Direction of Groundpath

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Mike Sigman]

Still, if you use "ground path" and you only have it going one way, you're not doing what I'm doing. And it won't get you to where I'm going, basic exercise or not. Not saying one is bad or wrong, just saying it isn't what I'm doing and I don't think it was how Ueshiba did things. IMO, of course.
Hi Mark:

I'm curious regarding this distinction about "groundpath" and which way it goes. I wasn't aware that there was a direction that it travelled, particularly, since I always thought of it as a connection *between* the ground and the hand. Granted an argument can be made for one direction or the other if you look at classical texts, but you must have something specific in mind.

Could you clarify what it is you're thinking about and give us your opinion on the groundpath, how it works, and so on? Might be a productive discussion.

Thanks.

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

Doesn't groundpath "go" both ways?

You push into the ground on one side and into the "target" with the other?

And doesn't it really go through the center of the body, even when the straight line might be from rear foot through space to front hand? (though I intellectually understand that it can be manifested at any point on the body...)

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

Doesn't groundpath "go" both ways?

Well, I dunno, David. Mark brought up something about people who only have it going in one direction and frankly I wasn't even aware some people thought that. I was trying to get some clarification about this topic of directionality.

If it's a groundpath, I guess it's a path that has the ground on one end of it. All the classical literature I've ever seen mentions "the support of the Earth", but it doesn't mention directions and if there's something I'm missing about directions I was just hoping to get filled in on it before I get too far behind.

Then, on the other hand, there is that traditional Asian perspective to think about in which the dantien/hara is the "center" and the path goes down to the ground from the dantien and up to the hands from the dantien/hara. Or I guess you could go by the old description of "groundpath" (I simply made up the term "groundpath" to indicate any/all of these) which talks about the jin that goes from the feet/ground, is controlled by the waist, and is expressed by the hands. That indicates an upward direction, I guess.

Then, on the third hand, we could do a Statics analysis and see what is happening by looking at a vector system that is in equilibrium and determine the direction of the force vector that is going from the point of contact on Nage to the ground.

These things have all been covered before and I'm always happy to get involved with a good vector analysis, but now I'm confronted with "Groundpaths" (tm) which seem to be travelling in directions somewhat akin to escalators. Boggles the mind. I'm just curious who on earth thinks that and what the rationale is behind it and how Mark himself defines "Groundpath" and how he uses multiple directions. Fascinating information.

Regards,

Mike

[David Orange]

Thanks.

I didn't see the original comment so I don't know the context. But I've come to understand the term (intellectually, at least) in the three ways you describe. Looking for it at all times has really changed the way I think about aikido and tai chi.

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

Thanks.

I didn't see the original comment so I don't know the context. But I've come to understand the term (intellectually, at least) in the three ways you describe. Looking for it at all times has really changed the way I think about aikido and tai chi.
But the groundpath part is only about the yang qi. What about the yin qi? There's so much more to all of this and most of it was figured out very long ago and codified. But this thing of directional groundpaths, which would be "directional yang qi" is something new to me. Maybe Mark can explain it for us.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

But the groundpath part is only about the yang qi. What about the yin qi? There's so much more to all of this and most of it was figured out very long ago and codified.

When I did the spear thrusting as Tim Fong describes in the Spear Thrusting thread, I felt a lot of support in the front side of my body and a lot of rising and going forward along the back and into my arms. Would this be the yin and yang qi? Are you saying the yin qi is not related to the groundpath? In spear thrusting, the groundpath would be rear foot to "spear" tip, wouldn't it? Would yin qi refer to the supporting aspect along the front of the body?

And if the yin qi is not related to groundpath, then the "passive" grounding of force through groundpath is still yang qi? And extending along the groundpath is also yang?

Is yin qi just the body's own support of itself?

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

When I did the spear thrusting as Tim Fong describes in the Spear Thrusting thread, I felt a lot of support in the front side of my body and a lot of rising and going forward along the back and into my arms. Would this be the yin and yang qi? Are you saying the yin qi is not related to the groundpath? In spear thrusting, the groundpath would be rear foot to "spear" tip, wouldn't it? Would yin qi refer to the supporting aspect along the front of the body?

And if the yin qi is not related to groundpath, then the "passive" grounding of force through groundpath is still yang qi? And extending along the groundpath is also yang?

Is yin qi just the body's own support of itself?

Thanks.

DavidI read through Tim's spear post and I didn't see where it had a lot to do with I.S. Qi doesn't have to do so much with the individual muscles like that. Jin you can do with a certain amount of muscle, but the purer the intent the better.

The groundpath from foot to spear tip is correct, as you noted, and that's the main thing I would tell people to focus on: the purity of that groundpath and the most relaxed yet supported body position throughout the thrust.

In terms of the Yin and Yang qi, let's not get too far off topic. I'm interested to see if Mark has some logical support for what he mentioned about directions of groundpath, whatever that is. Maybe I'll learn something new. If so, I'd be foolish to ignore the advice of someone who is knowledgeable.

On the other hand, that applies to everyone when it comes to an art like Aikido, Taiji, etc. Like Tohei's comment, "Where is his ki?", people who don't have ki in an art that is based on ki sort of stand out and the unspoken question is "what were they thinking by not pursuing all the data in the art they supposedly care so much about?". I.e., any of us who don't constantly challenge and seek new pertinent information are showing the limits of our real interest. So I ask questions of anyone who says they have information. Sometimes they do; sometimes they're just posturing. If they really know something, they can explain it. If they don't, they can't.

If you catch me sometime personally, I'll be glad to demonstrate the Yin and Yang aspects, David.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

If you catch me sometime personally, I'll be glad to demonstrate the Yin and Yang aspects, David.

I'm looking forward to it, but I'm afraid it won't be in Atlanta this time.

Thanks and sorry.

David

[Lorel Latorilla]

I read through Tim's spear post and I didn't see where it had a lot to do with I.S. Qi doesn't have to do so much with the individual muscles like that. Jin you can do with a certain amount of muscle, but the purer the intent the better.

The groundpath from foot to spear tip is correct, as you noted, and that's the main thing I would tell people to focus on: the purity of that groundpath and the most relaxed yet supported body position throughout the thrust.

In terms of the Yin and Yang qi, let's not get too far off topic. I'm interested to see if Mark has some logical support for what he mentioned about directions of groundpath, whatever that is. Maybe I'll learn something new. If so, I'd be foolish to ignore the advice of someone who is knowledgeable.

On the other hand, that applies to everyone when it comes to an art like Aikido, Taiji, etc. Like Tohei's comment, "Where is his ki?", people who don't have ki in an art that is based on ki sort of stand out and the unspoken question is "what were they thinking by not pursuing all the data in the art they supposedly care so much about?". I.e., any of us who don't constantly challenge and seek new pertinent information are showing the limits of our real interest. So I ask questions of anyone who says they have information. Sometimes they do; sometimes they're just posturing. If they really know something, they can explain it. If they don't, they can't.

If you catch me sometime personally, I'll be glad to demonstrate the Yin and Yang aspects, David.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

For what it's worth,

I believe Tim's post on the spear was a good example of articulating the 'classical literature' that you always refer to on an anatomical level.

From what I interpret, the spear exercise in the Aunkai curriculum helps, in part, to condition movement from the 'dantien', which refers not to an actual mystical 'sphere' in your stomach, but to a physical 'sensation' that feels like there is a 'sphere' in your stomach. And this is not because I have some kind of fetish for Western styles of nomenclature; considering that I'm a slow learner, referring to physical sensations like the 'dantien' for me is not phenomenologically efficient, especially if I read it online.

Movement in the 'middle' or the 'dantien' will of course involve movement of the muscles around that area and I think Tim has clearly identified those muscles. Not only that, he has shown a way to articulate those muscles using specific body stretching techniques to help the practitioner actually 'feel' the muscles that need to be contracted for movement and thus the condition of the 'dantien'--and he does this as opposed to launching the practitioner into speculation land by describing these physical sensations with classical but nevertheless antiquated terminology.

Unless of course, Tim has pinpointed the wrong muscles or internal conditioning (which is different from but important to the development of internal skill/strength I believe) is really a mystical, magical thing.

