the same thing you're trying to do with this thread and I think that should be a good enough place to leave it.
Fuji is "the skills". The only way to get to the top of that mountain is by physically absorbing the skills and changing the body in the process. But you prefer to give us "calculations" involving gyropscopics and resonance frequencies and other things that are worth baloney in your shoes when the sword is coming down.
Can you see why you would be ignored at a table of people who just climbed up and down Mt. Fuji and you drop in and tell everyone that you had the same experience as they did because you flew over Fuji. Moreover, your experience was better because you saw a wider landscape than they.
Your reaction from that group of people would be about the same as you receive from all experienced people on this board: note that this excludes your main supporters....
See -- that is the difference. I don't care if you talk about me, good or bad.
Well...since no one is talking "good" about you (at least in terms of IS skills) and you simply deny reports of any other nature...you're pretty well bullet-proof.
The reasons why these discussions remain so tied up in individual personalities and presumed conflicts is that the ideas themselves have not been developed adequately.
Au contraire. The ideas have been deeply and intricately developed for thousands of years and there are two groups of people: those who understand those ideas as they are, and those who don't understand the ideas and think that we need clearer ideas, involving gyroscopics and resonance. The only place "personalities" come in is when someone like yourself insists that his misguided thinking is perfectly equal to the original and well-understood thinking that developed the IT skills.
I got my pilot's license when I was seventeen, flying little Cessnas and Pipers. If I sat down at a table full of fighter pilots, I would have very little to say, especially when they began speaking of aerial combat. Sure, F-16s and Piper Cubs have some common characteristics and performances, but I'd have to be an idiot to think that my flying experiences qualify me to judge the statements of combat-experienced pilots. And though I might be too dumb to recognize that fact, myself, everyone else at the table would know it and if I tried to talk like one of them, they'd either invite me to leave or they would move to another table.
And that's where you are in this discussion of IT.
At one point you had some thoughts on that score -- and while you may have concluded from your experience that the approach of your thinking at the time was misguided, the impulse to develop generally thought-out concepts was not.
Well, there are "thought-out concepts" and then there are other things. Bank robbers always thoroughly think-out their plans before they rob the bank. Custer "thought-out" his plans before he went to Little Big Horn. Heck, W. thought out his plans before abandoning Afghanistan to go after Saddam. The point is, if your thinking is based on a slanted foundation, you're not going to be able to keep it lined up.
My biggest concern early on in these discussions was just exactly what people were talking about: a martial art, a method of chi gung, meditation...what? I gradually understood that they were talking about physical methods of doing things inside one's own body to manipulate incoming force and neutralize it: physical things--not intellectual frills. The big turning point for me was when I realized that the "suit", or the fascia of the body is a "whole-body-permeating" system of tissue that has very different functioning than muscles, nerves or bones and that the use of the fascial system was a major component of the IS skills. When I recognized that, while you may have "internal strength" it's not much good if you can't intentionally control it--and that control is demonstrated by the "baseline skills" described elsewhere on this board.
To now, the "baseline skills" of aikido might be said to be timing, tai sabaki, posture, distance and technique. All those skills can be demonstrated strictly through muscular action and alignment of the bones to be able to "brace" the structure in the direction one wants to apply power.
In the new paradigm, the "baseline skills" cannot be enacted through mainly muscular actions. In this paradigm, are use of the body's internal structures (not the muscles) to redirect incoming power such that the body does not lose its equilibrium and can return that force to the provider without muscular effort--which is to say, not using the muscles to drive the force but only to maintain the body's own organization, which is a far smaller effort than actually throwing someone with your muscular effort (even if you do it by "leading" them off balance first).
That's the real gold we're digging and we're not concerned about someone's personality nearly as much as we are that person's approach to using those factors to create internal strength.
Your personality becomes an issue because you make every effort to substitute alternate concerns (gyroscopics, etc.) for the truly meaningful problems of the internal connections of the bones, muscles, nerves and fascia of the body.
It's like a Newtonian physicist trying to correct a bunch of Einstein scholars about quantum reality.
In your case, it's more like a quantum physicist trying to tell a carpenter how to build a house according to quantum physics: it does not relate to his need. It doesn't solve his problems. It does not get the house built.
When everyone else is discussing bone alignment and the use of the fascial structure to convey intent, you come in with elaborate narratives that are strictly mental and, moreover, are not applicable to the human dimension when one is actively dealing with an attack. No degree of mathmatical calculation can apply when the other guy is trying to pound your face in.
That's the big difference. Nothing Dan or Mike says will get in the way of dealing with the weight, momentum and ill intent of another human being trying to kill you. But the stuff you go on about?????
It seems to be very pleasant and enjoyable for you....but very distatsteful for everyone else....
It is precisely NOT about me when I write about the idea. My approach in that regard is only maddening because your focus is so narrowly on the person(s) -- not the concepts -- I am concerned with the thing itself and the ideas that describe it.
Again, "the persons" are not my focus. The physical methods and skills are my concern and your ideas and descriptions are like a bogus driver's license a check passer uses to make himself appear acceptable to those who accept or reject. Why not just get on the right page if you want to discuss this topic? Understand that it is already very well defined and developed and that it requires physical movement based on "feeling" and not on schematics, charts and diagrams.
The fact that everyone who engages this discussion as you are, tries so urgently to MAKE it about me, or about them, or about me vs. them, or them vs. them -- or whatever -- is pointless and inane.
Try reading one of these threads with your own comments ommitted. You will find that, when you're not talking and people are not talking to or about YOU that we get into some deep discussions of methods and your name does not come up. You "make it about you" when you come in with such skewed comments and irrelevant ideas. It's the same reaction you'll get anywhere you try to interject the "concepts" of an inexperienced person into the discussions of experienced people. Plain and simple.
The title of the thread is "What is IT?" not "Whose is the baddest whupass mojo thingy ?" or some other sixth appendage length stretching sessions.
That's at least twice recently that you've mentioned that. You are the only one bringing that concept to the discussion, so if you want it out of the discussion, you should stop introducing it.
Explaining the concrete reasons for your view would better advance the idea, even if -- and especially if -- I were wrong....
See above. I'm sure if you drop the "gyroscopics" references and deal with the real-world-real-time-human-body-in-movement considerations, everyone's attitude toward you will change.
Good luck with that.
David
David Orange
10-06-2009, 12:01 PM
Shunning? .. are we ... Amish? I mean, really. What does that say about the durability of the whole "renovating aiki" project if it can be so trivially threatened by a mere set of ideas ? Why not rebut the ideas with better ideas and then we have all taught everyone a thing or two?
The problem is that you have seemingly set out to "rebut" everyone else's ideas with unweildy diatribes on ethereal whimsy that only distantly relate to anything involving human strength and effort. The proper ideas were set out in the beginning. Why bother to "rebut" someone's misguided "alternative" explanations? The thing is to just go back to the original propositions--not come up with new ones.
The only reason people don't ignore you already is just a friendly desire to help you see what the real subject is, but you just keep rebutting, so that ends up embarrassing the person who tries to help you....so....
Shipwrecks happen because the navigators don't know the shoals -- blaming the shoal doesn't help the essential problem. Get better charts.
Dan and pretty much everyone else already has the good charts. Notice the shipwrecks always happen when you get involved with your reasoning. That should tell you something....
Has anyone yet explained to anyone else WHY, concretely, the ideas presented are incorrect? Just asking.
My last post covered it pretty well, I think.
David
The title of the thread is "What is IT?" not "Whose is the baddest whupass mojo thingy ?" or some other sixth appendage length stretching sessions.
That's at least twice recently that you've mentioned that. You are the only one bringing that concept to the discussion, so if you want it out of the discussion, you should stop introducing it.
Good luck with that.
David
Hi Dave
I have seen this reference before. It typically refers to the fact that this stuff is so flat; a pass/ fail, you can or you cannot, paradigm.
You can't fake it or "talk" your way around it, so those who hope to do the typical budo meet and greet, "You show me some things -and I of course must be capable of showing YOU something equal...so we can "share" just falls apart.
That, is very difficult for people to swallow or even imagine. Even worse when you see it done in one room with people from ICMA, Koryu, Aikido, Daito ryu, Karate, and MMA. For the most part things, like this have not been done before. In the Budo scheme of things it's tough to deal with such an overt power differential. Since the power differential is so offset and can be flatly discussed as such-the internet response is the adolescent dick measuring contest euphemisms applied to a very "non" contested reality-in order to down play a very real impact.
Fro some on the net they simply cannot fathom the type of offset being reported so matter of factly- so the best defense is to make "comparisons" a negative image.
Cheers
Dan
Erick Mead
10-06-2009, 01:14 PM
Hm. In other words, we cannot even agree on the terms of a discussion. But that still does not mean things are as fruitless to discuss (even in different terms) as you maintain:
"The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others but also with ourselves." Eric Hoffer
I am open to your disagreements, heck, I could hardly be unaware of them. I offer specifically responsive comments to points in a discussion as things go along. As others have just noted here, I make a comment from time to time, and then others seem to spend inordinately many posts trying to categorically exclude my comment FROM any discussion -- rather than simply saying "No, that cannot be right, because this works this way and that works the other way and here is an example: ___????___".
Just as a 'for instance' ...
If there is an objective truth, then "talk like we talk" is simply imitating you to fit in, rather than dealing with the objective truth using other concepts. If magnetism can manage with two mutually exclusive definitions of "field" we can carry on.
Simply saying, "Well, it doesn't feel that way, to me... so that can;t be right..." says not one blooming useful thing when (as I can show) we are expressly manipulating the body's structural balance sensing and compensation systems in the first place. That's what Ark is doing, as noted above. Similarly, seat-of-the-pants pilots end up in progressive spins and craters if they do not learn some counter-intuitive inertial mechanics.
The magnitude of blunt force to my periodic mouse squeak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUMjtpwCDg&feature=related) is interesting, though not usually very informative.
We could take a higher road. :)
Hi David Orange,
Do think that one could learn IT by The Feldenkrais Method ?
Is that how you started learning IT?