In any case
FWIW

Lorel

[Mike Sigman]

Unless of course, Tim has pinpointed the wrong muscles or internal conditioning (which is different from but important to the development of internal skill/strength I believe) is really a mystical, magical thing.
You give two choices, Lorel:

1. Tim has pinpointed the wrong muscles
2. Internal strength is a mystical, magical thing.

The topic of internal strength is larger than just qi and jin, of course, but to keep it succinct let me just say that there is a third option: Tim has missed what the entirety of internal strength actually is. I'm trying to think of something explicative to support that .... ah, OK, how's this comment from Chen Xiaowang:

CXW: The corkscrew strength does not initiate from the foot. It initiates from the trunk of the body; it initiates from the waist, from the kidney area. It transfers down toward the foot, and then it rebounds from the foot back up and on through the body. Don't forget, everything initiates from the waist; it then goes down to the foot and bounces back up from the foot. Otherwise, if you are just using the strength of the foot, it will not be as powerful." The basic thing I'm pointing to is that it is not the muscles (the strength of the foot, in the example), but something else that is the main element to be concerned with.

As I've said a number of times, basic jin is fairly easy to learn, difficult to do "purely"... and yet it's only half of the equation. Yet most people get a little jin here and there, couple it with some normal strength, and ba-da-boom, it's being taught and described as "internal strength". Heck, that's worth a discussion in itself.

Incidentally, I don't want to trivialize the fact that Tim is doing some thinking. That's the right thing to do. I could simply not say anything and let it pass with a smile, but there's a part of me that knows that silence when I know better is sort of a nasty choice. So don't take my comments wrongly. They're meant to be helpful.

Mike Sigman

[Mike Sigman]

Too late to edit my previous post, but let me note that Tim is one of the few people studying internal strength (of various sorts) to lay out a functional discussion of how it's done, the body mechanics, and so on. I applaud that and suggest that if people want to honestly move forward rather than to play games, posting how-to's on at least the basics is the only game in town, as far as the internet is concerned.

2 cents.

Mike Sigman

[Lorel Latorilla]

You give two choices, Lorel:

1. Tim has pinpointed the wrong muscles
2. Internal strength is a mystical, magical thing.

The topic of internal strength is larger than just qi and jin, of course, but to keep it succinct let me just say that there is a third option: Tim has missed what the entirety of internal strength actually is. I'm trying to think of something explicative to support that .... ah, OK, how's this comment from Chen Xiaowang:

The basic thing I'm pointing to is that it is not the muscles (the strength of the foot, in the example), but something else that is the main element to be concerned with.

As I've said a number of times, basic jin is fairly easy to learn, difficult to do "purely"... and yet it's only half of the equation. Yet most people get a little jin here and there, couple it with some normal strength, and ba-da-boom, it's being taught and described as "internal strength". Heck, that's worth a discussion in itself.

Incidentally, I don't want to trivialize the fact that Tim is doing some thinking. That's the right thing to do. I could simply not say anything and let it pass with a smile, but there's a part of me that knows that silence when I know better is sort of a nasty choice. So don't take my comments wrongly. They're meant to be helpful.

Mike Sigman

Hi Mike,

I don't understand what you mean by the fact that Tim has 'missed the entirety of internal strength', when his post clearly informs people how to condition the 'dantien'. Of course, conditioning the dantien is not the end-all be-all of bodyskill, but I figured that it is important to develop it to access those qi/jin skills that you are trying to develop.

"The basic thing I'm pointing to is that it is not the muscles (the strength of the foot, in the example), but something else that is the main element to be concerned with."

Never did I get a sense from Tim's article that the power or movement comes from the strength of the foot, Mike. The information I got was that manipulation of the middle--which I said is what the spear exercise helps to develop--involves contracting the psoas muscles, and also the tilting of the pelvis. Now, using these terms may not seem informative because 'psoas' could look like a hieroglyph to a lay person, and 'tilting the pelvis' may sound weird also. But the great thing is that there are particular body stretching techniques from various disciplines (Rolfing, etc.--Tim gave a link on the Massachussetts stretch which basically helps physically identify the psoas--) that are used to identify the psoas and the pelvic tilt in a real physical way. Don't believe me? Search "psoas stretch" or "pelvic tilting" on youtube. Now, that people can be physically cognizant of these things, they are now informed and can be instructed, like in Tim's article, how to do dantien rotations with particular exercises (in my case, spear thrusting and squatting monkey). I think it's silly to think that we can move the middle without engaging some of the muscles in that area.

So I have a few questions for you Mike:

1) If you think Tim's article had nothing to do with 'internal strength', is it on the basis that you think that conditioning the 'dantien' has nothing to do with it? If not, please answer the following questions:

2) Is Tim wrong in identifying those muscles that help with 'dantien rotation' (side to side, forward to back) and 'dantien condtioning'?
3) If so, can you please describe to us--not in metaphorical terms--which muscles are being contracted, what is being pulled, etc. when we're conditioning the 'dantien'?

Look forward to your reply,

Lorel

[Mike Sigman]

Hi Mike,

I don't understand what you mean by the fact that Tim has 'missed the entirety of internal strength', when his post clearly informs people how to condition the 'dantien'. Of course, conditioning the dantien is not the end-all be-all of bodyskill, but I figured that it is important to develop it to access those qi/jin skills that you are trying to develop.

"The basic thing I'm pointing to is that it is not the muscles (the strength of the foot, in the example), but something else that is the main element to be concerned with."

Never did I get a sense from Tim's article that the power or movement comes from the strength of the foot, Mike. The information I got was that manipulation of the middle--which I said is what the spear exercise helps to develop--involves contracting the psoas muscles, and also the tilting of the pelvis. Now, using these terms may not seem informative because 'psoas' could look like a hieroglyph to a lay person, and 'tilting the pelvis' may sound weird also. But the great thing is that there are particular body stretching techniques from various disciplines (Rolfing, etc.--Tim gave a link on the Massachussetts stretch which basically helps physically identify the psoas--) that are used to identify the psoas and the pelvic tilt in a real physical way. Don't believe me? Search "psoas stretch" or "pelvic tilting" on youtube. Now, that people can be physically cognizant of these things, they are now informed and can be instructed, like in Tim's article, how to do dantien rotations with particular exercises (in my case, spear thrusting and squatting monkey). I think it's silly to think that we can move the middle without engaging some of the muscles in that area.

So I have a few questions for you Mike:

1) If you think Tim's article had nothing to do with 'internal strength', is it on the basis that you think that conditioning the 'dantien' has nothing to do with it? If not, please answer the following questions:

2) Is Tim wrong in identifying those muscles that help with 'dantien rotation' (side to side, forward to back) and 'dantien condtioning'?
3) If so, can you please describe to us--not in metaphorical terms--which muscles are being contracted, what is being pulled, etc. when we're conditioning the 'dantien'?

Look forward to your reply,

Lorel

You're taking the thread off-topic, Lorel. Besides, you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Lorel Latorilla]

You're taking the thread off-topic, Lorel. Besides, you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Whatever, Mike.

See ya

[Mike Sigman]

Whatever, Mike.

See yaYou're welcome. I'll put the answer to your question on the QiJin forum.

Mike Sigman

[Lorel Latorilla]

Hey David,

I suggest you ignore what's being said here and continue with the spear exercise and explore and research and not take people's words for it.

Lorel

[dps]

Stand in a puddle of water and stick your finger in an electric outlet.

This will reveal the body's true path to ground.

David

[mathewjgano]

Hi Mike,
A couple questions:
But the groundpath part is only about the yang qi. What about the yin qi? There's so much more to all of this and most of it was figured out very long ago and codified. But this thing of directional groundpaths, which would be "directional yang qi" is something new to me. Maybe Mark can explain it for us.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

So there is no groundpath usage whatsoever in yin qi/ki development?
Could it be the directional aspects relate to the relative directional traits of "heaven and earth?"
If there is always a bit of yin to yang and vise versa (as I thought I understood the model to show, at any rate), how can we have any "path" that is strictly yin or yang?
My weak guess is that Mark is refering to the sensation of gravity (downward) as the one-directional groundpath (Is that right Mark?).
Thinking of my earlier thoughts about vectors relating to the vertical axis, I can see how any point along the "pathway" wouldn't necessarily pertain to any particular direction, since you have equal and opposite vectors always present, which would seem to make sense (or at least appear to do so to my mind) regarding your remarks about the non-directional quality of groundpath.
I keep struggling with the right wording to describe what I'm trying to convey so I'll leave it as it is and see what I get.
I'd appreciate anything you'd have to throw my way on this!
Take care,
Matt
ps- FWIW, my current mental efforts are to reach up and down (yin and yang qi effort respectively?) at the same time...at some point I begin to feel a kind of balance in which I feel very "floaty," though not in an upward direction...much like a hot air ballon which has attained pressure equalibrium with the air around it, being pushed neither up nor down but resting in between.
Though of course, I'm not even close to knowing anything so...probably just hot air. Still, interesting to contemplate.

Stand in a puddle of water and stick your finger in an electric outlet.

This will reveal the body's true path to ground.
My fingers aren't that small :p And somehow I doubt I would be able to perceive much beyond "bbzzzzzzzt!"

[Mike Sigman]

Hi Mike,
A couple questions:

So there is no groundpath usage whatsoever in yin qi/ki development?
Could it be the directional aspects relate to the relative directional traits of "heaven and earth?"
If there is always a bit of yin to yang and vise versa (as I thought I understood the model to show, at any rate), how can we have any "path" that is strictly yin or yang?
My weak guess is that Mark is refering to the sensation of gravity (downward) as the one-directional groundpath (Is that right Mark?).
Thinking of my earlier thoughts about vectors relating to the vertical axis, I can see how any point along the "pathway" wouldn't necessarily pertain to any particular direction, since you have equal and opposite vectors always present, which would seem to make sense (or at least appear to do so to my mind) regarding your remarks about the non-directional quality of groundpath.
I keep struggling with the right wording to describe what I'm trying to convey so I'll leave it as it is and see what I get.
I'd appreciate anything you'd have to throw my way on this!
Take care,
Matt
ps- my current mental efforts are to reach up and down (yin and yang qi effort respectively?) at the same time...at some point I feel a kind of balance in which I feel very "floaty," though not in an upward direction...much like a hot air ballon which has attained pressure equalibrium with the air around it, being pushed neither up nor down but resting in between.
Though of course, I'm not even close to knowing anything so...probably just hot air. Still, interesting to contemplate.

Some of those are good thoughts, Matt. Let's hold them and see if Mark will expand on the ideas he was floating out loud in another thread.

This kind of discussion reminds me a bit of the old Neijia List. If someone questioned something you posted you either defended it (if the thought was valid) or you couldn't. If you really know something, you can explain it simply... and most things have simple answers at this level of physics. Occam's Razor usually prevails. Either way, someone gets to learn.

On Neijia, assert-and-run never won and it would be good to get technical discussions in AikiWeb on that level to prevail over the "well here's my opinion" sort of stuff. That way everyone learns (at least academically ;) ).

Mike

[David Orange]

On Neijia, assert-and-run never won and it would be good to get technical discussions in AikiWeb on that level to prevail over the "well here's my opinion" sort of stuff. That way everyone learns (at least academically ;) ).

Mike

Tim Fong used to have a good archive link on his blog, as well as your old Internal Strength articles. I got a lot out of reading all that (a lot of the neijia stuff, but not all).

As for direction of groundpath, now I'm thinking that it's primarily down because it is established by the mind/body's direction to the ground, thus, path to the ground or ground path.

Second, according to my fuzzy understanding, you can compress yourself along that groundpath, like a big rubber shock absorber, and third, expand rather forcefully back into the source of the incoming force, along the same path.

So it seems that the groundpath direction is down but it can be used to direct outgoing force along the line where the body has maximum support...

I asked in the spear thrusting thread whether the push starts in the rear foot or in the pelvis. After reading CXW's comments, I thought a little more. When we practice with the bo, we always have someone pushing the other end and we set up the ground path so that we can relax while holding the other guy immobile, letting him push hard into the earth. Once that is established, we know that the push comes into the hips and goes into the ground foot to the earth. Then the question is, where does the push start? If you start with the idea of having a load against you, you can see that the hip then pushes down into the rear foot, which pushes back up with a corkscrew inward spiral to the hips. So that would be consistent with CXW's push coming from the hip to the foot.

I think all of this is sort of "given" in Tim's spear thrusting thread. (I think.) From my experience with Aunkai, the balance of the incoming push and the push from the hip to the foot, with the foot pushing back upward in a corkscrew is basic. In other words, they set up the groundpath first and work with it all the way through the thrust.

But then just how does the hip effect a push into the rear foot?

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

As for direction of groundpath, now I'm thinking that it's primarily down because it is established by the mind/body's direction to the ground, thus, path to the ground or ground path.

Second, according to my fuzzy understanding, you can compress yourself along that groundpath, like a big rubber shock absorber, and third, expand rather forcefully back into the source of the incoming force, along the same path.

So it seems that the groundpath direction is down but it can be used to direct outgoing force along the line where the body has maximum support...

I asked in the spear thrusting thread whether the push starts in the rear foot or in the pelvis. After reading CXW's comments, I thought a little more. When we practice with the bo, we always have someone pushing the other end and we set up the ground path so that we can relax while holding the other guy immobile, letting him push hard into the earth. Once that is established, we know that the push comes into the hips and goes into the ground foot to the earth. Then the question is, where does the push start? If you start with the idea of having a load against you, you can see that the hip then pushes down into the rear foot, which pushes back up with a corkscrew inward spiral to the hips. So that would be consistent with CXW's push coming from the hip to the foot.

I think all of this is sort of "given" in Tim's spear thrusting thread. (I think.) From my experience with Aunkai, the balance of the incoming push and the push from the hip to the foot, with the foot pushing back upward in a corkscrew is basic. In other words, they set up the groundpath first and work with it all the way through the thrust.

But then just how does the hip effect a push into the rear foot?
Well, even though I've exaggerated things in the classical manner, you need to take the below aspect into focus when you're talking about "groundpaths" and direction. Still, the picture should give you an idea why a linear description of groundpath/kokyu/jin can lead you off into a questionable direction. A linear representation of groundpath is actually only an incremental look at the vector-resultants:
http://www.neijia.com/push1.jpg

Is a groundpath up or down? Suppose, in a static situation, the guy is pushing the elephant: is the push up or down? Look at the picture and imagine that the elephant is resting backward (but everything is static) onto the man's hand: is the push up or down? ;)

BTW... isn't that an interesting pattern to the collision of lines at the guy's middle?

FWIW

Mike

[David Orange]

As for direction of groundpath, now I'm thinking that it's primarily down because it is established by the mind/body's direction to the ground, thus, path to the ground or ground path.

I meant to say that groundpath is established by the mind/body's directing an incoming force into the ground. It's the "path to the ground" or more specifically, the direct path to the ground.

So maybe this makes more sense:

Second, according to my fuzzy understanding, you can compress yourself along that groundpath, like a big rubber shock absorber, and third, expand rather forcefully back into the source of the incoming force, along the same path.

Clearer?

So it seems that the groundpath direction is down but it can be used to direct outgoing force along the line where the body has maximum support...

That should be a reasonable point by now.

...we can relax while holding the other guy immobile, letting him push hard into the earth. Once that is established, we know that the push comes into the hips and goes into the ground foot to the earth. Then the question is, where does the push start?

Read that like this:

...we can relax while holding the other guy immobile, letting him push hard into the earth. Once that is established, we know that his push comes into our hips and goes into the ground foot to the earth. Then the question is, where does our push start? (i.e., in the hips/center/dantian or in the rear foot?)


If you start with the idea of having a load against you, you can see that the hip then pushes down into the rear foot, which pushes back up with a corkscrew inward spiral to the hips. So that would be consistent with CXW's push coming from the hip to the foot.

I mean to say that if you do this thinking only of holding a staff or spear and thrusting the air, it's very different than starting with someone pushing the other end of the stick. So we have to think of already being in a stance with a load against us which we have grounded into the rear foot. If that is established, the foot is already being pushed into the earth by the incoming load and all we have there is "stasis" or balance of forces. So the next move has to be considered "the first move" and CXW tells us that that movement is from the dantian, generating force, first toward the foot...and then the foot sends that power back up to the center to be passed on to the hands. And that's very easy if the small rotation of the spine drives the cross of the arms and the extension of the back leg continues to add to the movement (while still grounding the incoming force, such as it is by that point).


I think all of this is sort of "given" in Tim's spear thrusting thread. (I think.) From my experience with Aunkai, the balance of the incoming push and the push from the hip to the foot, with the foot pushing back upward in a corkscrew is basic. In other words, they set up the groundpath first and work with it all the way through the thrust.

And I hope that all I have said above supports that (and that it's consistent with what Aunkai intends..


But then just how does the hip effect a push into the rear foot?


I hope that becomes clearer now and I guess the real question is how the dantian moves to effect the issuance of power.

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

BTW, CXW's comment is about something far outside the scope of anything you've heard on this forum or at any workshop you've been to. My point is that the discussion about groundpaths (that was from Mark) or the psoas (or other muscles, because dantien movement is far more complex than that) ... both of those topics can simplify a general discussion, but in terms of training the body and the dantien those perspectives can lead you far off the mark.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

Well, even though I've exaggerated things in the classical manner, you need to take the below aspect into focus when you're talking about "groundpaths" and direction. Still, the picture should give you an idea why a linear description of groundpath/kokyu/jin can lead you off into a questionable direction.