David Skaggs
Mark Freeman
10-06-2009, 02:04 PM
In the new paradigm, the "baseline skills" cannot be enacted through mainly muscular actions. In this paradigm, are use of the body's internal structures (not the muscles) to redirect incoming power such that the body does not lose its equilibrium and can return that force to the provider without muscular effort--which is to say, not using the muscles to drive the force but only to maintain the body's own organization, which is a far smaller effort than actually throwing someone with your muscular effort (even if you do it by "leading" them off balance first).
Hi David,
Where I come from this is not a 'new' paradigm, it is the one I have been working since I started on my aikido journey 17 years ago. In all of those years I have not been outside of my own federation, mainly because I haven't felt the need to and have never felt that the aikido I was learning was lacking in any way.
When I discovered aikiweb a few years ago I was pretty ignorant of other forms/styles of aikido. Now through reading, discussing and watching many videos, I have a much greater appreciation of the wider world of aikido and all it has to offer, from the hard as nails martial, to the soft and fluffy dancing. I read posts from the sublime to the ridiculous, and I have learnt much from some of the more informed members on the forums, particularly about some of the more buried history of our art.
The paradigm mentioned above I didn't really start to fully 'own' until I had been teaching for a while, even though I had felt it from my teacher from day 1. Any discussion about these skills whether they are called IS, IP, IT, aiki, ki, kokyu are going to get bogged down in terminology. It seem there is not a fully agreed dictionary/alphabet that we can all agree on. I do agree with Dan though, the proof of the pudding is in the 'hands on'.
I fully agree with the physical aspects contained within the quote I clipped above, however, in my own experience the 'redirection' of power is not a primarily a physical thing it is mental. Of course the body must be relaxed, co-ordinated (every limb connected to the centre/one point), completely free to move with non-contention. The mind initiates the redirection. The partners/opponents mind/ki is what needs to be redirected, if you can move their mind, you can move their body with little or no effort.
I like Dan's optimism that one day all aikido will be proper aiki-do, I hope that he is right and that I see it in my lifetime, but there may well be many who are set so far in their ways that they will not change. One only has to look at the 'faith' communities to see how difficult it is to change their paradigms even in the face of literally millions of tons of fossil evidence to the contrary.:rolleyes: They may go the way of the dinosaurs, but they were around for a very long time before their time was up:(
Anyway, I do think that both you and Dan are being too dissmissive of Erick, he may well be using a different language to describe something that through his own endeavours and enquiry, he understands and explains in a way that most do not get, in other words it 'goes over their heads'. I can't really call him on it as much of it is just too complex for me. I like simplicity, and one of the reasons I love aikido so much is that it is so simple to do when you 'get it'. The problem is, it is devilishly hard to get to that place.:)
Do I have 'the skills'? I'd like to think so. Have I mastered them, most definitely no. Have I still got things to learn, of course. Am I worried by what is going on in the rest of the aikido world, not really. I am selfishly focussed on learning everything I can from my own teachers and passing on what I get and incorporate into myself to whoever wants to come and learn from me.
Nobody here seems to be offering a 'how to' guide/instruction manual to IT etc., probably because it cant be learnt through words, it has to be instructed by someone who can do it. My shock in all of this is that so few ( according to Dan, Mike etc, ) have these skills in aikido. Is it really as bad as they say out there?
Having said that I will be meeting Mike Sigman this weekend, so I may well be having my backside handed to me on a plate, I will let you all know how I get on;)
regards,
Mark
ChrisMoses
10-06-2009, 02:20 PM
Wow, this is still going on? ;)
Just to throw this out there:
Here's what I said in 11/2005 (link to e-budo post (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=372750&postcount=8)) wrt some of the videos and hype floating around the forums:
Saw these a while back when his student was pushing him as the greatest thing since sliced (crustless of course) bread. Honestly, not that impressed, if you've ever been thrown around by Don Angier or his guys, you'll see nothing new here. It's not that it's bad, but it's not exactly groundbreaking...
Sound familiar?
Here's what I wrote in 11/2006 after getting back from Japan and meeting *and feeling* Ark and Rob (link to post (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=427129&postcount=166))
So I just got back from a trip to Japan and Ark allowed me and a training partner of mine to work into one of his classes. Huge thanks to him, Rob, Adam and the rest of his guys. So having actually had a few hours of face time and more importantly hands ON time, I thought I should follow up on this post. The short version is that I'm currently soaking my feet in a lovely wasabi-soy concoction that should make having my feet in my mouth a much more plesant experience. Ark probably is about the best thing since crustless sliced bread, and (to me at least) it most certainly felt groundbreaking. But beyond Ark's own very considerable skill, I was equally impressed with the very high level of skill of his students that had been with him for a couple years. It was clear that not only was he able to do some amazing stuff, but that he had a system for building these same internal skills in others. Further, he's able to do so in a relatively short period of time. Rob's been training with Ark for about three years (if I remember correctly) and easily had better body skills than nearly anyone I have dealt with in Aikido in the US, that list would include some 6th-8th dans who are serious mucky mucks in the seminar circuit. What they're doing is not very similar to what I've seen of Don Angier's Yanagi Ryu, but felt a bit more like what Systema might be one day. I generally call it like I see it, but when I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, and I was certainly wrong on this one. Again, huge thanks to Rob for coordinating our visit and Ark for having us. My only regret is the sleep I lost that night trying desparately to wrap my head around some of the things that were done in class.
The important thing was that I went and checked it out and then changed how I was training.
It's actually kind of an interesting thread, partly because there are lots of the usual suspects (Rob, Dan, Mike, Ron, Doug, David O...) but also because it was four years ago and it's basically the same discussion that's been going on ever since. :cool:
David, I am curious if feeling Ark and working the Aunkai stuff shed some light on some of our past discussions where it really felt we were talking past each other?
David Orange
10-06-2009, 02:36 PM
You can't fake it or "talk" your way around it, so those who hope to do the typical budo meet and greet, "You show me some things -and I of course must be capable of showing YOU something equal...so we can "share" just falls apart.
I know I didn't have anything to "share" when I met you or when I met Ark. It's like going to lunch with Warren Buffet and offering to pay, but he only wants to eat at the place with $500.00 hamburgers. I just couldn't keep up. And, frankly, I haven't often been in that position with aikido. Both meetings were way over my head but both were also at the top of my rewarding experiences in martial arts.
Fro some on the net they simply cannot fathom the type of offset being reported so matter of factly- so the best defense is to make "comparisons" a negative image.
It gives me a better understanding of why a lot of high-level people don't say anything at all. On the other hand, through arguing these things out, sometimes from a very stubborn point of view, I have learned a lot.
I just wish I had been able to meet up much earlier and cut through all those months of arguing because I would be a big jump ahead by now if I had.
Still, I've made some progress in IS and I've also made some great new friends (with whom I used to argue rather bitterly), so I have a pretty optimisitic view over all.
I'll e-mail you soon about matters.
Thanks.
David
Erick Mead
10-06-2009, 02:50 PM
There is no need to debate you or anyone. Again for me- one hundred thousand words ends in one...Duh! Once we touch hands. Then why post anything, at all ? If discussions served no purpose, then this forum would be useless to you. But you do. So I conclude it has own usefulness despite being more ephemeral, and will continue to use it, as you do. Your consensus is narrow, and 59K views on my paltry eight blog posts (outside of your "proprietary" discussions") distinctly suggest the "consensus" is toward perceived usefulness of this forum for such purposes. I could be wrong, though. :)
You will find that, when you're not talking and people are not talking to or about YOU that we get into some deep discussions of methods If that is so, then perhaps pick something out of your deep discussion of method that shows something I have described as wrong. That way those who are liable to be misled by my pointless musings will not be led astray before they can get me on the ignore list so as to avoid soiling themselves with impure thoughts. :D
For instance, Ark (only because his are available) and his shaking demonstration. I see applied resonance (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/rattling-bones-3214/), illustrated in aiki-taiso of furitama and tekubi furi, and -- in a far more concentrated way -- in the most effective atemi (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/whips-and-chains-2960/), which he also demonstrates. His connected manipulations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYlMC6gUoM&feature=related) -- are similarly, no mystery (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/aiki-physical-model-structure-dynamic-3259/), nor hard to do, once understood and trained. Doesn't mean they are trivial, or that his training method does not have value just because I understand what he is doing.
Here, try the form, fill in the brackets with some of the deep discussion I have been apparently missing and help people understand how wrong and idiotic I am. It would do them a service, really... :)
"No, that cannot be right, because [this] works [this] way and [that] works [the other way] and here is [an example]: ___????___".
David Orange
10-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Do think that one could learn IT by The Feldenkrais Method ?
Not from any teacher I've met and not by applying TFM to the aikido teachings I received. That application resulted in my "Zero Degree" teaching method, which did go a long way in the right direction, but which would never have resulted in my developing power such as Dan and Ark have demonstrated.
Is that how you started learning IT?[/QUOTE]
No. I started learning IT by arguing like hell with Mike Sigman and Rob John on e-budo, exchanging opinions and e-mails and twisting fine points to no avail.
The Feldenkrais did open the door to my understanding, however, when I was lying on the floor one night, working on relaxation. I found a point and relaxed it, and when I did, I felt the relaxation surge up along the side of my body and out into my left arm. It was a feeling I'd had many times before, but I had always accounted it to "muscles relaxing". This time, I realized that what I felt was not muscles relaxing, but a whole bunch of fascial tissue. When I felt that, I realized through direct recognition that the fascia is actually a single whole-body-permeating system, separate from the muscles, bones, nerves, blood vessels and viscera of the body. When I understood that, I realized what Mike Sigman had been talking about with "the suit". Then I began to wonder how the heck you could "use" that fascial component of the whole body for MA techniques.
After that, I began to understand Mike and Rob's comments better and the more I read, the more they unlocked for me and the more I was also able to understand Dan Harden's comments. See this thread:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12965&highlight=Leather
After that, it started coming more quickly to me and eventually I was very fortunate and blessed to be able to meet with Ark, and later with Dan.
So Feldenkrais was not the method of my discovery, but it is a very useful tool in learning to sense with the body. It magnifies one's ability to sense, especially to sense amounts of effort, and the inner connectedness of the whole body.
Feldenkrais alone will not impart MA internal skills but it will develop one's ability to learn and assimilate the skills.
David
Erick Mead
10-06-2009, 03:04 PM
Anyway, I do think that both you and Dan are being too dissmissive of Erick, he may well be using a different language to describe something that through his own endeavours and enquiry, he understands and explains in a way that most do not get, in other words it 'goes over their heads'. I can't really call him on it as much of it is just too complex for me. I like simplicity, ... Nobody here seems to be offering a 'how to' guide/instruction manual to IT etc., probably because it cant be learnt through words, it has to be instructed by someone who can do it. The most useful and simple thing is physical models, which are images of action -- not equations ( though they exist) --- not complex behavioral laws (though they exist) -- but images and shapes that one can see and feel in the actions that are otherwise hard to categorize.
David Orange
10-06-2009, 03:20 PM
Where I come from this is not a 'new' paradigm, it is the one I have been working since I started on my aikido journey 17 years ago. In all of those years I have not been outside of my own federation, mainly because I haven't felt the need to and have never felt that the aikido I was learning was lacking in any way.
Yes, this "new paradigm" is actually the original. It was obscured by the timing/distance/posture/technique paradigm and that seems to have spread through most of the world. But you are right that the "new paradigm" is only new to those who have held a different idea all these years.
I've only trained in the US and in Japan, but when I was in Japan I met people from all over the world. I didn't meet anyone who had more power than my Japanese shihans but if those shihans had power like Dan and Ark, they didn't demonstrate it.
I fully agree with the physical aspects contained within the quote I clipped above, however, in my own experience the 'redirection' of power is not a primarily a physical thing it is mental. Of course the body must be relaxed, co-ordinated (every limb connected to the centre/one point), completely free to move with non-contention. The mind initiates the redirection. The partners/opponents mind/ki is what needs to be redirected, if you can move their mind, you can move their body with little or no effort.
You are talking like Dan, now. I understand that's true, but I'm still at such a basic level of working with the developmental exercises that I haven't progressed to the level of moving the partner's mind. I can do it to some degree under the "old" paradigm, but not yet within the IS skills. But that's what everyone has been telling me I'm missing.
Anyway, I do think that both you and Dan are being too dissmissive of Erick, he may well be using a different language to describe something that through his own endeavours and enquiry, he understands and explains in a way that most do not get, in other words it 'goes over their heads'. I can't really call him on it as much of it is just too complex for me. I like simplicity, and one of the reasons I love aikido so much is that it is so simple to do when you 'get it'. The problem is, it is devilishly hard to get to that place.:)
I was willing to give Erick the benefit of the doubt for a long time but I've finally been convinced that he really doesn't have a clue about the level of work we're discussing. And while I can appreciate a little dense and complex language (I edit biostatistical research papers, among other things), the feeling I get from Erick's posts is not like that. It seems like he wants to be counted among those who "know" but the things he says just don't translate into anything useable. And he won't take the step of going out and getting hold of Dan, Mike or Ark to find out for himself whether he even knows what he's talking about. But he will go on and on with those convoluted explanations that seem to be about nothing at all. And he gets very defensive when you tell him that. It doesn't make me believe him any more.
Nobody here seems to be offering a 'how to' guide/instruction manual to IT etc., probably because it cant be learnt through words, it has to be instructed by someone who can do it. My shock in all of this is that so few ( according to Dan, Mike etc, ) have these skills in aikido. Is it really as bad as they say out there?
Well...I'm afraid that it is in the US, anyway. As for learning through words, I did get a big boost when Dan once posted an exact how-to description for receiving a push to the chest. I was able to take that and get a friend to push on me and I could do it right away. But there's nothing like direct hands-on instruction.
Anyway, I do think we'll get more how-to little by little--especially if some people would just keep quiet and listen rather than stinking up the threads with a lot of self-entertaining folderol.
Having said that I will be meeting Mike Sigman this weekend, so I may well be having my backside handed to me on a plate, I will let you all know how I get on;)
From what I hear, you will know without a doubt whether you have really been pursuing what we're talking about here or if you were mistaken.
It sounds like you know, but meeting someone like Mike can open your eyes to a whole world you never dreamed of: it was right there in front of me, all along, hidden in plain sight, but it took me a long time to recognize it.
Please let us know how that goes!
Best to you.
David
David Orange
10-06-2009, 03:47 PM
Here, try the form, fill in the brackets with some of the deep discussion I have been apparently missing and help people understand how wrong and idiotic I am. It would do them a service, really... :)
Better. Why don't you agree to meet with us in Atlanta in January? I'll be glad to buy you a bottle of champagne (to take with you) if you can do a fraction of what Dan does. And if that's the case, I will hassle your descriptions no more.
Best to you.
David
David Orange
10-06-2009, 03:49 PM
David, I am curious if feeling Ark and working the Aunkai stuff shed some light on some of our past discussions where it really felt we were talking past each other?
Yes, it has. Though we did that so many times, I'm not sure which ones it affects! :D
Best to you.
David
David Orange
10-06-2009, 03:54 PM
The most useful and simple thing is physical models, which are images of action -- not equations ( though they exist) --- not complex behavioral laws (though they exist) -- but images and shapes that one can see and feel in the actions that are otherwise hard to categorize.
Short of actually touching people, words can be a very good medium for exchange, but first the speaker has to understand the subject and second, he has to tailor the words to pure simplicity. I think it was Einstein who said if you can't explain something simply, it shows that you really don't understand it.
Mike and Rob have always said "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it."
But if your explanations are so dense and convoluted that no one really understands them (to me, actually, they are so pointless that they become boring and I just cease trying to read them), then chances are very good that you don't want anyone to clearly understand them. And that is a good bet that they'll think you understand it so much better than them that they give you credit for understanding without really being sure.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
Best to you.
David
Mark Freeman
10-06-2009, 05:16 PM
You are talking like Dan, now. I understand that's true, but I'm still at such a basic level of working with the developmental exercises that I haven't progressed to the level of moving the partner's mind. I can do it to some degree under the "old" paradigm, but not yet within the IS skills. But that's what everyone has been telling me I'm missing.
Hi David,
The real joy I have in practicing aikido is in my own personal discovery of how far the mind/body connection can be taken. Trying to teach what I have learned from my teacher, to others, is where I have really gained the most insight and therefore the most progress in my understanding of what I percieve 'aiki' skills to be. The body must be prepared to work in harmony with (but dutifully following) the mind. The mind thinks it, the body does it. I can do things now that I couldn't a while back. More of that later though...
Well...I'm afraid that it is in the US, anyway. As for learning through words, I did get a big boost when Dan once posted an exact how-to description for receiving a push to the chest. I was able to take that and get a friend to push on me and I could do it right away. But there's nothing like direct hands-on instruction.
Thats what I like about all this stuff, most of it can be conveyed fairly simply, in fact the more simply explained the better.. On this particular exercise, I can take a frontal push to the chest with uke taking a run up, redirect the push back, so that they bounce off my chest, I saw video footage of O Sensei and Shioda doing it, so tried it based on how I assumed it was done. Well, I can make it work with my students anyway.:) There is a possibility that they are just being kind to me, and I am deluding myself and in turn them, but why would we want to persue something so false. :( I don't see it as much of a big thing, just something that comes with co-ordination, something that will get done in a lesson, before moving on to another exercise.
From what I hear, you will know without a doubt whether you have really been pursuing what we're talking about here or if you were mistaken.
It sounds like you know, but meeting someone like Mike can open your eyes to a whole world you never dreamed of: it was right there in front of me, all along, hidden in plain sight, but it took me a long time to recognize it.
I'm looking forward to it, I am going with as an open a mind as I can muster, I hope that I am not mistaken, it is always a possibility though! I'm sure I will learn much, I am prepared to steal as much of Mike's art as I can get away with;)
Please let us know how that goes!
Of course,
regards,
Mark
On this particular exercise, I can take a frontal push to the chest with uke taking a run up, redirect the push back, so that they bounce off my chest, I saw video footage of O Sensei and Shioda doing it, so tried it based on how I assumed it was done. Well, I can make it work with my students anyway.:) There is a possibility that they are just being kind to me, and I am deluding myself and in turn them, but why would we want to persue something so false. :( I don't see it as much of a big thing, just something that comes with co-ordination, something that will get done in a lesson, before moving on to another exercise.
Your comment that "you don't see it as much of a big thing" confuses me, because it *is* a big thing. Perhaps you wouldn't experience it as such, if all you know is for it to be present all the time, but still ...
Having said that I will be meeting Mike Sigman this weekend
Since I'll be there too, would you mind showing me the exercise you mentioned in the post I quoted above?
thisisnotreal
10-07-2009, 06:21 AM
Have fun storming the castle!
Hello Mark
The manner of the exercise you are describing is more "technique" oriented. The origin is what is important, not necessarily the result on people. It gets confusing because external movement can mimic internal, and there are any number of partly internal, partly external involvements in between.
If you meet Mike ask him to explain it to you. Either that or it will become obvious on its own.
If you concentrate more on how you hold energy in your body and move it, many things -effects- happen to forces coming in on you. These "things or "effects" become the essence of many waza.
Think of it this way; if you have energy going up/ down, side /side, forward /back, and in and out in all directions, then there is no plane or planar aspect to you that is unsupported. Your are "held" in stasis in movement. Any force coming in to you is sent to a path of your choosing almost automatically. Either by will or by "feel" from constant training. There are many complexities to add to this with movement and means to train the body to move-these are not all the same nor are they all equal either. Some are better -more universal- ways to fight than others.
So taking Shioda’s chest bump or any number of directed or “overt” force redirections is just simply another way to move -not a “technique.” I’m not a big fan of that move simply because while being “correct,” it’s really rather retarded for real fighting. Its nothing more than another Ki trick with traing crash test dummy. The same body movement is just as real in grappling its just not as visible, or dramatic in a real fight. Moreover, Shioda could never pull that crap on someone with decent internal skills, so more serious means would be called for.
And that leads me to my final comment on "not that big of a deal." I continue to caution people not to judge if the person demonstrating these things is not that good or just so-so. Meet someone who can demonstrate internal power to the extent that it is "a big deal" and very obvious. Why? Because it is a big deal, and will change your martial arts forever.