And I think that's something of what Mark was talking about because Dan works with the idea of complementary up-and-down spirals in both arms, both legs and the the body, where intent is not only going both in and out at the same time (infinitely) but is doing so in spirals.

A linear representation of groundpath is actually only an incremental look at the vector-resultants:

Yes, although we can draw a line from rear foot to point of contact, even through empty space, the path of force has to be through the nine crooked paths, doesn't it?

Is a groundpath up or down? Suppose, in a static situation, the guy is pushing the elephant: is the push up or down? Look at the picture and imagine that the elephant is resting backward (but everything is static) onto the man's hand: is the push up or down? ;)

I think this was what you wanted me to say when we were discussing the unbendable arm a long time ago. It's not just done with the arm, of course, but with an extension of the whole body. So it goes both ways.

BTW... isn't that an interesting pattern to the collision of lines at the guy's middle?

It's like a reel, isn't it? Haven't you discussed using the center with a kind of reeling motion? And wouldn't that reeling be happening in all directions (side to side as well as up and down)? And doesn't the big question remain "How do you do that?"

Thanks.

David

[Mike Sigman]

And I think that's something of what Mark was talking about because Dan works with the idea of complementary up-and-down spirals in both arms, both legs and the the body, where intent is not only going both in and out at the same time (infinitely) but is doing so in spirals. Well, now we're going from a look at vector-resultant jin/kokyu forces to something that is spiralling up and down the limbs. If that's true, we should be able to discuss what it is that is spiralling. It can't be intent; that's pretty easy to establish. So what is it that is spiralling? Spiralling from where? All at the same time? Sounds like some sort of mixed up idea of directional-jin/kokyu, but somehow something else is being substituted for the intent-driven jin/kokyu. So what would that be? That would be my original question.... "how does it work?". I.e., WHAT is spiralling?

If it's a true perspective it can be explained physically. However, in terms of everything I can think of in terms of ki, kokyu, hara, and traditional explanations, none of this rings a bell. And believe it or not, the traditional perspective doesn't misconstrue our physics, it just explains it using a different concept. So I understand how ki, kokyu, hara, etc., work in terms of traditional perspective and somehow we have an intermingling of ideas and terms that is confusing.

It's like a reel, isn't it? Haven't you discussed using the center with a kind of reeling motion? And wouldn't that reeling be happening in all directions (side to side as well as up and down)? And doesn't the big question remain "How do you do that?"


Old version of Yin-Yang symbol:
http://www.neijia.com/OldSpiralTaiji.jpg

New version of Yin-Yang symbol:
http://www.neijia.com/NewTaijiSymbol.jpg

M.

[dps]

My fingers aren't that small :p And somehow I doubt I would be able to perceive much beyond "bbzzzzzzzt!"

dps:)

[David Orange]

Well, now we're going from a look at vector-resultant jin/kokyu forces to something that is spiralling up and down the limbs. If that's true, we should be able to discuss what it is that is spiralling.

Unfortunately, I know very little about it and I'm just mentioning it from a possibly erroneous memory of Dan's posting about it. But I think Mark has mentioned it as well. I'm really more familiar with Aunkai stuff and I only have a toddler's understanding of that. :(

And thanks for the interesting yin/yang.

David

[Erick Mead]

If that's true, we should be able to discuss what it is that is spiralling. It can't be intent; that's pretty easy to establish. So what is it that is spiralling? Spiralling from where? All at the same time? Sounds like some sort of mixed up idea of directional-jin/kokyu, but somehow something else is being substituted for the intent-driven jin/kokyu. So what would that be? That would be my original question.... "how does it work?". I.e., WHAT is spiralling?

If it's a true perspective it can be explained physically.

M.

... More things, Horatio. ... What it is, is spiralling in 90 deg. offset opposing spirals -- torsional shear stress, a potential which when released creates an unlevered action that the mind learns to lead and then to drive -- like surfing.

This:

Old version of Yin-Yang symbol:
http://www.neijia.com/OldSpiralTaiji.jpg

-- is just the plan (top-down) view of the spiral stress depicted this:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=509&d=1215185239

All shears cause rotation or rotational stress -- torsion. Shear stress in torsion in a cylinder (like the torso or limbs) is composed of a simultaneous compression spiral at right angles to a equal magnitude tension spiral -- and the stresses are maximal at the surface and diminishes to zero at the center -- which is what the old version of the diagram shows.

[Mike Sigman]

What it is, is spiralling in 90 deg. offset opposing spirals -- torsional shear stress, a potential which when released creates an unlevered action that the mind learns to lead and then to drive -- like surfing.

Spiralling of what? You're talking about shear-forces and if someone has got spiralling forces running simultaneously in different directions on their body, I would love to know how it's done. The guy pushing the elephant's butt can't push the elephant into the truck at the same time that he's pulling it out. If someone is going to talk about "six directions", spiralling isn't it, as would be obvious to the most casual observer; those are the opposing directions of the 3 Cartesian planes, x, y, and z.... those I can set up antagonistically, but not spirals.

So we're not talking forces (which is what you need to set up your unremitting "shear")... then *what* is spiralling in different directions?

And seriously... see how productive it is to hash these things out on a forum so that receptive students are sold an explanation that won't hold water?

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Erick Mead]

Spiralling of what? You're talking about shear-forces and if someone has got spiralling forces running simultaneously in different directions on their body, I would love to know how it's done. That is exactly what I am saying because that is exactly what shear IS. Look at the shear stress diagram on the cylinder. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=509&d=1215185239

Torsion (thus, spirally oriented) on the cylinder creates shear stress on the square element depicted. It is being squashed in compression in one diagonal axis (relative to the axis of the twist) and stretched in tension on the complementary (90 deg.) axis. These define two spiral of equal and opposite stress that run spirally through every element of the cylinder. These three axes also give you your "six directions" -- FWIW.

Conversely, adopting this stress profile in the body creates torsion (rotation) in the whole structure. The compressive stress profile runs from hand to opposite foot and vice versa for the tension (stretching) profile.

If coordinated they create rotational dynamics in anything connected to one's structure, and the nature of the thing makes it capable of reversing action and stress instantaneously and continuously, unless you block the action from occurring.

The guy pushing the elephant's butt can't push the elephant into the truck at the same time that he's pulling it out. Hm. With just two hands you can put a 1200 pound horse on the ground using this precise principle....

I'll leave the elephants to you ... :D

[Mike Sigman]

That is exactly what I am saying because that is exactly what shear IS. Look at the shear stress diagram on the cylinder. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=509&d=1215185239

Erick, you are assuming that because something is spiralling, in the original statement, it is forces. That is not clear because it was not explicitly stated as forces. So my question is "what is spiralling?". Until that is answered, shearing forces is looking for a nail when you are a hammer. Whenever someone asks me a questions nowadays that I don't know the answer to, I always say, "It is either angular momentum or shearing forces." Inside joke. ;)

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Erick Mead]

Erick, you are assuming that because something is spiralling, in the original statement, it is forces. No. Stresses, not forces. Moments before movement. That is not clear because it was not explicitly stated as forces. So my question is "what is spiralling?". Not forces. Stresses. We only perceive the stress. Until a force results in stress we do not perceive it. I can put you in a airplane and do a constant 1g loop and you will have rotated 360 deg. vertically and if your eyes were closed you would not have known it, becuse the stresses in your body were constant.

Opposing unaligned forces in a structure create shear, and create a potential for rotation between them. Holding those forces from creating movement causes torsional shears, which when released cause movement. The stresses can be imposed externally by outside forces, or generated by the body holding a configuration internally without any external load, or the combination of the two.
Forces can result from release (relaxation) of the stresses to actuate movement, or -- when external forces are applied, they can be USED to develop these stresses in this configuration, so as to then apply them.

An applied compression (push), IF received in the compression spiral can be released by an extension in the tension spiral, without pushing back and simply compounding the compression. That seemingly unrelated release creates an imbalance of stresses in the pusher, resulting in a rotation which compromises balance or an uncompensated moment which reduces the force of the push.

If I apply it along the critical shear line in the other guy so as NOT to create the perception of stress changes, I get free rotations and loss of balance -- the source of which is difficult for him to locate, like trying to say when the plane is upside down in the loop with your eyes closed.