Anyway, I hope you have fun
Dan
Erick Mead
10-07-2009, 09:21 AM
Short of actually touching people, words can be a very good medium for exchange, but first the speaker has to understand the subject and second, he has to tailor the words to pure simplicity. I think it was Einstein who said if you can't explain something simply, it shows that you really don't understand it. ... But if your explanations are so dense and convoluted that no one really understands them (to me, actually, they are so pointless that they become boring .. Einstein, was -- well, quite wrong about several important things -- like (what was his technical phrase? -- spukhafte Fernwirkung "spooky action at a distance." :) ) He disliked that concept SO much he made a thought experiment to disprove it that was so convoluted and so paradoxical -- that it turned out to be empirically true. If that topic was "simply explained" without "dense" descriptions, then you are setting a bar much higher than you know.
On the other hand, he dared to be wrong. He was also quite able to accept his own error when it proved wrong -- in fact he welcomed it. I will patiently await some "deep discussion of the methods" illustrating mine.
FWIW, "the splitting effects of spiral energy rising and falling and entering and leaving all at the same time" "aiki-age rising energy; Aiki-sage sinking and sending over energy; winding energy joining the two up and down and in and out." -- those are ALL in this one straightforward figure I have pointed to before (and its cousin with the stresses more detailed).
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=509&d=1215185239
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=505&d=1214887302
The mechanical words I use apply to those figures, and relate them to other equally simple models of modes of action that, while superficially seeming different, are deeply related -- But forget the words and simply see where the joint actions occur and how they relate -- but if you have eyes yet will not see it, I can't help that.
Wow, this is still going on? ;)
Just to throw this out there:
Here's what I said in 11/2005 (link to e-budo post (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=372750&postcount=8)) wrt some of the videos and hype floating around the forums:
Sound familiar?
Here's what I wrote in 11/2006 after getting back from Japan and meeting *and feeling* Ark and Rob (link to post (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=427129&postcount=166))
The important thing was that I went and checked it out and then changed how I was training.
It's actually kind of an interesting thread, partly because there are lots of the usual suspects (Rob, Dan, Mike, Ron, Doug, David O...) but also because it was four years ago and it's basically the same discussion that's been going on ever since. :cool:
David, I am curious if feeling Ark and working the Aunkai stuff shed some light on some of our past discussions where it really felt we were talking past each other?
Hi Chris,
Yeah, I remember reading online and thinking that this stuff, "IT", was close to what I was doing or had done. But, as someone else has said, "I didn't know that I didn't know". "IT" wasn't even close to what I was doing or had done. And the IT I'm doing now isn't even close to what I had used for training methodology before.
I think the measure of someone training in the martial arts isn't taken when he (or she) is on the top tier, or snug within an organization, but when he encounters something outside the comfort zone - something that disrupts that comfort zone.
Anyway, as we both found out, getting hands on experience made all the difference. Online was nothing.
Hi Bud
I agree with the comfort zone idea but that applies to anything doesn't it; BJJ against a stand up fighter, judo against aikido, anything out of "your" world shaking up your world.
What is truly so profound about IT is being able to go to all the traditional arts and have them comment on the immediate utility and across the board applicability, and then walk into MMA and hear the same things; How are you so strong? Why can't I throw you? Why are my efforts in throwing you throwing me? How can you hit with such power?
IME, that makes IT, truly ...the "it" we were all looking for, the magic that made the exceptional men, the legends-who they were. Sadly, I think we have too many "experts" who hold the keys to things not really worthy of a twenty year effort, who never really got "it" themselves.
We have all heard stories of IP/Aiki being the real difference in your older years. Most readers assign that to any number of particular "beliefs"; either the students are being polite, or it's just an excuse for the aging warrior syndrome, or it's just an older guy reaching the point where he fine-tuned his game. I think few truly realize just how real "IT" can be and actually is.
For those training internal power/ aiki I hope they don't fall into the same trap- only seeing it in defined arts, or ways of executing singular arts waza and methods. Nothing can be further from the truth. I would hate to see It fall into that same limited view.
We were handicaped by teachers who had that same view, and indoctrinated students into that ignorance, I hope to show people a better way to "see" it. Allowing adepts to preserve a tradition (which is of course fine) but them to see that the aiki, the magic in the arts is far past a single art and arrive at a mastery that is deep within them. Shu Ha Ri in a very real concept.
IP/.Aiki is universal, and immediate and the only way to prove that to yourself and make a measure of your efforts is outside your own door. Go to other dojo's, ICMA schools and MMA schools and play. We have all had enough of fantasy and daydreaming of the masters who brought us these arts, quite another to dare to believe it was real, and more importantly CAN be real today. IOW, it's one thing to sit in a comfy chair and read stories of Takeda and Ueshiba in their old age tuning and handling much younger and tougher men. It's quite another to be living it.
Cheers
Dan
thisisnotreal
10-07-2009, 10:18 AM
Erick -
You seem to keep asking for feedback... here goes.
it is my best:
Do i understand right that this is your best kick at the can at explaining it?
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=210336#post210336
Do you think it more appropriate that you start a new thread to discuss it? Or continue in that one? Maybe things would be different now-a-days... (discussion wise)..things seem more open. I think that what Robert R and David O said are because you insist on talking about *your* understanding in all the threads. Is that for you, or for all of us? if it's the latter, erick mead; your love is like bad medicine.
Regarding tone;
Drop the given assumption that you are correct. It is very off putting. (Maybe i'm doing that very thing here in this post. I do not mean it that way...just trying to give you honest feedback) You should have, in the back of your mind, the tiniest possibility that ‘you may be wrong'. There is a way, a tone, and a set of assumptions going into presenting an alternate theory (especially to a panel of ‘peers')… To ignore established standards may become profitable; but there is a way to go about things properly. It can get flat out rude otherwise in a discussion. A diatribe is something else (i know it! i know it!). Usually your stuff comes in the middle of another conversation.
Your explanations have changed (/evolved?) over time. What else would you change in, or add to, that model?
What i took:
-i assume fascial matrix is the 'torsion-tube' itself.
-Your lissajous (i.e. flowing continuous lines) imply connection and a closed circuit in the body.
-Joining at cusps smoothly is an important phenomena related to preserving and reversing momentum.
-Double/multiple pendulum (bone/joints) is obviously related in the body; and to bodies interacting. The richness and complexity that comes out from that model (i.e. momentum ratios, phase angle,etc) is obviously relevant to motion and slinging weights around.
-Yin Yang is analogized/literally equated to compression and tension lines.
-The lines must implicitly point to the tendon-muscle channels in the body.
-When you talk about shear i think you are talking about the way nage connects in his own body to uke and also how uke himself is loaded by nage.
I think that is what you are saying; my apologies if i misread you. What do i miss? Please use simple words (and pls. don't answer here!). With respect; i do not know just how much is new here...some of these things are fundamental and universal. Of course ..some may be wrong..specifically in my translation of your 'work'. this is IMO and betrays my level of (mis)understanding everywhere. Obviously you have described some very overt geometric simplifications. I think the richness of these ideas and skill with them (again; i do not think they are new) spring forth from the truly unique geometric considerations of the human body. Taking the actual deep body knowledge into account and practice. Not vague TTT (Torsion Tube Theory) land Also; notwithstanding the truly non-linear issues of and related to human-tissue, muscle and skill with those things themselves..the model neglects those. completely. i suspect those to be of high importance...and not so nearly easily made 'analogous' to a simplified model... The richness is obscured by the complexity. (actual body geometry and characteristics of muscle/tendon and what body skill adds to the equation)
Things i would look for in your future explanations:
-simplicity.
-attempt to communicate. aim 1st year physics TA
-preditctive value
-humility
-judgement of where and when to interject TTT -related comments
-what is ki?
-why dantien?
-why intent? Why is this given a central role.
-what is the nature of the changed body; and what are the body requirements to 'do' or transform forces in your torsion tube model? How come you don't talk specifics? Actually i don't think you talk about changing the body at all.
-what of training?
-what exercises or practices will help do aiki?
-should we look to you as an authority on this? Are you a teacher? Or are you just trying to figure it out? should I try to 'suck your model dry' for relevant nuggets? Who showed you this? I know you are bright and observant..but do you know that you've felt it for sure? Who?
-why is meditation important? (just to get out of your own way?)
-why is this work intrinsically dangerous
-how is this so easily overlooked? How can it be hidden in plain sight...isn't your stuff kinematics applied to a body under load?
-how is your work advance the state of the art understanding?
-why is visualization important?
-divestiture of yourself from 'your' model. your model was clearly compiled and forged from things you learned online from others. be honest about it. there is no shame. we see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. and shared with us. "Your Model" is not your own anyway so why beat us up with your posts? that is how it feels.
-is the model descriptive/phenomenlogical only? Does it make predictions? Will it help someone to attain IT or IS if they do not have it? Does it imply a method to train? Do you have aiki now? All these questions fall out naturally; im' not trying to be a bully.
-is the model merely descriptive/analog or does it contain how-to? surely there are some parallels between 'your' and 'traditional'...but what is the model's chief value? is your theory falsifiable? that is a chief desirable property that many theories lack...like, for instance, string theory and evolution. Maybe meeting someone with the skills would do the trick? Didn't Dan cordially invite you? I'm almost sure it's not a trap ... ;)
anyway; I know you didn't ask me; but maybe this is of some use to you.
Oh yeah; last but not least:
You have a current open personal invitation from someone purported to have *high levels of skill*. My friend, this is exceedingly rare....why are you ignoring it (again?)? It seems they are willing to *give it to you*. ..are you so proud/invested/stubborn that you will only accept or rather take it on your own terms? ..In other's discussions in your terms, nomenclature and models on everyone else's time?
Let this have an end. It had a beginning and a middle. All things must have an end? Can this too? Mercy me!
I YEILD:freaky: !
i agree Mark; the web is a waste of time. and i've only myself to blame gah! ;) poetic justice i think.
sorry for the OT post.
Josh
David Orange
10-07-2009, 11:11 AM
Erick -
[spoiler]
You seem to keep asking for feedback... here goes.
it is my best:
That was one of the best posts I've read and in fact proves that the internet is not at total waste of time. You even helped put Erick's comments into a context that brings out a deeper meaning in them. Very nicely done.
And you are very precise in identifying the most important point: Dan has made a very generous offer to meet personally with Erick and show him directly what IT really is. And he doesn't have to go to Boston to get it!
Thanks.
David
Mark Freeman
10-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Your comment that "you don't see it as much of a big thing" confuses me, because it *is* a big thing. Perhaps you wouldn't experience it as such, if all you know is for it to be present all the time, but still ...
Hi Joep,
please see my reply to Dan's post below, regarding this exercise.
Since I'll be there too, would you mind showing me the exercise you mentioned in the post I quoted above?
Great, I look forward to meeting you there. As for showing you the exercise, if we get the chance, sure, why not. However, we are there to get whatever we can from Mike and maybe he will be doing this particular thing or something similar. We'll find out soon.:)
See you there,
regards,
Mark
David Orange
10-07-2009, 12:26 PM
Erick -
[spoiler]
You seem to keep asking for feedback... here goes.
it is my best:
Again, Josh, a very good post.
After reading Erick's comments in your link, I posted to that thread as well.
I would also advise others to have a look at Erick's description in the first post of that thread:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242436#post242436
David
Mark Freeman
10-07-2009, 12:34 PM
If you concentrate more on how you hold energy in your body and move it, many things -effects- happen to forces coming in on you. These "things or "effects" become the essence of many waza.
Hi Dan,
This is where I have finally got to in my practice, the external form of the waza is of interest, I have to try and convey it to others as accurately as I can. Most of my focus now is on the where and how of what is going on internally when performing the waza. My experience is that it is all in the mind, all in the centre, all in the body. I'm still learning, though and do not purport to be an expert.
Think of it this way; if you have energy going up/ down, side /side, forward /back, and in and out in all directions, then there is no plane or planar aspect to you that is unsupported. Your are "held" in stasis in movement. Any force coming in to you is sent to a path of your choosing almost automatically. Either by will or by "feel" from constant training. There are many complexities to add to this with movement and means to train the body to move-these are not all the same nor are they all equal either. Some are better -more universal- ways to fight than others.
Agreed, I like the explanation, however, I am not looking for any way to fight others. I appreciate that your experience is much wider than mine and that you practice with folk who are into the fighting aspects. Your internal skills are almost certainly more developed than mine. Hopefully one day I will get to learn from you ( I still wont be interested in fighting though:) )
So taking Shioda's chest bump or any number of directed or "overt" force redirections is just simply another way to move -not a "technique." I'm not a big fan of that move simply because while being "correct," it's really rather retarded for real fighting. Its nothing more than another Ki trick with traing crash test dummy. The same body movement is just as real in grappling its just not as visible, or dramatic in a real fight. Moreover, Shioda could never pull that crap on someone with decent internal skills, so more serious means would be called for.
I agree with the above too, I only use it to emphasise a point during a ki development lesson. I don't see it as aikido either, it is a bit of a trick, but does require complete co-ordination coupled with good timing, so as a training exercise it has its uses. There are many other ways of dealing with that particular attack.
And that leads me to my final comment on "not that big of a deal." I continue to caution people not to judge if the person demonstrating these things is not that good or just so-so. Meet someone who can demonstrate internal power to the extent that it is "a big deal" and very obvious. Why? Because it is a big deal, and will change your martial arts forever.
My own teacher still gives me enough to be impressed with, he doesn't use any of the terminology used in these discussions though, but he can do things with me that still have me scratching my head, after I pick myself up off the mat:) He definitely has 'something' and bucket loads of it. I want what he has and I believe I am getting there, slowly.
I am looking forward to the weekend and to getting a different perspective on what I do and know. I hope to be impressed, I hope to learn, I'm sure it will be an interesting experience.
Anyway, I hope you have fun
Dan
Me too!
regards,
Mark
I agree with the above too, I only use it to emphasise a point during a ki development lesson. I don't see it as aikido either, it is a bit of a trick, but does require complete co-ordination coupled with good timing, so as a training exercise it has its uses. There are many other ways of dealing with that particular attack.
The timing aspect is the main reason I prefer to see these kind of tricks demonstrated starting from a static position. One less variable to obfuscate things.
Mike Sigman
10-08-2009, 05:07 AM
Yeah, I remember reading online and thinking that this stuff, "IT", was close to what I was doing or had done. But, as someone else has said, "I didn't know that I didn't know". "IT" wasn't even close to what I was doing or had done. And the IT I'm doing now isn't even close to what I had used for training methodology before.
I was watching a video the other night of a fairly good Xingyi practitioner (to use and example that no one in Aikido will feel offended by) and he had pretty good I.S. power, obviously. I've heard that this man is a very good fighter and can seriously kick butt. But I could see how he developed his power and used it in most cases.
The levels of internal power can be equated to Shu-Ha-Ri in many Chinese arts, where they say: Obvious Power, Concealed Power, and Mysterious Power. Of course a person who only uses normal strength (even one who can fight well) is not even in the categorization. The man I watched was very strong, but he was more or less someone with a combination of obvious and concealed power; not mysterious power.
My point that I'm slowly working toward is that a person with no I.S. skills can't really conceive of I.S. skills.... he only knows what his own abilities allow him to grasp. Similarly, a person developing I.S. skills only truly understands from within his personal skills and the grasp of higher skills can be equally blinded from below. A person does not "know I.S."... he only knows up to the level that he can do. Hence Ueshiba was not just talking idly when he discussed how long his journey had been.
FWIW
Mike
1.... Similarly, a person developing I.S. skills only truly understands from within his personal skills and the grasp of higher skills can be equally blinded from below.
2...A person does not "know I.S."... he only knows up to the level that he can do.
3....Hence Ueshiba was not just talking idly when he discussed how long his journey had been.
Nor was Ueshiba speaking definitively. He only knew what he knew. I never once considered him an expert either. I mean being polite and all -Ueshiba's demonstrations aren't even close to a complete compliment of skills; I have seen him sway, be single side weighted, hip driven, among other things. He had a lot of power no question, but there's much more to the complete skills than that.
Anyway, I have always found it amusing to see Ueshiba held up as the pinnacle. But given the talking points, it is understandable if the people from categories #1 and #2 view him that way. Personally -as is obvious over the years- I never have. I always considered him as one of the Daito ryu greats that went his own way. Another example of the Daito ryu method at work. And even then, and probably by choice; not as complete a compliment of skills in execution as others in DR or the ICMA.
Fighting aspects can confuse the issue. But none of Ueshiba's or Takeda's fights were recorded so we will never know about those guys. And being that Japanese like the Uke /shite model (a huge mistake in my view) we have no data I would like to see. Playing with the “straights” is a cake walk for someone with good IS so I dismiss any notion of higher level work such as IP to IP.
As for being able to feel or sense things. I’m not going to take part in admonishing Aikido teachers (with Judo, Karate and BBJ backgrounds) and many years of experience in Martial arts; that they "cannot tell the difference" between external and internal when sparring with someone. a) They are fully capable of determining if it a) feels like sparring with all the other external artists they know or b) things are happening to them that are completely outside their realm and comfort zone. c) Judging the “level” of IP skills they are experiencing can get confusing between IS and aiki, but since no one in aikido I have ever met or seen is capable of offering ant decent defense WITH IS they will never really be able to walk into higher levels yet. So bringing up the point and is extraneous B.S. at this point in time.
Since what they are facing in use neither looks or feels the same as normal fighting, and the fact that they always find themselves continually "behind" or too late to respond to what is happening to them, they know enough to know something radically different is happening to them. And that’s enough for now.
Nor am I going to take part in the idea of telling them what they should be looking for in their aikido and who can give it to them over others! I think they will do just fine on their own.
From my experience, once they got out and about, Aikido teachers are having a pretty good sense of what to choose and how to bring it into their aikido teachings, without some outside yahoo telling them what to do. Maybe since what I and some others do is the origin to their art -it helps. Anyway, I think certain comments lately smack of hubris. Aikido teachers are going to do just fine.
Fighting
Some have openly acknowledged fighting with these skills is not their interest and that certain Japanese and Chinese teachers threw them around with ease. I haven't had that experience in a long time in my forays; including Japanese and Chinese master level teachers. I wonder if talking down to people about fighting-who may well be your betters at actually using IP /Aiki in fighting is not the best way to go.
There are ways to move with internal power; lets say between method a. and b. that are correct for each particular method. When people move according to method a. they are “correct’ and true to that method, and thus exhibiting internal power. Method b. can be different in movement and the way it uses energy. And one may be superior to the other. There are lower and higher levels of skills even within single ICMA where the body is not even used the same from one level to the next. Moving the body with internal power and manipulating energy within you in ways that are “correct” is different between arts and one may be abso-freakin-lutely superior to the other in fighting.
Further fighting someone WITH IP is not the same as fighting the straights, nor is fighting with IP/ aiki against a good external fighter the same as the contending with the level of so-called “resistance” seen in the aiki arts.
I would simply repeat my oft written admonition to get out and feel as many people as you can, and then pick someone for a while. Not every person can size you up and pick you apart and actually help you long term. Fly-by-night teaching at seminars is not learning- and attending a few seminars and being told you have enough material to train yourself is ridiculous and obvious. Make connections and stick with a method for a while. Then while training a given method go out and about and meet everyone you can. Make sure to include ICMA teachers and ask to grapple or at least do push hands with them.
In time as your skills grow, you can go back out and explore again. In time, deeper methods of how to actually fight with IP and a development of IS will develop your abilities in a more complete manner and deepen your understanding in a way you will never attain in solo work and push hands. Lord knows push hands doesn't cut it.
As far as what "IT" is. I haven't read a single thing from anyone on Aikiweb that even begins to discuss IT in any depth. Don't listen to Mike; don't listen to me or to Ark or Rob as "your source." Information is fine but don't confuse head knowledge with expertise, don't confuse fighting skill with internal power.
As far as confusing information as real skill, or minimul skill as deeper skills- I have met several supposed experts in both the JMA and the ICMA who were anything but experts. I have also read looooong dissertations on ICMA that were fabulous. In one particular case the guy who wrote them- I went to his seminar. I think my wife could take him apart. And he is a lineage holder. I let him keep the money and I walked out. Some people "sound" really good but it may only appear that way.
Get out and find it, then test the information from everyone everywhere. Keep checking information and people out and let your own judgment be your guide. Contrary to the picture that some are painting here, even in the ICMA, there are many debates on developing IP and how to actually use it in conflict.