Until that is answered, shearing forces is looking for a nail when you are a hammer. Whenever someone asks me a questions nowadays that I don't know the answer to, I always say, "It is either angular momentum or shearing forces." Inside joke. ;)
Since they are both aspects of the same thing, I am glad we both appreciate such self-deprecating humor. ;)

[Mike Sigman]

No. Stresses, not forces. Moments before movement. Not forces. Stresses. One last time, Erick. Here is what was said by David: And I think that's something of what Mark was talking about because Dan works with the idea of complementary up-and-down spirals in both arms, both legs and the the body, where intent is not only going both in and out at the same time (infinitely) but is doing so in spirals. There is nothing specified for what is being spiralled. You are assuming forces or stressors, but since nothing was specified I'm not going to make that assumption. If I had to guess, the answer is going to be "intent"... but I understand intent very well and that won't work. If someone had mentioned anything that agreed with your assumptions, I would be following that track, but you're applying stresses out of whole-cloth when nothing said confirms it.
Since they are both aspects of the same thing, I am glad we both appreciate such self-deprecating humor. ;)Sure and they're both aspects of super-string theory and quantum mechanics, too. And all of those things are so vague and all-encompassing that even if it were true it would tell us nothing.

I had someone tell me recently that internal strength is a by-product of bio-mechanical tensegrity. The problem is that so much of everything can be viewed as tensegrity structures (body fat cells, houses, airplanes, you name it) that applying the label of "tensegrity structure" is nothing more than cool-speak and tells us absolutely nothing. So insisting on applying the term "tensegrity" to everything is a distraction from progress, not a help.

The original question was directions of groundpath. Up, down, whatever. Regardless of what groundpath actually is, it is set up by mind intent affecting the alignment process in the body. A person can set up antagonistic directions, but I'm willing to bet that there are some real variations in how to do it. Maybe I can learn something, maybe not. But I asked the specifics.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[dps]

So my question is "what is spiralling?".
FWIW

Mike Sigman The components of the body including the muscles, the bones, the facia.

David

[Mike Sigman]

The components of the body including the muscles, the bones, the fascia.
Well, someone just p.m.'ed me that it is "energy" that is spiralling. In the technical sense, it cannot be actual energy (where does it originate from, where does it get power from, how does it work that you can control "energy", etc.). In the idiomatic sense, energy boils down to certain feelings, mostly subjective. Maybe the sorts of things that someone is imagining, as opposed to something that is tangibly happening. Regardless, it's always a positive thing to question "what's really going on here?".

As an aside, I've had a number of discussions in which people indicate someone can do something, but they can't really explain it in terms of western-science terminology. Great.... but imagine how much more you could do if you actually knew exactly what was happening and you could describe it.

I watched some videos of one well-known teacher doing some interesting demonstrations while completely failing to describe what he was actually doing (his English wasn't so good, but still good enough). Watching the demonstrations I had the impression that the teacher was shown how to do some of these things, but hadn't quite thought through everything that was happening. If he had, he would have been able to spot some further things to do *plus* he could have taught his students how to do these basic kokyu things. It's imperative to analyse and investigate, to talk (think) out loud with like-minded fellows.

In terms of muscle, bones, and fascia being what is 'spiralling', I'll quote something Chen Xiaowang said to me about another but related topic: "If it was that simple, why would experts make such a big deal out of it?". ;)

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Erick Mead]

Well, someone just p.m.'ed me that it is "energy" that is spiralling. In the technical sense, it cannot be actual energy (where does it originate from, where does it get power from, how does it work that you can control "energy", etc.).
In one sense I agree, there is no mystery "energy" involved. Yet in another sense, I do not agree. Stress is a potential of mechanical energy, stored in the material of the structure itself and directly transmitted by it.

Shear stress, with or without torsion, is a simultaneous composite potential of both compressive and tensile mechanical forces that do not cancel each other out -- which is hard for most people to envision -- much less to sense in a discriminating manner so as to manipulate them separately. Hence we get various diagrams and much verbiage and various approaches to training attempting to understand them.

The first indisputable observation is that shear stresses in a cylindrical structure in torsion form complementary spirals of coherent but opposite stresses - both tensile and compressive. When you load the cylinder in torsion, it retracts on its long axis; and when you unload it from this stressed profile, it extends.

Your body is a set of connected cylinders, made up of bones, muscles and fascia, from core to surface. The fascia are the outermost structural fiber of the limb and therefore have the highest effective structural shear load, which is at the surface of the cylinder. If you engage them, they can do more to resist (and store) torsional shear energy than muscles or bones can do. Indeed you can use your bones and muscles to create these loads isometrically, and release them to strike or actuate the body in other ways. Tegatana and asagao are the traditional terms that describe the two inverse torsional stress profiles in the arms, for instance.

The second indisputable observation is that shear stresses can be transmitted by waves of purely local motion, which receive and invert these stresses sequentially. A wave in water or air alternately compresses (peak) and then stretches (trough). Spirals and waves are mathematically equivalent, and waves can take form in a plane, or a surface, in a bulk mass (as with sound waves), or in spirals of torsion.

A chain of links transmits such mechanical energy in the same fashion. The limbs are chains of bones. A linked chain cannot be passively compressed, yet one can strike quite devastatingly using a unfurling chain as with a punch to deliver the "ground path" without any compressive forces developing in the chain at all. Properly done, the ball or dart is not merely 'thrown' with a fixed momentum but actually accelerates in its travel toward the target after release, as any true whip does. How does your 'ground path' approach explain the chain whip or meteor ball straight strike? The only "ground path" is in explicit tension.

The second observation combined with the first applies to the "no inch punch" -- just starting from the poised static stress profile instead of the completely dynamic one, as with the chain whip. This is perfectly sound physics, and my approach makes this both comprehensible and more generally applicable. The first and the second observation involve slightly different aspects of angular momentum in motion and stored moments/shear/torsion in potential.

[Mike Sigman]

Erick, I don't disagree with your discussion about torsional stresses and what they are, no more than I disagree with what tensegrity is and how it could be applied in a general way to the human structure. If tensegrity holds true (and it does, *in a general sense*), then by default so do torsional and shear stressors... in a general way. But it's true only in a descriptive sense, not explicatively. As a matter of fact, the whole qi paradigm is actually explicative... it's failing lies in that it is not predictive and hence Scientific Method stumbles at that point. So I say in response to you, yes there are usages of shearing and other forces involved in human movement... but what does that tell us about how to do it and so on?

But to get back once again to the point I made.... Mark Murray has not clarified the question about directions, so at this moment we're just speculatively dissecting his opinion of how things work. Maybe he can explain his comment about directions and we can have an even more productive discussion. Maybe what he said was just an offhand opinion that he's later reconsidered and isn't able to defend logically. Who knows?

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[dps]

"If it was that simple, why would experts make such a big deal out of it?". ;)

Mike Sigman

A few examples;

1. It is the tendency of people to over complicate things and think beyond the evidence in their search for understanding.

2. Making an explanation of how something works more complicated can be a means of hiding how something works.

3. Making an explanation on how something works more complicated makes an expert conveniently necessary.



The fluid that the body is mostly made up of is not water. It is a non-newtonian fluid that has the properties of both a solid and and a liquid depending of how quickly forces are applied to it. The slower a force is applied the more like a liquid the fluid behaves like. The faster a force is applied to it the more like a solid it acts like. These forces can be external like a poke or a punch or internal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5SGiwS5L6I

[David Orange]

In one sense I agree, there is no mystery "energy" involved. Yet in another sense, I do not agree. Stress is a potential of mechanical energy, stored in the material of the structure itself and directly transmitted by it.

Erick,

The biggest problem I have with your posts is that while they describe something in nature, I've never seen you relate these things in any practical way to the level of human interaction.

You do describe how shear forces affect a structure but you have never (that I've seen) described 1) how you are able to make yourself immune to these forces or 2) how you are able exploit them in another person.

Those are the only two vital topics in this discussion and without addressing those, we might as well attribute everything to "karma" or "the weather" or "the way things are."

The idea that most people in these discussions are working on is how to eliminate these potential shears throughout our own structure and how to direct our energies to collapse or repel the attacker's structure. All the wave-line diagrams are useless unless you can show what you do with your body (which bones, which muscles, etc.) to eliminate shear in yourself and be able to apply force that exploits the shear potential in the other guy.

Without that, it's all abstract intellectualism and has no interest for people who are actually trying to use the principles.

Best wishes.

David

[Mike Sigman]

A few examples;

1. It is the tendency of people to over complicate things and think beyond the evidence in their search for understanding.