Check things out, then in years to come -come back here and tell me what you now think "IT" is
Good luck in your training
Dan
Mike Sigman
10-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Nor was Ueshiba speaking definitively. He only knew what he knew. I never once considered him an expert either. I mean being polite and all -Ueshiba's demonstrations aren't even close to a complete compliment of skills; I have seen him sway, be single side weighted, hip driven, among other things. He had a lot of power no question, but there's much more to the complete skills than that.
Anyway, I have always found it amusing to see Ueshiba held up as the pinnacle. I dunno... I'm not partisan for anyone, but I don't see any need for the constant trivializing of Ueshiba and his skills. Surely the topic of IS can be discussed without the constant "Ueshiba" implications or the "I" or "some people" stuff?
FWIW
Mike Sigman
stan baker
10-12-2009, 08:26 AM
In the context of Shu- Ha-Ri who has or had mysterious power
stan
I dunno... I'm not partisan for anyone, but I don't see any need for the constant trivializing of Ueshiba and his skills.
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Neither am I partisan for, or against, anyone. Takeda and Ueshiba are both dead. I have better things to do and I am doing them. Were it to be proved that Ueshiba's skills came from something other than DR aiki- It wouldn't matter to me one bit; I would be discussing that. As it is, the only men with power who appeared in his time were all linked to…Takeda.
It's just the way it is.
To revisit the "supposed" and oft repeated "evolutionary" advancement of aikido over Daito ryu
1. No one in aikido is currently known to have any significant internal skills of the type being discussed here. And no one who has felt IP/ AIKI from men who have them is going to an Aikido teacher to learn these skills.
2. Instead Aikido people are going outside the art to learn aiki.
3. No one in Daito ryu is going to Aikido to find IP/ Aiki are they?
Trivializing Ueshiba
"Trivializing" is a word you attached to my suggestion that there is a more complete use of these skills than in what Ueshiba displayed. Comparisons and critiques are not so simplistic a concept, nor do they always polarize. There is a reason that Ueshiba may have chosen to express the art the way he did. It doesn't mean it's all he had or needed IN ORDER to display the art the way he did, nor does it mean it is trivial; either in concept or execution of that concept.
Then again, the entire framework of the Japanese Aiki arts (both DR and Aikido) is flawed in their approach and the effect on the execution of skills can be limiting. The Japanese arts are hamstrung by the training model of Uke / tori. A model, that will forever prevent the development of those deeper skills.
.... Similarly, a person developing I.S. skills only truly understands from within his personal skills and the grasp of higher skills can be equally blinded from below. A person does not "know I.S."... he only knows up to the level that he can do. Hence Ueshiba was not just talking idly when he discussed how long his journey had been.
I think that explains why you "see" and talk about Ueshiba's skills so highly the way you do, and why I never have. IMO, you see him as "more complete" than he really was; I see him as just another step along the way. I let it go before because it served the purposes of bringing the discussion forward. It's gotten a bit out of hand lately with some of the repeated cautions and suggestions to the community. Pointing out what is missing and then showing them how to do it is as far as I am comfortable with going. I think the decision about just what belongs in aikido and where to get it is best left to those in the art.
We have Ikeda going to Karate, Ledyard to Daito ryu and Systema, others to Koryu. I think they are smart enough to figure things out for themselves without all this "cautioning."
Surely the topic of IS can be discussed without the constant "Ueshiba" implications or the "I" or "some people" stuff?
Not really. No one is willing to discuss details of what they are doing publicly. So we only discuss the visual effects, or the body attributes attained. There are very few doing the work, so the references to "some people," "others" and "I' remain the only reference points in the dialogue.
At this juncture; the work "I" am discussing in the prescribed methods and areas "I" am using it in can only be discussed-by- me. I'm the only one "I" know of who is going in the direction I am heading in. If you can name any other man who has incorporated internal power /aiki (from the aiki arts) into successful testing with ICMA and Koryu adepts with weapons and with out, into twin sticks and other freestyle weapons work, and freestyle fighting in MMA...name him. I'd like to meet him.
The few I have met in the ICMA who actually had something-were more concerned with their tradtional arts. No on the aiki arts I have met has much by way of IP / aiki- and of them -very few are much interested in expressing it outside of their traditional arts either.
I took the next step- to evolve the aiki arts into something more than either DR or Aikido could ever have offered in their present form; IP/ aiki from within the aiki arts- expressed in a manner beyond the staid executions of its forebears; Daito ryu and Aikido into traditonal and modern combatives.
That's my "IT."
And it is something new.
Cheers
Dan
I can't remember to which other country artist he was referring. But I remember when Garth Brooks said, "Whatever "it" is, he has "it." I think Brooks definitely has "it" too. His quote made me think for a little while. I think Aikido is an excellent way to find "it," but as Saotome writes in "Aikido and the Harmony of Nature," "[There are many paths to the top of Fujiyama (Fuji-san), but there is one summit - love]." Shihan's metaphor here has meant a great deal to me for a long time. Therefore I think Aikido training is one of the best routes, but there are people who have never heard of Mt. Fuji or Aikido, who still manage to find "it" in one way or another. Whatever the source of their positive spiritual outlook, a person filled with love and feelings of respect toward his/herself and others can find "it." I know from my experience that it is a narrow road, with people and even natural disasters who/which don't care if they bring you down on either side. I do know this much: anyone who strives to stay on not just the path of good, but the path of feeling good that coincides, can find it if they keep themselves in check when off it, or never leave it in the first place. It takes courage: big time courage, but the fruits of such a labor are as sweet and satisfying as they come.
Drew
Drew
I can't remember to which other country artist he was referring. But I remember when Garth Brooks said, "Whatever "it" is, he has "it." I think Brooks definitely has "it" too. His quote made me think for a little while. I think Aikido is an excellent way to find "it," but as Saotome writes in "Aikido and the Harmony of Nature," "[There are many paths to the top of Fujiyama (Fuji-san), but there is one summit - love]." Shihan's metaphor here has meant a great deal to me for a long time. Therefore I think Aikido training is one of the best routes, but there are people who have never heard of Mt. Fuji or Aikido, who still manage to find "it" in one way or another. Whatever the source of their positive spiritual outlook, a person filled with love and feelings of respect toward his/herself and others can find "it." I know from my experience that it is a narrow road, with people and even natural disasters who/which don't care if they bring you down on either side. I do know this much: anyone who strives to stay on not just the path of good, but the path of feeling good that coincides, can find it if they keep themselves in check when off it, or never leave it in the first place. It takes courage: big time courage, but the fruits of such a labor are as sweet and satisfying as they come.
Drew
Drew
I think perhaps you're confusing your own definition of "it" with the current thread topic of "IT", aka Internal Training. I've yet to find the latter "IT" in any aikido school. This kind of "IT", or Internal Training just isn't there. If you don't believe that, or can't understand that, I would suggest getting your hands on someone who has "aiki", the body skill.
Erick Mead
10-12-2009, 11:02 AM
The argument in hand is very old and the points in dispute remain the same, in every case:
And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking ...
... But I consider that nothing worth speaking of will have been effected by me unless I make you the one witness of my words; nor by you, unless you make me the one witness of yours; no matter about the rest of the world. For there are two ways of refutation, one which is yours and that of the world in general; but mine is of another sort-let us compare them, and see in what they differ.
... Now there is no nobler enquiry, ..., than that which you censure me for making, ... For be assured that if I err in my own conduct I do not err intentionally, but from ignorance. Do not then desist from advising me, now that you have begun, until I have learned clearly what this is which I am to practice, and how I may acquire it. And if you find me assenting to your words, and hereafter not doing that to which I assented, call me "dolt," and deem me unworthy of receiving further instruction.
.... Then I will proceed, and ask whether you also agree with me, and whether you think that I spoke the truth when I further said ... that cookery in my opinion is only an experience, and not an art at all; and that whereas medicine is an art, and attends to the nature and constitution of the patient, and has principles of action and reason in each case, cookery in attending upon pleasure never regards either the nature or reason of that pleasure to which she devotes herself, but goes straight to her end, nor ever considers or calculates anything, but works by experience and routine, and just preserves the recollection of what she has usually done when producing pleasure.
,,, Will not the good man, who says whatever he says with a view to the best, speak with a reference to some standard and not at random; just as all other artists, whether the painter, the builder, the shipwright, or any other look all of them to their own work, and do not select and apply at random what they apply, but strive to give a definite form to it? The artist disposes all things in order, and compels the one part to harmonize and accord with the other part, until he has constructed a regular and systematic whole; and this is true of all artists, and in the same way the trainers and physicians, of whom we spoke before, give order and regularity to the body: do you deny this? .
So, with regard to "What IT is," the (literally) age-old question remains:
Are we interested in cookery -- or art ?
(quote fr. Plato - Gorgias)
Mike Sigman
10-12-2009, 11:07 AM
I think that explains why you "see" and talk about Ueshiba's skills so highly the way you do, and why I never have. Dan, once again.... quit asserting what I think or see unless you have some quotes, rather than guesswork. Show the quotes.
Because Ueshiba was a little shakey when he was in his 80's, don't make broad suppositions about his skills in his prime and assume that you're in a position to judge him. Let's wait and see what you look like in your 80's.
FWIW
Mike Sigman
rroeserr
10-12-2009, 11:30 AM
Then again, the entire framework of the Japanese Aiki arts (both DR and Aikido) is flawed in their approach and the effect on the execution of skills can be limiting. The Japanese arts are hamstrung by the training model of Uke / tori. A model, that will forever prevent the development of those deeper skills.
I don't know...I did Judo for a long time before Aikido. I think there is something to be said for actually learning how to do the technique properly before you do randori. You can have all the IS in the world but if you don't do the technique right you're just one step up from the person that is using conventional strength. And before we get to the 'there is no technique' argument....that only seems to happen after the person has spent the last 20 years practicing techniques.
As far as fighting goes...If the method of transmission of kata wasn't effective at a time when you died if you sucked it would have, well...died out. If it's not working today then people are probably not practicing the kata properly. Giving the fact that 'aiki' is lost/hard to find/hidden in plain sight, it would be not be surprising if the proper execution of kata and the proper uke/tori relationship is lost for most.