2. Making an explanation of how something works more complicated can be a means of hiding how something works.

3. Making an explanation on how something works more complicated makes an expert conveniently necessary.

The fluid that the body is mostly made up of is not water. It is a non-newtonian fluid that has the properties of both a solid and and a liquid depending of how quickly forces are applied to it. The slower a force is applied the more like a liquid the fluid behaves like. The faster a force is applied to it the more like a solid it acts like. These forces can be external like a poke or a punch or internal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5SGiwS5L6I

David, in the case of spiralling, it's generally something more sophisticated than just twisting the limbs.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Erick Mead]

Erick,

The biggest problem I have with your posts is that while they describe something in nature, I've never seen you relate these things in any practical way to the level of human interaction.

You do describe how shear forces affect a structure but you have never (that I've seen) described 1) how you are able to make yourself immune to these forces or 2) how you are able exploit them in another person.

Those are the only two vital topics in this discussion and without addressing those, we might as well attribute everything to "karma" or "the weather" or "the way things are."

The idea that most people in these discussions are working on is how to eliminate these potential shears throughout our own structure and how to direct our energies to collapse or repel the attacker's structure. I know that, and my conclusion as to what is mechanically going on leads to the secondary conclusion that you are doing things in ways that make sense but according to explanations or descriptions that cut against your declared training goals. As to your numbered points:

1) You CANNOT eliminate them, any more than you can eliminate waves in the ocean. They are too great a part of what makes a bipedal creature work and work efficiently. You can find the dynamic balance where the neutral line lies, like the bicycle or the surfboard -- but it is never trivially stable. You must USE them both explicitly in others and internally in yourself --and they are not different in uses or perception in either case. If I understand how my own leg truly moves when I walk with minimal conscious "intent" I can make my opponent's leg move also -- and by the same means. The body moves in this way according to the principles illustrated in the kokyu undo, most particularly, happo (or zengo) undo, funatori undo, ude furi, and tekubi furi.

2) Your second point is a question that betrays our fundamental crosstalk. You are looking for a set of defined problem events with determined solutions; I am looking at a set of problems that have a common operation in their solutions -- all of which are to me indeterminate in result before executing it. Diffy-q to your linear quadratics -- Takemusu -- pick a label. I can tell you what shape the solution will take -- in fact I have -- but not its actual path or the number of iterations of the operative process that will arrive at that solution.

All the wave-line diagrams are useless unless you can show what you do with your body (which bones, which muscles, etc.) to eliminate shear in yourself and be able to apply force that exploits the shear potential in the other guy.

Without that, it's all abstract intellectualism and has no interest for people who are actually trying to use the principles.

Your third criticism is simply misplaced given what I am actually doing. I am not using abstractions but concretes -- accurate diagrams of perceptible physical conditions, and mechanically admissible physical examples of common experience. These are used to illustrate concrete shapes of dynamics --which can be perceived. I keep a length of chain in the dojo to demonstrate some of them -- does that sound like "intellectualism"?

I show students how, when a throw is begun in kuzushi -- the static balance sphere is plainly overcome but that while flat on the feet is more statically stable, using the applied shear of the throw itself to throw the heels forward first results in a far greater dynamic range of the balance sphere, and even kaeshiwaza if applied properly. It only works because I use the shear applied to the body to shear other parts of my body to absorb some of the shear and be able to convert the rest to advantage without conscious (and slow) intermediation. Physics is faster than neurology. Does that sound "impractical" to you ?

The diagrammed principles show how that action in the body works in slightly simplified form (and allow a mental image of its action or "intent" if you will) that can can be more readily and more correctly modelled in practice. Moreover, I strive always to relate them to the traditional modes of description -- which are not usually wrong at all, just terribly ad hoc in their approach to modelling. My third Dan MJER companion compare notes on the prescritpive forms of their sword bunkai, and my arriving at explanations ( with extendable conclusions) as to why the traditional form is illustrated in that way. It vitalizes their practice and keeps the forms from becoming dead repetition, as there are recognizable reasons for what is prescribed once this set of observations is applied.

I use what I speak of. Tolerably well, I am told. I am not seeking to win converts or disciples -- I just want to get closer to truth in all respects. This is truth as far as it goes, and I'll be the first to say I have farther to take it yet.

[Erick Mead]

David, in the case of spiralling, it's generally something more sophisticated than just twisting the limbs.

FWIW

Mike SigmanSee, now we do agree about something... :D

[Erick Mead]

The fluid that the body is mostly made up of is not water. It is a non-newtonian fluid that has the properties of both a solid and and a liquid depending of how quickly forces are applied to it. The slower a force is applied the more like a liquid the fluid behaves like. The faster a force is applied to it the more like a solid it acts like. These forces can be external like a poke or a punch or internal. And see -- we agree on something as well. The "force" you refer to is actually shear. It is defined as such in regard to this very behavior of such fluids: Non-newtonian fluids such as cornstarch suspensions are called "shear- thickening" and its inverse is called thixotropic or shear-thinning (slightly different, those last two), and an example of that is quicksand, or earthquake liquefaction of the earth.

Tekubifuri and furitama are simple exercises in applying and perceiving whole body cyclic shears at critical higher frequencies to learn this range of behaviors in the body. They are explcitly related to the lower frequency behaviors of funetori or udefuri etc. The latter are exercises in "applied thixotropy." Seriously. :D

Or, if you prefer, you can call them as O Sensei did -- "The demon snake and the spirit of bees."

[Mike Sigman]

I let it pass before, but I hate to see this one expand on the basis of an incorrect observation. The body is *not* a fluid. It may be largely water, but water is a fluid and the fluid within a body is compartmentalized mainly into a great number of cells containing fluid/water. The body may, to a limited extent, resemble a non-Newtonian fluid but it is not a fluid. The cornstarch-in-suspension is a consistent fluid; the body is not. I.e., the statements describing the body as a non-Newtonian fluid and the attendant shears seem to flounder a bit.

That being said, the body can admittedly do some funky tricks with fluid pressure. I don't recommend the one shown in this video, but there are some clues in it. This type of training is considered to be "hard qigong" training/conditioning. But remember that someone related an anecdote on this forum about 4-5 years ago about something similar that Tohei did with his arm:

http://www.neijia.com/JingWuMen.flv

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Walter Martindale]

I let it pass before, but I hate to see this one expand on the basis of an incorrect observation. The body is *not* a fluid. It may be largely water, but water is a fluid and the fluid within a body is compartmentalized mainly into a great number of cells containing fluid/water. The body may, to a limited extent, resemble a non-Newtonian fluid but it is not a fluid. The cornstarch-in-suspension is a consistent fluid; the body is not. I.e., the statements describing the body as a non-Newtonian fluid and the attendant shears seem to flounder a bit.

That being said, the body can admittedly do some funky tricks with fluid pressure. I don't recommend the one shown in this video, but there are some clues in it. This type of training is considered to be "hard qigong" training/conditioning. But remember that someone related an anecdote on this forum about 4-5 years ago about something similar that Tohei did with his arm:

http://www.neijia.com/JingWuMen.flv

FWIW

Mike Sigman
Well, I downloaded a 13 mb flash vid file that my Mac wouldn't play...

People are mostly water, and as mentioned above, not a non-Newtonian fluid. We're a bunch of plasma, cells, and tissues (made up of cells) the water is a (largely) saline solution.
I have a question about the corn starch pseudo solid... What happens when it's hit by, say, a 200 grain piece of lead travelling at 780 fps? If you hit a human with that, a hole and wound channel form and a bunch of plasma, platelets, red cells and other stuff leaks out.
I think this spirals stuff is primarily an interpretation of the concept that you keep the work in your "centre" and not off to the sides, and you try to make the motions relatively circular. However, there's a lot of bilge that gets blabbed in the guise of science - but that doesn't make it science... There's a lot of really neat science out there, but not all of it can be generalized to the human condition.

There could be physical/biomechanical explanations for a lot of what happens in Aikido, but not in the "touchless" stuff that some do - that's usually damage avoidance by uke, or in some cases, pure charlatan...

What stops people from doing in-depth biomechanics research into what actually happens in aikido techniques is - money... A biomechanics lab with a force-platform big enough to do any meaningful measurement, synched to a system of cameras capable of being frame-synched and having high shutter speeds, working with two people, computing the information in 3 dimensions is rather an immense task, takes money to fund the research, and, frankly, because it don't win the world series, super bowl, or the F1 constructors title, ain't gonna have the money spent on it. Well, not any time soon.. (and then there's ukemi on a force platform - ouch....) What's a force platform? Long ago when I worked in a biomechanics lab, we had a 300x600 mm Kistler force platform - back in 1979 when the professor bought the Kistler, and all of the charge amplifiers and other electronic gear, it was called a $40,000 bathroom scale. >30 years later, I doubt they're much cheaper...