I don't know...I did Judo for a long time before Aikido. I think there is something to be said for actually learning how to do the technique properly before you do randori. You can have all the IS in the world but if you don't do the technique right you're just one step up from the person that is using conventional strength. And before we get to the 'there is no technique' argument....that only seems to happen after the person has spent the last 20 years practicing techniques.
As far as fighting goes...If the method of transmission of kata wasn't effective at a time when you died if you sucked it would have, well...died out. If it's not working today then people are probably not practicing the kata properly. Giving the fact that 'aiki' is lost/hard to find/hidden in plain sight, it would be not be surprising if the proper execution of kata and the proper uke/tori relationship is lost for most.
Mr. Roeser
If you want to switch the discussion to normal fighting- then I agree with every thing you wrote. But I am not talking about that aspect of training at all.
That was not my point.
There are deeper levels of using IP/aiki that are never going to be attained without crossing hands with those with IP /aiki who are resisting you with IP/aiki. It can be mild; such as in push hands, or more severe as in grappling. But the critical factor is not in using it all the time with the straights, but rather with those who train IP/Aiki. The reason is that it forces you to have to deal with trained power and skill coming in and going out; with someone who will absorb your force and redirect it and use it back at you. This has not one thing to so with typical dojo work in aikido that I have ever felt or seen. To begin with you do it with someone who has skills of an unusual, or exceptional nature and go up from there with someone who knows what they're doing.
Doing aiki on an uke will never get you there.
Using IP aiki in MMA is much better.
IP to IP is better still.
I have never seen, read about or heard of; Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, Ueshiba, or Hisa doing that.
Which is why their arts look like they do and why their students are limited in their understanding in that way. Both arts had their own perogatives and motives in what they were trying to accomplish. Most of it was based on a traditional approach. There are other ways to train.
There things that are not being said here that some people need to start to take notice to and read between the lines. The reason I keep advocating that aikido teachers start considering what I am saying is that ya'll aren't doing too well when you are finally facing real aiki are you?
Aikido aiki is just not working out to well. There is a deeper level of Japanese aiki that is quite simply handing the senior guys in aikido their collective butts, over and over. If you think its going to get any better with certain Japanese teachers you are in for big surprise The reason is you are never going to learn it the way your teachers told you to practice it. Let's face it -it hasn't worked- and its not going to work. There are better, smarter ways to train "IT" that do work every time and will indeed produce IP/ aiki that functions on a world class level. Plain and simple. I don't blame the teachers. It's not their fault. They're Japanese. Several of the more prominant Japanese teachers have openly admitted to their senior guys that they don't even understand how to teach it any other way. No foul there.
Bear in mind that as we speak there are many aikido teachers who already get it and have seriously altered their training. As most state, they will NEVER go back to training aikido the way they did under their Japanese teachers. This is simply a smarter way to train then the Japanese have discovered or used.
Cheers
Dan
rroeserr
10-14-2009, 12:55 PM
That was not my point.
There are deeper levels of using IP/aiki that are never going to be attained without crossing hands with those with IP /aiki who are resisting you with IP/aiki. It can be mild; such as in push hands, or more severe as in grappling. But the critical factor is not in using it all the time with the straights, but rather with those who train IP/Aiki. The reason is that it forces you to have to deal with trained power and skill coming in and going out; with someone who will absorb your force and redirect it and use it back at you. This has not one thing to so with typical dojo work in aikido that I have ever felt or seen. To begin with you do it with someone who has skills of an unusual, or exceptional nature and go up from there with someone who knows what they're doing.
Doing aiki on an uke will never get you there.
Using IP aiki in MMA is much better.
IP to IP is better still.
I have never seen, read about or heard of; Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, Ueshiba, or Hisa doing that.
Which is why their arts look like they do and why their students are limited in their understanding in that way. Both arts had their own perogatives and motives in what they were trying to accomplish. Most of it was based on a traditional approach. There are other ways to train.
There things that are not being said here that some people need to start to take notice to and read between the lines. The reason I keep advocating that aikido teachers start considering what I am saying is that ya'll aren't doing too well when you are finally facing real aiki are you?
Aikido aiki is just not working out to well. There is a deeper level of Japanese aiki that is quite simply handing the senior guys in aikido their collective butts, over and over. If you think its going to get any better with certain Japanese teachers you are in for big surprise The reason is you are never going to learn it the way your teachers told you to practice it. Let's face it -it hasn't worked- and its not going to work. There are better, smarter ways to train "IT" that do work every time and will indeed produce IP/ aiki that functions on a world class level. Plain and simple. I don't blame the teachers. It's not their fault. They're Japanese. Several of the more prominant Japanese teachers have openly admitted to their senior guys that they don't even understand how to teach it any other way. No foul there.
Bear in mind that as we speak there are many aikido teachers who already get it and have seriously altered their training. As most state, they will NEVER go back to training aikido the way they did under their Japanese teachers. This is simply a smarter way to train then the Japanese have discovered or used.
Cheers
Dan
Hi Dan,
I understood your point - but - I think Randori and kata are two sides of the same coin. This is my understanding of how kata is supposed to work: You start with a semi-compliant person and work your way up to full resistance (which should include aiki). It's very hard to do a technique properly starting off with the person blasting you. I did that in Judo (showed how to fall, briefly shown a couple of throws and turned loose), no desire to do that anymore. I'd like to make sure that I'm precise, and efficient. Further, I don't know how other people do it, but the waza actually has to work, the person just doesn't fall down/dive bunny. After you get decent at the waza (and it becomes habitual) then you do randori. I don't really see what is wrong with that.
I can't comment on what other people do/their ability, only what I'm being taught.
Later,
Robert
mjhacker
10-14-2009, 01:04 PM
There are deeper levels of using IP/aiki that are never going to be attained without crossing hands with those with IP /aiki who are resisting you with IP/aiki.
I hear this argument all the time and find myself wondering... if a person will "never" attain these skills without crossing hands with someone who already has "the stuff," where did "the stuff" come from in the first place? Chicken? Egg? Tengu?
As far as "resisting" goes, Am I correct to assume that you mean "not letting you move as you wish?"
I hear this argument all the time and find myself wondering... if a person will "never" attain these skills without crossing hands with someone who already has "the stuff," where did "the stuff" come from in the first place? Chicken? Egg? Tengu?
No one knows for sure. I think it was an evolution and growth that occurred with those doing the work looking for those who were also doing the work and testing each other-thus neccessity being the other of invention the smart ones kept re-tooling as it were and refined their skiil sets.
As far as "resisting" goes, Am I correct to assume that you mean "not letting you move as you wish?"
I mean fighting. I mean broken bones, black eyes, knockouts and bruises; kicks and punches and set ups for throws with same. Is there another type of resistance I am unaware of?
After that push hands, dojo testing and traditional arts aint much to handle.
Of course that isn't how you learn. You learn solo, then with resistance; very gently-VERY gently with thousands of repetitions, then a slow build up of resistance from someone who has experience and can show success in teaching people. No one -has-to fight, Please understand I am not saying that in the least.However, it should be pointed out that the old guys who developed "IT" were always testing it on others weren't they?
What does it say about those who do "IT" today and are not doing so? I don't begrudge them their own interest, I just get, sick and tired of people down-playing the skill set of fighting with IP/ aiki or trying to reduce it as a side-line issue of lesser worth because they cannot or are uninterested in going there. While it is admittedly a side-line issue it none-the-less is a highly refined skill set. To use IP/ aiki under the stress of MMA is extremely difficult to do and took thousands of hours of failures and experimentation to have developed it. Moreover, it is so rare these days that the men doing that work outside of traditional arts- are few and far between.
I have continuously pointed out-Takeda was an MMA guy, and so was Sagawa, and Ueshiba. Who are we? People content to pick up the scraps from the table and never truly daring to come into our own.
Cheers
Dan
Rob Watson
10-14-2009, 01:51 PM
No one knows for sure. I think it was an evolution ....Dan
Thread hijack alert! Forget what - why is IT?
If aiki is so hard to see, learn, etc then how did it ever come into being? What evolutionary advantage can be gained if the cost is so high? Perhaps a fortuitous development with nothing to do with evolution (spandrels, exaptation anyone?) ... certainly behhoves one to take advantage of such a gift.
I ponder therfore I am ponderous.
mjhacker
10-14-2009, 02:09 PM
Is there another type of resistance I am unaware of?
I would suggest that what many people in Aikido(tm) think when they hear "resistance" is "grab 'em really hard and don't let 'em move."
Ron Tisdale
10-14-2009, 02:51 PM
Resistence in the truest form is he works his sh*t, you work yours, and who ever comes out on top, well, they come out on top.
Best,
Ron
I would suggest that what many people in Aikido(tm) think when they hear "resistance" is "grab 'em really hard and don't let 'em move."
I would suggest that with some training that would no longer be possible. I've not met the Aikido or DR teacher capable of preventing me or some of the guys I have trained from moving. Nor have I seen anything on film to lead me to believe any teacher capable of that feat exists in the Aiki arts. More important though is the reasons why. It isn't about individuals, it's about the development of these skills, about exhaustive research and developing the body to the point that your aiki cannot be stopped, except by profoundly well skilled men.
Where is that type of training to be found?
Where are there people who have a vested interest in making you extremely powerful. And also have an actual methodology and interest in making that happen with a track record to prove it, in relatively short time frames compared to the twenty-year method?
Cheers
Dan
Resistence in the truest form is he works his sh*t, you work yours, and who ever comes out on top, well, they come out on top.
Best,
Ron
Hi Bud
That really doesn't cover it though. The best thing is someone who is better than you challenging your sh*t with his and them being capable of showing you how to handle their sh*t. Then finding teachers with better sh*t!! Otherwise your sh*t remains stagnant and attached to your teachers limits!
Everyone looks as their teacher as woo woo! In examining investment in the Martial arts it better to wait ten years to find a good teacher then spend five with the wrong one.
Some methods to train aiki are just simply superior to others.
Hope to see you soon. I will be in P.A. in Dec and Atlanta in Jan.
Cheers'
Dan
JangChoe
10-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Hi Bud
That really doesn't cover it though. The best thing is someone who is better than you challenging your sh*t with his and them being capable of showing you how to handle their sh*t. Then finding teachers with better sh*t!! Otherwise your sh*t remains stagnant and attached to your teachers limits!