W

[Erick Mead]

People are mostly water, and as mentioned above, not a non-Newtonian fluid. We're a bunch of plasma, cells, and tissues (made up of cells) the water is a (largely) saline solution. Ground matter in tissue is far more than just saline, but I am not sure how far that issue really goes -- there are simpler structural aspects that carry most of problem.

I have a question about the corn starch pseudo solid... What happens when it's hit by, say, a 200 grain piece of lead travelling at 780 fps? If you hit a human with that, a hole and wound channel form and a bunch of plasma, platelets, red cells and other stuff leaks out. A good question, but since ballistic gelatin stops a ~7.62 mm battle rifle round inside of 24 inches, I suspect similar performance -- and the fact of a temporary but relatively large wound cavity indicates shear resistance by the tissue as high shear is what causes most cavitation in fluids.

I think this spirals stuff is primarily an interpretation of the concept that you keep the work in your "centre" and not off to the sides, and you try to make the motions relatively circular. However, there's a lot of bilge that gets blabbed in the guise of science - but that doesn't make it science...
What stops people from doing in-depth biomechanics research into what actually happens in aikido techniques is - money... A biomechanics lab with a force-platform big enough to do any meaningful measurement, synched to a system of cameras capable of being frame-synched and having high shutter speeds, working with two people, computing the information in 3 dimensions is rather an immense task, takes money to fund the research, and, frankly, because it don't win the world series, super bowl, or the F1 constructors title, ain't gonna have the money spent on it. Well, not any time soon..
WBeen done in terms of taichi and fajin striking -- and talked about here already, actually. I certainly acknowledge the relation to our principles in that art.

http://ucbprogram.com/node/24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN88QIsMHqA

Some take away quotes: (1st hypothesis deals with ground path) "[he] applies to the ground a force of 2,200 newtons and a torque of 11,000 newton-meters" the caption noting that this is a force 3 times body weight --but a torque 16 times body weight x meters" -- and allowing that these measure are available to apply to the target.

I will leave it to you to determine the predominating element magnifying that impact.

(2d Hypothesis deals with the sequential rotations of his lower body, hips, shoulders and arms): "Master Chen optimizes momentum transfer into the target by translating the angular momentum of his hips and shoulders into the linear momentum of his striking hand." The graph at 1:50 shows that the sequence of peak angular velocity (starting with his left foot step) goes left foot - pelvis - right foot - shoulders - hand. The peak floor reaction at the delivery of the strike by the hand.

This is a progressive torque shear wave. If it were whole-body extension at once by some other mechanism there would be no definable peaks of action at different times .

That leads to their 3d hypothesis which deals with the concentration of momentum into the impulse at the moment of strike.

This is mechanically the same as a folded chain falling with one end held by a hook. It comes into maximum tension as it reaches the limits of its fall from its point of suspension. The end of the chain accelerates downward FASTER than gravity because of the conservation of angular momentum in each successively shorter ( (thus lighter) length of moving links as it falls requires each shorter length to move faster -- just like a whip.

The same mechanism is in evidence with the fajin strike, using his body weight and the earth as his compressive anchor to deliver a strike in extreme accelerating tension. Only torsional shear combines those forces in a multiplicative way.

Mike's consideration of ground path is correct on both of our proposed mechanisms -- but its role in a shear-dominated action is different from that of a reactive linear force action, and the data above strongly suggest the torque shears dominate the mechanism of transfer.

FWIW.

"The spirit of bees" in furitama and tekubifuri is a different application of the same principle seen in fajin -- to actuate reflexive elements in the body that are highly sensitive to the destructive power of torque shears as a protective mechanism -- thus catastrophically buckling the structural capacity of balance by a combination of purely mechanical peak shear actions and bio-mechanical reflex reactions by the target.

The slower more undulating mechanisms, the "demon snake" (seen in funatori, ude furi, zengo undo etc.) do this slowly with a more constant level cyclic shear that results in a "softening of the joints" to better effectuate the transfer of shears through the body. This eventually allows one to actually sense the dislocations of those shears in the connected opponent, through the same kinesthetic mechanisms in our own bodies (golgi tendon organs and gamma motor neurons) that trigger the reflexes that the higher frequency actions exploit in the target body.

[David Orange]

1) You CANNOT eliminate them, any more than you can eliminate waves in the ocean.

Maybe I should have said that the goal is to present oneself in such a way that no opponent can access the shear potential in one's own structure. That is, so that no push finds purchase in distorting your posture or moving your feet but encounters direct contact with solid ground on touch. Most of what you describe also sounds like it takes a good bit of movement, too, instead of some of the fundamental unmoving skills such as described in the baseline skills thread and the spear thrusting thread. Your graphs then could be time sketches of an ordinary aikido technique. And it does not follow that they relate to IS development.

So the goal of IS as I read it is to use the strength of the earth through postural management to prevent an opponent from accessing one's physical shear potential while using this non-shearing presentation to feed the attacking power back into the opponent's own shear points.

But how is that done?

Tim Fong has put himself on the line with his thread on spear thrusting, attempting exact physical descriptions of what he understands Ark to be teaching. And Mike, Dan and Rob have done the same with voluminous descriptions of what they physically do to achieve effects "like" you describe. However, some of them have said that your descriptions don't relate to what they actually do.

You've said you can do anything Mike can do on tape and that you can do various things that Ark does. But you've never met either of them (or Rob or Dan) and you've never experienced what their power really feels like. Are you sure you're doing anything on the magnitude of what they do?

The lack of real description of physical work methods and the way you deal with Dan are not indicative to me of the kind of fearless spirit I would expect in a black belt martial artist with internal power development, so that's where you lose some credibility with me. If you want to talk about Martial Valor, the first element is the willingness to step up. Without that fundamental, the rest is just form.

The body moves in this way according to the principles illustrated in the kokyu undo, most particularly, happo (or zengo) undo, funatori undo, ude furi, and tekubi furi.

However, very few people attribute these movements with developing power like Mike, Dan, Ark and Rob. So is there something different in the way you do these movements that has given you ability like Mike, Dan, Ark and Rob?

2) Your second point is a question that betrays our fundamental crosstalk. You are looking for a set of defined problem events with determined solutions;

I'm not looking for a set of anything. Just give me one example in physical terms of using your arms, legs, center and head. What do you do in the basic aikido exercises that gives you internal powers when it doesn't do that for most people?

Your third criticism is simply misplaced given what I am actually doing. I am not using abstractions but concretes -- accurate diagrams of perceptible physical conditions, and mechanically admissible physical examples of common experience.

And I'm sure an engineer could build a doozy of a bridge or an apartment building or something out of those diagrams, but common experience? Why do you think so many people (who have encountered the power of people like Dan, Ark, Rob and Mike) tell you these descriptions are irrelevant to their experience?

These are used to illustrate concrete shapes of dynamics --which can be perceived. I keep a length of chain in the dojo to demonstrate some of them -- does that sound like "intellectualism"?

But how do you keep your own whip energy from rebounding back into your own body? Ark can do that to you.

I show students how, when a throw is begun in kuzushi -- the static balance sphere is plainly overcome but that while flat on the feet is more statically stable, using the applied shear of the throw itself to throw the heels forward first results in a far greater dynamic range of the balance sphere, and even kaeshiwaza if applied properly.

If that paragraph is not sheared thinking, it's definitely fractured writing.

It only works because I use the shear applied to the body to shear other parts of my body to absorb some of the shear and be able to convert the rest to advantage without conscious (and slow) intermediation. Physics is faster than neurology. Does that sound "impractical" to you ?

It sounds like you're using a lot of mechanical analysis to describe some stuff that anyone might experience in aikido training but few would bother to wind it up like that because there doesn't seem to be any real applicability and the intricacies are thus pointless.

And to get specific: "I use the shear applied to the body to shear other parts of my body to absorb some of the shear and be able to convert the rest to advantage without conscious (and slow) intermediation" sounds like a sort of braced-together homemade attempt at IS based on gyroscopics. I say "braced-together" because it does not strike me at all as the kind of thing I experienced with Dan and Ark, but it does sound like a kind of description of what I have encountered in many, many "mainstream" aikido dojos I've visited. Real internal skill can be applied without stepping or much movement at all. I don't think your descriptions are approaching that kind of thing.

[QUOTE=Erick Mead;271708I use what I speak of. Tolerably well, I am told. I am not seeking to win converts or disciples -- I just want to get closer to truth in all respects. This is truth as far as it goes, and I'll be the first to say I have farther to take it yet.[/QUOTE]

The only place you need to be taking anything is to the next seminar available from Dan, Mike or Ark if you want any credibility on this subject. You say you can do what Ark does. I say, "Just go and feel it." Then I'll be glad to hear what you say about IS.

David

[Erick Mead]

So the goal of IS as I read it is to use the strength of the earth through postural management to prevent an opponent from accessing one's physical shear potential while using this non-shearing presentation to feed the attacking power back into the opponent's own shear points.

But how is that done? The earth has no strength -- it has mass. It is done -- well, let me simplify. A push in the training scenario is almost always slightly eccentric, and can be made more so. An eccentric push produces a torque and that produces either twisting movement or stress in the spirals I mentioned, which are therefore equivalent and mutually convertible. Say the push is slightly eccentric to my right side.

Most people would say you just push back. So now two cylinders are pushing one another at a slight angle and whoever's cylinder is angled in line closer toward the center of its support against the push will push the other one over. Nothing IS in that at all.

Now one pushes the other -- leaning its weight to push -- but the trained IS cylinder now responds differently. It softens and allows its whole structure to be torqued while remaining upright-- resulting in either turning movement or spiral stresses. The movement is easiest to understand. The push becomes more tangential as the induced turn increases and thus less effective as a push, It also increases the effective torquing lever arm on the body increasing the turn rate, . Eventually, it becomes completely tangent and pushes on nothing and between that and the acceleration of the push by the induced turn -- kuzushi occurs

The more interesting case is the stress. Instead of turning you let the body absorb the torque by developing torsional shear in the whole body. If you hold that isometrically and let the push go away and the stress is left, you can use that to actuate the body - punching kicking walking, whatever, But with the push still on you have two lines of stress to address. Many people would still want to reduce the push with a counter push using the applied torque directly . That just tests the material limits of your body.

The spooky thing is instead of pushing back on the compressing spiral (right arm to left foot) you can stretch on the tension spiral (left arm to right foot) and the compressive stress is also relieved, and you have not moved on the compressive line at all. You hold the push isometrically at this point. It betrays nothing, but in effect the push has just become tangent to the stress spirals, and because the ground path of the push is no longer continuous you are free remove the isometric support reaction to the push and without a compensating reaction it goes into kuzushi.

You've said you can do anything Mike can do on tape and that you can do various things that Ark does. But you've never met either of them (or Rob or Dan) and you've never experienced what their power really feels like. Are you sure you're doing anything on the magnitude of what they do?
... is there something different in the way you do these movements that has given you ability like Mike, Dan, Ark and Rob?Is there a measure of magnitude we can reference? I seriously doubt there is a lot of difference though surely some different areas of relative development - and it would not trouble me a bit to know they were all "better faster stronger" than me. I don't seek to compete with them or anyone, nor am I soliciting junkets.

Is that a valid measure -- to want Or the fact that people want to imitate? Is there imitation along any measure that does not ultimately become a source of competition, conflict and rivalry? This one did -- and I did not even seek it. That is a dangerous thing (http://dumont.typepad.com/publications/Mimesis_Jean-Baptiste_Dumont.pdf).

Lorel's recent thread is an interesting recognition of the imitation/rivalry problem, perhaps, and its inherent antagonisms that arise.To me, it's like the country cousin come to town to talk to the fine thoroughbred horse breeders who look askance at his paperless sheep-cutter. Whatever distinctions they are making -- are nothing to do with the horses. Any hope of validation for me here would have long since been seen a fool's errand. I really just like chatting about the horses... and I am not interested in anybody's horseraces.

I'm not looking for a set of anything. Just give me one example in physical terms of using your arms, legs, center and head. What do you do in [your basic] exercises that gives you internal powers when it doesn't do that for most people?
I am not sure that they all agree on what constitutes"internal powers." But barring that, what did you have in mind as an example that would interest you? I'm game.

Why do you think so many people (who have encountered the power of people like Dan, Ark, Rob and Mike) tell you these descriptions are irrelevant to their experience?
Because they did not learn it this way? I expect they are loyal to their way of learning. I don't fault that or claim any exclusivity. I just now see where the mechanics actually are, and as such SOME FEW things they brought along in the baggage are perhaps misleading in the images they suggest that run counter to the mechanics or are used in ways that could be better tied to the mechanics -- as I showed with the old TaiJi diagram Mike brought up. It is right, it is not necessarily rightly understood.


But how do you keep your own whip energy from rebounding back into your own body? Ark can do that to you. Simply by making sure it goes into the target.

Real internal skill can be applied without stepping or much movement at all. I don't think your descriptions are approaching that kind of thing. If I move my feet much any more it is for the sake of the exercise.

[David Orange]

Quote (David Orange):
But how do you keep your own whip energy from rebounding back into your own body? Ark can do that to you.

Simply by making sure it goes into the target.
If I move my feet much any more it is for the sake of the exercise.

OK. Let's say you whip your energy up into a light socket.

That's about what we're talking about when we discuss "hitting" Ark.

And that's what's sad about reading your responses. You clearly have no conception of what you're talking about when you say you just make sure your whip energy goes into the target (ARK).

You don't know that when you put your whip energy out, he sends LIGHTNING back. And I'll tell you, when he does that, your feet will leave the ground and it won't be for exercise' sake.

See, ARK can absorb whatever whip energy you give him and he will rebound ten times that back into your system.

It's clear that you do not understand the basic premise being discussed but you are determined to interject your "explanations" into every discussion where they are not warranted.

I will take you off IGNORE when you send me a PM telling me you have actually put hands on Ark, Dan or Mike.

But if you keep up the aspersions on Dan's character under the mantle of your superior "Martial Virtue," I will put you back.

So now you go on Ignore. Let me know when you put hands on someone who understands this discussion and I'll take you off.

David

[Erick Mead]

Quote (David Orange):
You don't know that when you put your whip energy out, he sends LIGHTNING back. And I'll tell you, when he does that, your feet will leave the ground and it won't be for exercise' sake.
...
I will take you off IGNORE when you send me a PM telling me you have actually put hands on Ark, Dan or Mike.
What if I say the same things, basically? I don't know why I am responding since you are not listening but how is this different from sticking fingers in one's ears and saying "shiutupshutupshutpshutup ..." ? What if I altered my observations in ways that still don't agree in all points with their respective takes (which have value) on the issue.

If YOU don't know what he is doing with the mechanics of his body, to accomplish what impresses you with his power -- how can you dismiss the possibility that I may know even a little something about how that might work -- just because I studied the human body carefully -- the same as he has. I don't have to be like him or match him in development of physical power to grasp the means by which it is done and to understand and deploy some aspects of it according to my lights. I claim difference, and you see it as a claim of equality or superiority -- when it is just a claim of difference.

More or less powerful I don't know, and it doesn't really matter to the advancement of my understanding that I submit to be duly humbled in the manner you suggest so that I be properly respectful. Maybe I would be humbly and deeply appreciative of being shown the error of my ways -- maybe I would just nod and shrug. It does not matter to me how it would turn out, as I'd learn something either way, I just don't feel a burning need that overcomes my other responsibilities that keep me mostly home.

But somehow it does matter to you, and that is why it is not my problem. I'll offer advice you won't listen to. You are caught in a mimetic trap. You find yourself unable to be as much like them as you wish, and you disdain anyone who takes a non-imitative approach, as though that devalued the models you seek to imitate. The secret is that to exceed them you must ultimately be nothing like them -- you cannot really ever be just like them, and to try diminishes you and your genuinely unique gifts and perspectives.

Me, I think everyone has something to offer me to learn, and if I don't see it yet I have not looked hard enough. Just because I can find things from other people that I find worth looking into on my own, does not mean I need those people to explore those things, Just imitating them means I will always be a paler version of them -- or else a threat to their preeminence if I actually succeed-- which is not healthy for anyone. It also means I will prejudge superiority or inferiority as to a worthy model to imitate before I have even seen what value it may actually have.

I'll miss stuff if I insist on only the best sources or nothing for my lessons. Some lessons are given only once by teachers who don't declare themselves, and we might miss it while being too busy looking for more "worthy" models to merely imitate. It is a cause of real problems in human culture and personal psychology, and no one, myself included, is completely immune.

Bottom line, they are doing useful things -- and all somewhat or even quite a bit different from one another -- I am doing other useful things, differently yet, and six people doing the same exact thing does not advance much in the way of their collective understanding.

Sharing our differing observations in places such as these does, and I will genuinely miss yours.