Everyone looks as their teacher as woo woo! In examining investment in the Martial arts it better to wait ten years to find a good teacher then spend five with the wrong one.
Some methods to train aiki are just simply superior to others.
Hope to see you soon. I will be in P.A. in Dec and Atlanta in Jan.
Cheers'
Dan
Hey Dan, I would like to meet you when you're in Atlanta. Me, David Orange, and a couple of other ppl meet occasionally to practice IMA. Hopefully you'll have time to meet and play with us.
Hello
We'll have to talk shoot me a P.M.
I am only interested in a very small group and it's going to be all work, not a dog and pony show. I hate being "that" guy, it's why I eloped. I have my own list of people to talk to first.
I will organize through David.
Dan
David Orange
10-14-2009, 05:09 PM
Hello
We'll have to talk shoot me a P.M.
I am only interested in a very small group and it's going to be all work, not a dog and pony show. I hate being "that" guy, it's why I eloped. I have my own list of people to talk to first.
I will organize through David.
Dan
Dan, it will be my pleasure to pull this together but I did suggest to my small circle (who are all more advanced than I) that they let you know of their interest in joining for that meet-up. Jang, in particular knows Atlanta inside-out and also has a knack for getting good training locations. He's a hard-working man who has a lot of experience with both Mike and Ark and has organized a lot of group trainings over there. You're going to like him.
Thanks.
David
gdandscompserv
10-14-2009, 05:19 PM
Where is that type of training to be found?
Where are there people who have a vested interest in making you extremely powerful. And also have an actual methodology and interest in making that happen with a track record to prove it, in relatively short time frames compared to the twenty-year method?
Cheers
Dan
Dan,
Names and locations would be most appreciated.:D
Ricky
HL1978
10-15-2009, 04:20 PM
What sort of engineering? It has aided mine. My background is in aerodynamics and architectural structure -- hands on applied rather than purely conceptual. My own design-built treehouse, fwiw, survived two direct hit Cat 3 hurricanes, the first of which topped or toppled fifteen mature trees in my yard -- so my structural and dynamic intuition is hardly idle. Shear mechanics, shifting moments and rotations and resonance are my background -- and are key focus of my observation and effort on these topics -- Their neuro-muscular relationship to spinal reflex arcs is a point I have only recently uncovered.
Electrical, took all of the required statics, physics, thermodynamics, materials etc. I spent some time in power distribution, so there is plenty of crossover into the civil engineering side. On the biological side of things, I am a layman with an interest in the subject, nothing more.
I'm also reviewing for the PE exam, so its a nice refresher on a lot of topics I haven't dealt with in 10 years or so. :D
I tend to agree but that is why I've done that. But why should we not seek to visualize the feel according to the proper mechanics ?
edited
It may or may not help you, but that does not mean it is not there.
I know you have flight experience, so the following should relate as well. I am an avid performance driving enthusiast, so I go to the track etc. Most driving schools include a classroom portion where with the aide of middle school level physics they describe what happens to your car when you corner, and what happens when things go wrong.
Calculating the mathematics, or understanding the theory to know when things go correct, or when things go wrong is great, but they don't aide very much while in actual practice. They are quite useful if one's goal is to understand the complex interactions of an object interacting with surrounding objects.
To give an automotive example, recognizing when I have lifted too much off the accelerator pedal causing a spin rather than enough weight transfer to rotate the car so I can make it around the corner faster. Of course if you have the instructor in the car with you, they can can tell the student driver via middle school physics, "oh, the combination of an abrupt weight shift from the rear to the front of the car, coupled with the slip angle for your particular tire, and the reduced contact patch on your outside tyres is going to make you spin right now, time to clutch in and brake hard!"
Or you could simply say as the student is beginning to lift too much, "don't lift." The same applies when developing internal skills, when someone can recognize the sensation of when its right and when its wrong and use the sensation/feedback to develop the skill.
ChrisMoses
10-15-2009, 05:52 PM
Electrical, took all of the required statics, physics, thermodynamics, materials etc. I spent some time in power distribution, so there is plenty of crossover into the civil engineering side. On the biological side of things, I am a layman with an interest in the subject, nothing more.
I'm also reviewing for the PE exam, so its a nice refresher on a lot of topics I haven't dealt with in 10 years or so. :D
BS in Physics with a minor in applied Mathematics, then went back to school with a pre-med focus intending to get into Physical Therapy. Then got offered another IT job and had kids... ;)
I know you have flight experience, so the following should relate as well. I am an avid performance driving enthusiast, so I go to the track etc. Most driving schools include a classroom portion where with the aide of middle school level physics they describe what happens to your car when you corner, and what happens when things go wrong.
Great analogy. I do trackdays on my motorcycle and they run with a similar format. Basic physics so that you have a reason to do what the instructors are telling you and then repeated excursions to the track to try and make your body do it. Very much like the bodyskill stuff I've been working on, you often feel like you are doing a better job than you are and need someone to give you feedback. You also need to get over your body telling you that what you know you ought to do is a VERY BAD IDEA. Our brains are wired to think we are falling after we lean about 15 degrees from vertical. My streetbike tires are good for about 50 degrees of lean once warm and that's not even including the additional center of mass effective lean angle from getting off the bike. That's a long way from where your brain is telling you you're over too far and where you've even gotten near the limit of what you're capable of. You can KNOW this fact, know that you are well within your lean angle limits, you can do the math, trust the calculations, you can even get passed by guys leaned over further, going faster than you are and STILL not be able to get your brain and body to push any more. Theory is great, but it's not a ticket to accomplishment.
Erick Mead
10-15-2009, 10:10 PM
Calculating the mathematics, or understanding the theory to know when things go correct, or when things go wrong is great, but they don't aide very much while in actual practice. They are quite useful if one's goal is to understand the complex interactions of an object interacting with surrounding objects. My goal is quite a bit simpler -- defining images and proper actions of correct physical models. Metaphorical models try to capture "feel" -- perceptive categories. That approach may, but more often, does not, adequately capture the ACTUAL mechanical action occurring. Unlike driving, flying gives one a perspective that is also operative in aikido -- counter-intuitive 3D kinesthetic perceptions that are a feature (not a bug) of the mechanics involved. The result is that a bad metaphor creates a bad image for intuition to operate on. A correct mechanical image allow proper structural intuition to function correctly.
To give an automotive example, recognizing when I have lifted too much off the accelerator pedal causing a spin rather than enough weight transfer to rotate the car so I can make it around the corner faster. Of course if you have the instructor in the car with you, they can can tell the student driver via middle school physics, "oh, the combination of an abrupt weight shift from the rear to the front of the car, coupled with the slip angle for your particular tire, and the reduced contact patch on your outside tyres is going to make you spin right now, time to clutch in and brake hard!" Of course not, but they help immensely in two VERY important ways --
1) They give one a categorical vocabulary to define and understand the error after it occurs and therefore narrow the corrective or misperceived input that caused it
2) They provide ways to envision how to move correctly in novel situations that one has not even encountered yet -- and then train the action in those situations
Or you could simply say as the student is beginning to lift too much, "don't lift." The same applies when developing internal skills, when someone can recognize the sensation of when its right and when its wrong and use the sensation/feedback to develop the skill.I agree. Don't lift - shear. The feel and feedback are great, and to be pursued -- but intuition only works if patterns of action and perception are reflective of a objective template of reality and not the trickier perception of reality.
An airplane in a slip is not turning; but if I blindfolded you, you would swear it was. In a constant rate level turn, blindfolded you would swear the aircraft is not turning; and it is. The action of what we are talking about works, among other things explicitly on extensor and flexor spinal reflexes, almost autonomic in action -- essentially causing the affected body to destabilize itself -- before it is actually structurally compromise, opening it to an unrecoverable departure from stability. The mechanism of applying it is related to the effect created. The possibilities for intuitive misperception are therefore every rich -- reinforcing the need for a correct objective model as a template for our structural intuition.
Erick Mead
10-15-2009, 10:42 PM
You also need to get over your body telling you that what you know you ought to do is a VERY BAD IDEA. Our brains are wired to think we are falling after we lean about 15 degrees from vertical. Only the visual and vestibular systems. Proprioceptive systems are faster, more sensitive and less concerned with positional deviation. Training is necessary to force the body to rely on the most reliable perceptive system in the physical circumstance, and disregard those that are dissonant. In flight, that means disregarding your "seat of the pants" and trusting visual inputs, initially, and then you learn to re configure the dissonant inputs in a special setting.
My streetbike tires are good for about 50 degrees of lean once warm and that's not even including the additional center of mass effective lean angle from getting off the bike. That's a long way from where your brain is telling you you're over too far and where you've even gotten near the limit of what you're capable of. You can KNOW this fact, know that you are well within your lean angle limits, you can do the math, trust the calculations, you can even get passed by guys leaned over further, going faster than you are and STILL not be able to get your brain and body to push any more. Theory is great, but it's not a ticket to accomplishment. But only objective theory will tell you how to ultimately resolve dissonant inputs into the objective framework for action. And you have to depart those limits over and over again to learn how close you can come before corrective is impossible. Until you lay the bike over a few times you will never truly know how far you can trust your perception to take it. For obvious reasons you shouldn't do that at full-speed -- but by all means you MUST take it at low speeds to where the back end starts to go and then correct-- and keep working that that dynamic upward in speed as your perception scales itself to the boundary conditions of the objective performance of the machine. What theory -- and ONLY theory can tell you is how tight a turn and line of entry at a relatively LOW speed you must take to enter the stability boundary you are trying to (safely) explore. Once you begin to learn that departure pattern at various speeds the structural intuition comes into play and predicts a pattern for a speed or entry line you have not yet attempted.
The body is no different. When nikkyo is applied, the body is dropping looking for a stability it has not lost before the mind knows it has happened. When sankyo is applied his body is rising in search of a stability it has not lost-- the minid is a late player in this game. Uke learns oodles from this -- if he is paying attention and has been given the categorical tools to tell him what to note as it occurs. Aikido is both using the proprioceptive mechanisms to sense the opponent's structural state (kokyu tanden ho) and triggering the operative elements of that same system to create destablizing access to enter and then accelerate departure from stability. In action, it is using those same structural systems to move more effectively itself.
vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2012 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited