Restart on Jin/kokyu and "Spiraling"

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Mike Sigman]

I'm bringing over a blog I made on the AikiBlog that pretty much lays out the linearity of jin. Dan Harden has stated that jin is not linear. Grounds for a factual discussion/rebuttal by Dan.

In terms of the assertions about "Spiraling" that were included in Dan's statement on the Elbow Power thread and contrued as part of the jin comment, I'd add a question that starts at this point: "What 'energy' is being spiraled?" If something is being spiraled, fine, but it's not actually 'energy' as physically defined; so what is being 'spiraled' and how does that function as linear jin without being linear jin?

The ancient texts and various writings, commentary and codifications about internal strength start out with the idea of Heaven as a source of power, the Earth as a source of power, and many having his own ability and "qi" with which to utilize and combine the qi of Heaven and the Qi of Earth. The "Superior Man" (as the classics say) will use the power of Earth and Heaven to provide as much of his needs and strength as possible. I.e, the "superior man" doesn't use brute strength, he uses qi in its varying format.

The Qi of Earth provides the support of the ground for us to use in place of strength and it provides the weight of an object (downweight) to do work that requires down forces. Said slighty differently, the earth provides forces upward from the surface and it provides forces downward due to weight. Both of these functions indicate that generally speaking, the Qi of Earth is mostly a description of Gravity. In a number of both Chinese and Japanese martial-arts styles, you'll see this reference to Gravity (Kuroda Tetsuzan hands out a flier to beginning students describing the importance of "gravity").

Up and Down, Open and Close, Yin-Yang, etc., are all dichotomies explaining the basic body's function in relation to Gravity. To "Open" is to expand and inhale, with the joints naturally winding openward... the strength of the solidity of the ground is expanded upward and outward; To "Close" is to exhale while the body sink and the joints wind inward... the weight of gravity is in assist. Moves of power that accompany this natural cycle of movement are augments because of the combination of forces.

There are generally 4 basic forces that a human can manage and manipulate using the solidity of the ground and the downweight:
Up, Down, Away from the Body, and Toward the Body. In Taijiquan, those four forces which utilize gravity and the solidity of the earth are called "Peng", "An", "Ji", and "Lu". Using the body to manipulate Up and Down powers, 4 powers can be arrived at and from those 4 directions of power, power can be made in any direction as the mind wills changes within the body to help aim the forces that come from ground-support and gravitic-weight (this is what "intent" means).

The supporting force from the ground is a straight-line force and so is the force from gravity. You can vector add these forces, but you can't curve them.

Movement in varying directions (lets' say moving one arm in a large circle) with the forces derived from groundsupport (let's call it the 'groundpath') and weight-force ('downweight') involves training the body and the mind to work together so that trhe clearest-possible forces of Up, Down, Away from the body and Toward the body are being conveyed to the hand/arm. This can be verified with feel. There is no true "winding" or "circular" until the body learns how to do this and does it with the aid of the dantien controlling the body.

2 cents. If this seems helpful to some people, I'll try to add onto as I can. Comments and critiques welcome *about the facts of the issue*, but if one of the usual suspects begins a personal attack, no more posts on the topic and other areas of internal strength.


Regards,

Mike Sigman

[JW]

Here's my comment/question from the other thread. The language of this post refers to whether or not there is disagreement about straight vs curved, and is not in reference to the blog post pasted above.

OK I want to get to the bottom of this 'spiralling' issue but I have yet to even be convinced that there is a true disagreement in the first place:

Two people could argue about the color of a cloudless noon sky-- not because of any difference of experience, but because of word choice. How am I supposed to know if one of you is wrong about the color of the sky? (Of course, go look at it with you, but I don't think we've really hit the limits of a net forum yet).

Case in point, "linear." Dan and Mike both disagree with the idea of a foot, belly, and hand needing to be colinear. But still there's arguing.

Mike's words:

Generally, the power from the ground goes up the legs to hips and dantien and then the shortest path to the point of application.
(http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=289353&postcount=43)
So Mike, you have described (in this very simple example) 2 line segments, (possibly 3 if we count a segment between hip and dantain) which are not necessarily colinear with each other. In fact those segments are anchored to certain points of the body in this description, meaning one could really put severe angles between them by moving into a certain shape. So for all this "linear" talk, you have in fact described:
-a series of connected line segments
-segments having end positions that are contingent on body shape

In essence: a force percept that can project linearly through the air while also being constrained (in some locations) to follow the shape of the body. The shape of the body is agreed to be curvy: we all agree that the human body wants to express spirals, as revealed in either relaxed movement:
[quote isn't working-- in the "what kind of spiraling does aikido have" thread, Mike points out that Ueshiba emphasized relaxation, a condition in which the qi naturally spirals]

Or in high-stakes sports:

[quote isn't working-- in the "what kind of spiraling does aikido have" thread, it was pointed out that in tennis, it is advised to pay attention to the spirals of the body's movement]

So even if this has nothing to do with chansijin, we have curves that describe movement of the body, and a force percept that tends to follow the body. In other words I can see how "linear" can sound wrong and in essence be pretty reasonable. If the human body moves in spirals when used most efficiently, and the body is made to cleanly express the ground's push continuously throughout a movement.. I am not sure what the argument is anymore. Of course a force has only one magnitude and one direction. So it is "linear." But how you use it is constrained by the way the body moves (in a spiralling shape).

I think the basis for the disagreement is not coming through in the words here.

[Mike Sigman]

Hi Jonathan:

Well, those are good points so let me try to re-state while keeping in mind that my focus was on the linearity. I tried to save time, but yes, let's get down to finer detail.

First of all, the real point is that there is a linear aspect of jin that goes from the dantien to the opponent. That's the main point. In many cases and many styles people deliberately hold the elbow down so that there is a clear channel from dantien to elbow to hand because it assists in the conveyance of the force (less stress on the joints).

In terms of the lines from the ground, I had a choice in terms of physics: I could say that the ground powers the dantien (the hip part is there, but let's simplify) and the movement of the dantien is the main power of the jin that connects with the opponent. OR I could say that the body as a whole works as a singular frame (this perspective is also a valid viewpoint) and the actual jin is a vector resultant that starts somewere below the dantien. Either way it's stated, though, there is a *linear* force on the opponent: that's just basic "jin", which I've actually heard native Chinese describe as a 'force vector'.

'Spiraling' may or may not affect the *power* of the jin, depending upon how it's done, but whatever effects spiraling may have they are apart from the core jin itself. The jin is a linear force.

Is that clearer?

Mike Sigman

[JW]

And now my reply to the blog post itself. I like this presentation of "ki of earth" and how it is used in the body. But, Mike, isn't this a new interpretation of the terminology?
We got into this a bit on another thread:
Here (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=288529&postcount=29) I tried to point out why I feel like your current explanation is different from what you used to say. If you've changed your point of view, that's fine with me. I don't think it invalidates anything you did before or anything. I think it just means you are changing your mental framework. One can change frame of reference without that being a reflection on the expression of the subject matter itself. I hope you see it that way too.

To sum up, the body should be used to channel the "universal" forces (meaning they don't come from our volition, but from the universe's own apparent volition) of weight and grf into its movements. Internal pressure from the breath can be used to do this. If that sentence is correct, then that internal correctness is a separate point from whether or not I assign grf to "earth" and weight to "heaven" as you did on the judoforum post or if I call both of the m "earth" as you have in the above blog post. In other words how I describe what I do in my own words carries weight and is important, even if how I register my concepts to the "classics" is also an important, separate point.

[JW]

Hi Mike, much clearer-- in fact I would personally prefer this:

OR I could say that the body as a whole works as a singular frame (this perspective is also a valid viewpoint) and the actual jin is a vector resultant that starts somewere below the dantien.
Mike Sigman

My impression based on my own sensation: any force (like the resultant force from the combination of several forces) has a single magnitude and direction, thus is said to be linear. However, to continually manifest a coherent, controllable resultant force from the whole body's (and partners') contributions, one should pay attention to the curves of the body's articulation.

[Mike Sigman]

And now my reply to the blog post itself. I like this presentation of "ki of earth" and how it is used in the body. But, Mike, isn't this a new interpretation of the terminology? Yeah, it's a change in the terminology because for years I was just focused on "how is it done" and didn't get too worried about the complex cosmology (which can go into such detail that it confuses rather than helps). What happened was that I finally got interested in more precise terminology because of something that came up in relation to the meaning of "qi" in acupuncture. Then I started looking harder, clarified the distinction, and made a post on QiJin noting the change in terminology. Not function; just terminology.
To sum up, the body should be used to channel the "universal" forces (meaning they don't come from our volition, but from the universe's own apparent volition) of weight and grf into its movements. Internal pressure from the breath can be used to do this. If that sentence is correct, then that internal correctness is a separate point from whether or not I assign grf to "earth" and weight to "heaven" as you did on the judoforum post or if I call both of the m "earth" as you have in the above blog post. In other words how I describe what I do in my own words carries weight and is important, even if how I register my concepts to the "classics" is also an important, separate point.You probably should start a different thread since we're veering off topic. The main point to remember in the Qi of Earth idea is that the desirable thing to do is to use gravity and ground-support instead of muscular strength. Gravity and ground-support forces go in straight lines. Period.

FWIW

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

Hi Mike, much clearer-- in fact I would personally prefer this:

My impression based on my own sensation: any force (like the resultant force from the combination of several forces) has a single magnitude and direction, thus is said to be linear. However, to continually manifest a coherent, controllable resultant force from the whole body's (and partners') contributions, one should pay attention to the curves of the body's articulation.

Well, no one should pay attention to "the curves of the body's articulation"; you pay attention to the results and let the body do the rest, for the most part. When you push open a door do you "pay attention to the curves of the body's articulation"? No, you're more in tune with the feedback and linear force that it takes to push the door. You could arch, twist, etc., in a number of ways while you're pushing open the door, but wouldn't it be true to say that the main thing of importance is that you used a linear force from you to the door (whether a stiff-armed normal push or a push from the dantien)?

Mike

[JW]

At this point I don't care if "heaven" is breath, air pressure, gravity, or whatever-- the main point is not changed: "the desirable thing to do is to use gravity and ground-support instead of muscular strength." So I won't pursue another thread myself.

But I do want to say one thing. I am sure some will write me off for my "one direction, one magnitude" phrasing. I stand by it, but let me emphasize that in terms of motor commands and application, I would never suggest things like "a groundpath only has one direction of force." To touch a person "with the ground" goes hand in hand with receiving, so yes of course it is a 2-way street.

[JW]

Well, no one should pay attention to "the curves of the body's articulation"; you pay attention to the results and let the body do the rest, for the most part.

OK good point. I mean "allow the body to do what it wants/needs." This is something that most of us are NOT doing unless we start trying to unlearn stupid, rigid habits.

[Mike Sigman]

But I do want to say one thing. I am sure some will write me off for my "one direction, one magnitude" phrasing. I stand by it, but let me emphasize that in terms of motor commands and application, I would never suggest things like "a groundpath only has one direction of force." To touch a person "with the ground" goes hand in hand with receiving, so yes of course it is a 2-way street.

Imagine a ball suspended in the air (via imaginary antigravity) and you push it with jin. If the ball goe backward, a linear force was applied, fairly undoubtedly. If someone wants to posit that the ball went backward because of the tangential effect of angular momentum caused by "contradictory spirals", I'm happy to listen.

Mike Sigman

[Mike Sigman]

Imagine a ball suspended in the air (via imaginary antigravity) and you push it with jin. If the ball goe backward, a linear force was applied, fairly undoubtedly. If someone wants to posit that the ball went backward because of the tangential effect of angular momentum caused by "contradictory spirals", I'm happy to listen.

Mike Sigman

On second thought, Jonathan, simply look at "Open" and "Close" (one based on the support of the ground and one on gravity). or look at the jin forces of Peng, Lu, Ji, An. A person trying to pick the flyspecks out of pepper could try to argue "angular momentum" about anything, but those forces as seen in any Statics text are going to be shown as vectors coming from the body. The question isn't whether you raised your big toe when you generarted a force, the question is what kind of force are you generating. In this case it's linear.

Mike

[Dave de Vos]

This is what I know about forces:

A force has

a direction,
a magnitude
a point of application (which associates a work line with the force)


External forces on a human body involved in some interaction with another human body include are gravity, friction of the ground, the surface normal force of the ground and one or more forces applied by the other human body.

These forces have different directions, magnitudes and points of application. Even when the net force vector on the body is zero, so that the center of gravity remains stationary, the forces would still put stress on the body, compressing or stretching it.

When work lines of opposing forces don't coincide (like the friction of the ground and a horizontal push from the other human), the forces would apply a torque to the body, which could result in torsion and/or rotation of the body, even when its center of gravity remains stationary.

In short:
A force is linear (it has a work line). When it's work line does not go through the center of gravity of the body that the force applies to, it also generates a torque around its center of gravity.

Then spiralling. What does that mean? In my understanding it describes some motion trajectory.

The shape of a trajectory can be very different from the direction of forces. For instance, the moon orbits the earth in a circle by gravity pulling it straight to earth and with mechanisms like joints you can get all kinds of motion trajectories, even though forces are always linear.

So I don't understand how linearity of forces and spiralling motion would contradict each other.

[Mike Sigman]

This is what I know about forces:

A force has

a direction,
a magnitude
a point of application (which associates a work line with the force)


External forces on a human body involved in some interaction with another human body include are gravity, friction of the ground, the surface normal force of the ground and one or more forces applied by the other human body.

These forces have different directions, magnitudes and points of application. Even when the net force vector on the body is zero, so that the center of gravity remains stationary, the forces would still put stress on the body, compressing or stretching it.

When work lines of opposing forces don't coincide (like the friction of the ground and a horizontal push from the other human), the forces would apply a torque to the body, which could result in torsion and/or rotation of the body, even when its center of gravity remains stationary.

In short:
A force is linear (it has a work line). When it's work line does not go through the center of gravity of the body that the force applies to, it also generates a torque around its center of gravity.

Then spiralling. What does that mean? In my understanding it describes some motion trajectory.

The shape of a trajectory can be very different from the direction of forces. For instance, the moon orbits the earth in a circle by gravity pulling it straight to earth and with mechanisms like joints you can get all kinds of motion trajectories, even though forces are always linear.

So I don't understand how linearity of forces and spiralling motion would contradict each other.Hi Dave:

Sure, that sort of restates my comment that you can lift your big toe when you push someone, but the push is still linear. Jin is linear no matter what you do in your body; gravity (for all practical purposes in this discussion) linearly holds the moon to the Earth.

If Ikeda Sensei demonstrates the effects of jin in methods that mainly say "connect the body, move the dantien, but not "connect the body and then perform spirals", people need to grasp the clue: the essential relationship between moving the Uke and moving the dantien is linear. There are a lot more ramifications to all this than the simple topic in this discussion, but I'll start a different thread to cover the most important one when I get a chance.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[JW]

Well I sure don't have any disagreement with what you've said, Mike. But, that by itself doesn't mean that I disagree with anyone else in particular. I don't get Erick Mead's angular momentum descriptions, but lots of people don't get them... that's the only thing that comes to mind that I can't get behind. The reason I don't get turned off by "spiral" talk in general is that, per the above discussion, I still would agree with any kind of statements like:

When one purifies the body, one begins to move according to natural spirals that are byproducts of our human body plan. This pure or simplified movement can transmit extrinisc forces like the grf throughout the body continuously, without interruption or loss of fidelity.

As a beginner, I should remain open to things I can't do, and for all I know that includes things like chansijin as well as having these spirals of the body take on a more deterministic influence on the directions of force my body tends to prefer to produce.
But I am open to learning any points of view that my body doesn't tell me are bad..

[oisin bourke]

winding what? Could you please define just how you are using the term jin as it compares/relates/contrasts to Japanese terminology. This is, after all, a Japanese martial art. Others have said that they don't know what you mean by jin. And we have seen cross talk because people define words differently. Otherwise, you could be talking about something completely and utterly different than what we, as readers, are thinking. For example, internal spirals work within any shape that the body holds. So, your "winding jin" must not be the same thing. Sounds like something very different from your Chinese background than what Ueshiba was doing.

This is, after all, a Japanese martial art. It really doesn't sound like you're talking about the same kinds of skills and abilities in regards to Ueshiba's aiki.



I’ve never really practiced any chinese martial art, apart from some classes with some hsing i/bagua/chen tai chi practitioners. Having said that, here’s what I “think” Mike was getting at in relation to spiralling and “jin”

Mike posted a video a few months back demonstrating a “flexible frame”. I saw this as a demonstration of connection between two points of contact on the body: an incoming force (i.e a push) and a point of stability (the ground).

The point he was trying to show, I believe, is that there should be a constant, reciprocal balancing of forces between these two points. There should be as little impediment as possible in the medium through which that force travels: the body.

The “purest” connection between these points is, for all intents and purposes, a straight line. Of course, as the force travels through a human body, the actual “line” of force is constantly changing, but conceptually, it’s always a straight line.

This is the fundamental condition for “jin”. The degree to which these points are connected relates to the purity of Jin. It doesn't matter what art,weapon or form someone is working with: Their degree of mastery of jin depends on how unified these two points of contact are.

Spiralling is essentially an exercise for conditioning the body/mind to connect these two points. However, if one uses spiralling, the connection is not a “pure” as it could be. There is always some “gross” movement involved.

Anyway, this is my reading of the thing. I could be completely wrong and have no problem with anyone destroying this description and explaining the whole thing clearly for dummies like myself.

Regardless, It's a topic worthy of discussion. IMO.

Regards.

[Mike Sigman]

Well I sure don't have any disagreement with what you've said, Mike. But, that by itself doesn't mean that I disagree with anyone else in particular. I don't get Erick Mead's angular momentum descriptions, but lots of people don't get them... that's the only thing that comes to mind that I can't get behind. The reason I don't get turned off by "spiral" talk in general is that, per the above discussion, I still would agree with any kind of statements like:

When one purifies the body, one begins to move according to natural spirals that are byproducts of our human body plan. This pure or simplified movement can transmit extrinisc forces like the grf throughout the body continuously, without interruption or loss of fidelity.

As a beginner, I should remain open to things I can't do, and for all I know that includes things like chansijin as well as having these spirals of the body take on a more deterministic influence on the directions of force my body tends to prefer to produce.
But I am open to learning any points of view that my body doesn't tell me are bad..There's really nothing wrong with Erick's pointing to angular momentum, Jonathan. The real problem is that it's like saying "molecules are always in motion". True, but not explicative enough to determine either understanding or "how to".

Regards,

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

I've never really practiced any chinese martial art, apart from some classes with some hsing i/bagua/chen tai chi practitioners. Having said that, here's what I "think" Mike was getting at in relation to spiralling and "jin"

Mike posted a video a few months back demonstrating a "flexible frame". I saw this as a demonstration of connection between two points of contact on the body: an incoming force (i.e a push) and a point of stability (the ground).

The point he was trying to show, I believe, is that there should be a constant, reciprocal balancing of forces between these two points. There should be as little impediment as possible in the medium through which that force travels: the body.

The "purest" connection between these points is, for all intents and purposes, a straight line. Of course, as the force travels through a human body, the actual "line" of force is constantly changing, but conceptually, it's always a straight line.

This is the fundamental condition for "jin". The degree to which these points are connected relates to the purity of Jin. It doesn't matter what art,weapon or form someone is working with: Their degree of mastery of jin depends on how unified these two points of contact are.

Spiralling is essentially an exercise for conditioning the body/mind to connect these two points. However, if one uses spiralling, the connection is not a "pure" as it could be. There is always some "gross" movement involved.

Anyway, this is my reading of the thing. I could be completely wrong and have no problem with anyone destroying this description and explaining the whole thing clearly for dummies like myself.

Regardless, It's a topic worthy of discussion. IMO.

Regards.

Hi Oisin:

You did indeed catch the general point and you stated it well. The only disagreement is about last comment on the purity and 'spiraling'. However, I'll address that in a separate thread that should, hopefully, logically dispell the myths and rumours which befuddle people trying to get a foothold on the questions. Until very recently I didn't realize how far afield the lack of facts had slowed progress.

Mike Sigman

[oisin bourke]

Hi Oisin:

You did indeed catch the general point and you stated it well. The only disagreement is about last comment on the purity and 'spiraling'. However, I'll address that in a separate thread that should, hopefully, logically dispell the myths and rumours which befuddle people trying to get a foothold on the questions. Until very recently I didn't realize how far afield the lack of facts had slowed progress.

Mike Sigman

Mike,

I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Regards

[Mike Sigman]

Mike posted a video a few months back demonstrating a "flexible frame". I saw this as a demonstration of connection between two points of contact on the body: an incoming force (i.e a push) and a point of stability (the ground).

The point he was trying to show, I believe, is that there should be a constant, reciprocal balancing of forces between these two points. There should be as little impediment as possible in the medium through which that force travels: the body.

The "purest" connection between these points is, for all intents and purposes, a straight line. Of course, as the force travels through a human body, the actual "line" of force is constantly changing, but conceptually, it's always a straight line.

This is the fundamental condition for "jin". The degree to which these points are connected relates to the purity of Jin. It doesn't matter what art,weapon or form someone is working with: Their degree of mastery of jin depends on how unified these two points of contact are.
Just to reinforce the exact same point, everything Oisin has said would apply to this same demonstration by 2 of Tohei's students:

http://www.neijia.com/OneLegPushOriginal.jpg

[JW]

OK I have something now for the real meat of the linear/spiral discussion. If I need to be clued into what started this attempted discussion (I may have missed it) then please let me know. But so far as I know, these comments still are relevant. Although, it isn't much improvement over what Dave wrote. At any rate this describes the fact that we can volitionally control our force output across time, as well as the fact that our body plan may "prefer" or influence that temporally-varying force output. Mike, this may all be silly until we get into your ramifications you alluded to.

I. What is meant by "linear?"
The term linear refers to the rate of change of a function across a domain. It means that the rate of change is constant. I take it we are talking about the direction of force produced. Of course at any one moment in time, the force is going in a straight line-- just like at any one value on the x-axis, a single, defined rate of change (derivative; slope of the function) exists for y=x as well as for y=sin(x). But it doesn't mean y=sin(x) is linear-- because that discrete value for rate of change varies across the x axis, unlike for y=x.
So-- when one says the force produced is linear and not something to be described in other ways (spiral? torsional?), what exactly is being argued? That there is no change in direction of the force across time? Of course no one could argue that, because we can change direction at will. So, we need to nail that down.

II. The rolling ball question.
Here is a series of scenerios that might be very illuminating to discuss.
1. A ball rolls across a table. The ball produces a vertical, downward, obviously linear force. The point of application of the force shifts along the table as the ball rolls. Simple.
2. A sticky ball of the same mass rolls across the table. I know there will be additional heat terms and a deceleration, but this is still a bit mysterious to me. The downward weight is the same, but does the net downward force change? (The "upstroke" on the trailing side pulling upward via the adhesive? Or I guess that pull is tangential so it is purely in the horizontal decelerating direction? Never mind, #3 and #4 below are the fun part!)
3. The same sticky ball rolls while deflating as it goes along. Now it is getting interesting. The deflation action trades internal pressure for upward pull, and there is significant reduction in downward force upon the table. The center of mass of the ball is in fact going through a braked fall while the ball rolls.
4. Now imagine situation #3 without the flat table. We can have a curved table, with sections of curvature that match the ball's radius of curvature. The table can be poorly secured to walls or foor. The 'table' surface can in some spots be a pretty severe incline, like close to vertical-- it's ok b/c the ball is sticky. Also now, the ball can breathe, not just deflate. So what happens? The table is going to get pretty worked by the ball's rotating, expanding/contracting grip. Will the forces be linear? I think the table will get pressed and pulled (linear forces?) as well as torqued.

So what is the point? When I hold my bokken, it is like the table, and I am the ball (the floor is another table). I am a pretty cool ball though because of things like hands. As I expand and contract, sink and rise, my tissues coil about as we discussed, being the nature of the human body. That bokken experiences some twisting forces that are fun to use on humans too. So how do we fit this into the conceptual framework of linear forces?

[Marc Abrams]

OK I have something now for the real meat of the linear/spiral discussion. If I need to be clued into what started this attempted discussion (I may have missed it) then please let me know. But so far as I know, these comments still are relevant. Although, it isn't much improvement over what Dave wrote. At any rate this describes the fact that we can volitionally control our force output across time, as well as the fact that our body plan may "prefer" or influence that temporally-varying force output. Mike, this may all be silly until we get into your ramifications you alluded to.

I. What is meant by "linear?"
The term linear refers to the rate of change of a function across a domain. It means that the rate of change is constant. I take it we are talking about the direction of force produced. Of course at any one moment in time, the force is going in a straight line-- just like at any one value on the x-axis, a single, defined rate of change (derivative; slope of the function) exists for y=x as well as for y=sin(x). But it doesn't mean y=sin(x) is linear-- because that discrete value for rate of change varies across the x axis, unlike for y=x.
So-- when one says the force produced is linear and not something to be described in other ways (spiral? torsional?), what exactly is being argued? That there is no change in direction of the force across time? Of course no one could argue that, because we can change direction at will. So, we need to nail that down.

II. The rolling ball question.
Here is a series of scenerios that might be very illuminating to discuss.
1. A ball rolls across a table. The ball produces a vertical, downward, obviously linear force. The point of application of the force shifts along the table as the ball rolls. Simple.
2. A sticky ball of the same mass rolls across the table. I know there will be additional heat terms and a deceleration, but this is still a bit mysterious to me. The downward weight is the same, but does the net downward force change? (The "upstroke" on the trailing side pulling upward via the adhesive? Or I guess that pull is tangential so it is purely in the horizontal decelerating direction? Never mind, #3 and #4 below are the fun part!)
3. The same sticky ball rolls while deflating as it goes along. Now it is getting interesting. The deflation action trades internal pressure for upward pull, and there is significant reduction in downward force upon the table. The center of mass of the ball is in fact going through a braked fall while the ball rolls.
4. Now imagine situation #3 without the flat table. We can have a curved table, with sections of curvature that match the ball's radius of curvature. The table can be poorly secured to walls or foor. The 'table' surface can in some spots be a pretty severe incline, like close to vertical-- it's ok b/c the ball is sticky. Also now, the ball can breathe, not just deflate. So what happens? The table is going to get pretty worked by the ball's rotating, expanding/contracting grip. Will the forces be linear? I think the table will get pressed and pulled (linear forces?) as well as torqued.

So what is the point? When I hold my bokken, it is like the table, and I am the ball (the floor is another table). I am a pretty cool ball though because of things like hands. As I expand and contract, sink and rise, my tissues coil about as we discussed, being the nature of the human body. That bokken experiences some twisting forces that are fun to use on humans too. So how do we fit this into the conceptual framework of linear forces?

Jonathan:

Are you including gravitational force as a constant? It seems like a lot of people do not use gravitational force when they describe what we experience as linear movement. Almost like "out of sight, out of mind."

Regards,

Marc Abrams

[Mike Sigman]

OK I have something now for the real meat of the linear/spiral discussion. If I need to be clued into what started this attempted discussion (I may have missed it) then please let me know. But so far as I know, these comments still are relevant. Although, it isn't much improvement over what Dave wrote. At any rate this describes the fact that we can volitionally control our force output across time, as well as the fact that our body plan may "prefer" or influence that temporally-varying force output. Mike, this may all be silly until we get into your ramifications you alluded to.

I. What is meant by "linear?"
The term linear refers to the rate of change of a function across a domain. It means that the rate of change is constant. I take it we are talking about the direction of force produced. Of course at any one moment in time, the force is going in a straight line-- just like at any one value on the x-axis, a single, defined rate of change (derivative; slope of the function) exists for y=x as well as for y=sin(x). But it doesn't mean y=sin(x) is linear-- because that discrete value for rate of change varies across the x axis, unlike for y=x.
So-- when one says the force produced is linear and not something to be described in other ways (spiral? torsional?), what exactly is being argued? That there is no change in direction of the force across time? Of course no one could argue that, because we can change direction at will. So, we need to nail that down.

II. The rolling ball question.
Here is a series of scenerios that might be very illuminating to discuss.
1. A ball rolls across a table. The ball produces a vertical, downward, obviously linear force. The point of application of the force shifts along the table as the ball rolls. Simple.
2. A sticky ball of the same mass rolls across the table. I know there will be additional heat terms and a deceleration, but this is still a bit mysterious to me. The downward weight is the same, but does the net downward force change? (The "upstroke" on the trailing side pulling upward via the adhesive? Or I guess that pull is tangential so it is purely in the horizontal decelerating direction? Never mind, #3 and #4 below are the fun part!)
3. The same sticky ball rolls while deflating as it goes along. Now it is getting interesting. The deflation action trades internal pressure for upward pull, and there is significant reduction in downward force upon the table. The center of mass of the ball is in fact going through a braked fall while the ball rolls.
4. Now imagine situation #3 without the flat table. We can have a curved table, with sections of curvature that match the ball's radius of curvature. The table can be poorly secured to walls or foor. The 'table' surface can in some spots be a pretty severe incline, like close to vertical-- it's ok b/c the ball is sticky. Also now, the ball can breathe, not just deflate. So what happens? The table is going to get pretty worked by the ball's rotating, expanding/contracting grip. Will the forces be linear? I think the table will get pressed and pulled (linear forces?) as well as torqued.

So what is the point? When I hold my bokken, it is like the table, and I am the ball (the floor is another table). I am a pretty cool ball though because of things like hands. As I expand and contract, sink and rise, my tissues coil about as we discussed, being the nature of the human body. That bokken experiences some twisting forces that are fun to use on humans too. So how do we fit this into the conceptual framework of linear forces?

Jonathan, when you, let's say, hold a brick in your hand using jin (and qi, but I'll keep the discussion as simple as I can), you essentially allow the support from the ground to go through your frame and hold up the brick. I.e., your body is no more than a conveyance, a structural support (remember my Baseline Parameters?). I.e., you're letting the more or less linear force (Newtonian mechanics only, please, to keep this simple) of the ground support affect the brick. You can train the body to do this while moving, also and the force on the brick is still linear. An opponent is basically a brick, regardless of any non-linear motion in your body. That's all I was talking about... the conveyance of linear forces. Can your body do other non-linear things that might affect the linear forces that you're conveying? Sure, but that's beside the point.

Mike

[JW]

Hi Marc, not sure I get you. I certainly agree gravitational acceleration is a constant, so the gravitational force for any given mass would be constant since the force is a function of the mass.
From a more "feeling" POV (more practical, less analytic), gravity is never out of mind for me. I feel like I am sandwiched between two things. Or anti-sandwiched, hard to say. The point is ground and gravity being present together in the body and opposite in direction, creating a physical frame of reference.

Mike, I guess torque as the result of the interplay of 2 opposing forces is just considered as being not at this level in your framework? As in, we should take it step by step? I guess I should just wait and see how you mean to present it.
This is all a little difficult because I hold my bokken and feel this torsion. I can feel that it is a direct effect of what is happening in my body, and at the same time I don't disagree with your basic examples like holding a brick with one hand. I like your description of a resultant vector that is linear and convey's the ground's support, but at the same time I know that you recognize and will eventually talk about things like the hand wanting to turn over in funekogi undo:


If you look at Tohei, as an example, doing Fune-kogi undo, you can see that he actually doesn't allow his arms to rotate; having watched a number of his movements over the years, I'd say that most of Tohei's movements tend to be similarly constrained and do not exemplify what is called "natural movement".

If there is a stick or a person's limb in that hand, and they allow natural movement, the stick/limb will experience torsion, in addition to the linear force of the row-stroke. I suppose I am confusing multiple things that occur together, even though they can be (should be) treated as separate phenomena. If I allow the hand to turn, I can stay connected in a more relaxed way (in fact it is unnecessary muscle use that would be what prevents the turning of the hand). In other words allowing that spiral could be seen as a way to preserve most effortlessly the connection to the ground. Maybe you agree, but think I am getting ahead of myself? Or is this just wrong to you?

[Mike Sigman]

I hold my bokken and feel this torsion. Jonathan, do you agree that a system under various torsions, etc., can still system-wide convey an outside push from one side to the other, regardless of the torsional forces within the system? That's all I'm saying. I think you may be over-complicating the idea. The solidity of the ground can be conveyed through a system under various stresses. Analysing all the stresses in the system while the topic is simply the conveyance of forces is to miss the point.

Mike

[JW]

Jonathan, do you agree that a system under various torsions, etc., can still system-wide convey an outside push from one side to the other, regardless of the torsional forces within the system?

Yes, agreed. I wasn't intentionally over-complicating this, but for all I know, the reasons that things are linked in my head is the same reason as any other person's, so these reasons may be at the heart of this discussion.

Breakdown of my thought process which has been dissected here:
when you put conscious effort into moving relaxedly, trying to let the ground's strength replace your own, it is tempting to call the entirety of the result 'ground strength.' Any/all the forces that an attacker experiences when they touch you after you have practiced something like this can be tempting to be referred to with a single name. (when I do this he twists and moves to the left.. one might be tempted to say the ground strength is causing both)
But in fact there can be multiple things going on inside you that are the causes of those forces. If the way your tissues are connected when you move with relaxation and settled balance, in order to allow ground to go through you, causes your limbs (or your partner) to twist, the cause of the twist is different from the cause of the push. One is the internal connectivity and internal state of tensions... the other is the ground.

[Mike Sigman]

OK, so we agree... you don't need to be "spiraling" to allow the force of the ground through you. The force of the ground is, for all practical purposes, a linear force; to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand physics.

2 cents.

Mike Sigman

[DH]

This model and idea that force leaves the body and supports a brick through a linear line, through space is a fallacy and doesn't work.
If that idea had merit then:
1. Take your hand off the brick and have your linear force hold it up...see how that works for ya.
2. Make the brick, a car and hold it....see how that works out for ya.
3. Hold up your sword and walk away

This idea is mistaking a basic training model (like Tohei and DR shows) with more advanced aspects of conditioning that need to be developed and that produce greater softness and control AND the actual effect in the demonstration.
This teaching will limit real understanding; like the very real effect that kokyu has on the body and how it affects the system in actual use and how that affects someone holding you. It will leave people shoulder reliant and confused why they are not progressing. What removes load, manipulates load, creates aiki and has some sophisticated controls of an opponents forces and his reaction to your reactions is where the real work begins.
This...isn't it.
FWIW, only thinking linear internally will be reflected externally. One of the common criticisms of MAers who think and move this way is how easy they are to get around.

Dan

[Mike Sigman]

This model and idea that force leaves the body and supports a brick through a linear line, through space is a fallacy and doesn't work.
Dan, did you miss all the discussions through the years about vector resultants? It's possible you didn't study vector analysis in relation to forces, but trust me we're talking about a vector resultant. If you look back in the archives, I've shown the how's and why's of it, including with pictures. None of the people with physics training batted an eye at the time because it's a fairly simple concept.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Mike Sigman]

The point in clarifying that the "support of the ground" is a linear force and can be conveyed through the body without worrying very much about what sorts of stresses are in the body is that "grounding" a push, pushing with basic jin, and so on is actually fairly simple. Yet, I've been running into a number of people who are missing the fairly simple skill because they've been worrying about "dual opposing spirals". Let me deal with the topic of "dual opposing spirals" for a a bit (Jonathan... call me on any errors of logic, etc., please). After that I'll segue into a couple of other things in an attempt to cut through the mumbo-jumbo.

In the Qi paradigm, the focus is on how the body works. There is no one way for Japan and another way for China and a different way for the Ookum-Bookum Koryu. Qi is about how the body works and how strength is conveyed (thus health and other things follow and interplay).

The body tends to wind in two different ways. This is an old very basic concept about how the qi of the body works. If nothing else, just twist to the right and then twist to the left and pay attention to your legs like they're cylinders. Notice how one leg twists one way (say, "outward") and the other twists the other way ("inward") in a turn of a given direction. If you track the twisting of the whole body as a connected unit you'll notice the universality of the two directions of twist. It's so universal that it's mentioned in the Chinese classics from thousands of years ago. They draw diagrams like this:

http://www.neijia.com/yinyangspirals.jpg

This is the magical "dual opposing spirals", but it's really nothing more than a description of how tensions move across the body fascia in relation to way a human body moves. Notice that the lines don't 'crossover' into an "X".

If you twist pretty far and with your arms somewhat outstretched you'll notice that tension builds up torsionally as the surface of the body is stretched. You could learn to cause that same stretch without all the twisting... but that's still not what the "qi" refers to. However, the general idea is there and is fairly easy to grasp.

You can actually set up contradictory tensions all over the place, but if they're not contradictions of the "qi", you're talking about something quite different.

Regardless of any tensions you set up, right or wrong, within the body, the body will still act as a structure (once you train) that will convey the solidity of the ground through it. Hence, it's correct to just "relax" and let the structure convey the solidity of the ground. Worries about "dual opposing spirals" can come later in training because if a person doesn't have simple jin skills, the worries about other things like spirals is simply a waste of time. Learn the alphabet before trying write an essay.

2 cents.

Mike Sigman

[JW]

Wow, I actually thought from what I've heard that you guys would actually agree more regarding the basics. I thought the differences were further along, in things like application, emphasis, etc.

I think it's great that you are both putting it out there, and people can see that you disagree and just read and process. From the point of view of a beginner-- I wish the two of you had met long ago so that you could know first-hand what you are referring to. I think you are both being honest and cautioning against different incompetences that you have seen-- but I don't think the written word is actually communicating the physical feelings that you are referring to. Instead the written word may be exaggerating your differences in mental framework.

[Mike Sigman]

Wow, I actually thought from what I've heard that you guys would actually agree more regarding the basics. I thought the differences were further along, in things like application, emphasis, etc.
No, the differences start at the absolute basics. Ueshiba was referring to classically known (commonly so) aspects of internal strength. When people take a simple concept like the opposing possibilites of turning the qi/suit and turn them into imaginary whirling tornados, etc., that's not "different perspectives", Jonathan. As I've said a number of times, what Dan is calling "internal strength" and what I'm calling internal strength are two different things.

When I get some time tomorrow, I'll lay out another aspect to build onto the two I've covered. There's a critical difference about some of these things that comes out in the wash when another aspect of the body is developed: my point being that there is one irrefutable logic that ties all these things together and that's part of the beauty of the whole qi/ki paradigm. We're not talking about "different viewpoints" when it comes to the support of the ground being linear or the well-known turning aspects of the body. That's physics and tradition, not "perspective".

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Hareksu]

Dan, did you miss all the discussions through the years about vector resultants? It's possible you didn't study vector analysis in relation to forces, but trust me we're talking about a vector resultant. If you look back in the archives, I've shown the how's and why's of it, including with pictures. None of the people with physics training batted an eye at the time because it's a fairly simple concept.

Ok, I have an actual physics degree, so let me comment on this. First of all, having a composite force travel through empty space is no big deal: for example when you do regular pushups, the force vector travels from your shoulder to your hand without encountering any part of your body. Doesn't mean something 'internal' is going on, just the torque on the elbow created by the triceps.

So to obtain a straight force from dantian to hand, you cannot escape dealing with the chain of hinges that connects them. No matter whether you put most of the load in one hinge (typically the shoulder), spread it out evenly over each hinge or engage the fascia spanning all hinges, in all cases the resultant force will be a straight vector from dantian to hand. That's not what makes it internal. HOW you transfer the force through that chain of hinges, and by which mechanism you keep the hinges from collapsing under the load, that's what matters.

Another thing about hinges: their movement is circular. There's no such thing as a straight line force effector within the human body (though pressurizing the abdomen comes close): it's all circles. This does not mean that it's impossible to get a straight line force: just balance two counteracting hinges.

And this is where spirals become interesting: a spiral is the superposition of a (curvi-)linear movement, and a circular movement around it. Now, how do you get linear movement from spiral? Add two of them with opposite directions: the circles cancel out and the linear force remains. Since spiral tensions seem to be a natural consequence of using the fascia in movement, and two spirals can create a linear force, focusing upon the spirals may not be such a bad idea.

OTOH, there is the school of thought which professes that knowing too much in detail is detrimental for training physical attributes. In that regard, it may be better to try and achieve a linear jin by simply willing it (yi): once you have that, you have the two opposing spirals anyway, since they are what the linear force is physically composed of. Which is what "let the body do the rest" means, I guess. It has a certain elegance, though IMO it's way to vulnerable to self-delusion. I prefer knowing what's going on, though that approach has it's own weaknesses.

[Mike Sigman]

First of all, having a composite force travel through empty space is no big deal: Hello, "Iskander":

That's in agreement with what I said.



for example when you do regular pushups, the force vector travels from your shoulder to your hand without encountering any part of your body. Doesn't mean something 'internal' is going on, just the torque on the elbow created by the triceps. Well, you're introducing the undefined term "internal" into the discussion. Can you tell us what makes a force "internal" or not, in the way that you're using it? "Internal", from my point of view, indicates that something is part of the "neijin"; since your example force is a simple vector resultant but does not depend on dantien, ground-jin, etc., I agree that it is not "internal", but you might be using the term in some other way, so I thought I'd better ask.

So to obtain a straight force from dantian to hand, you cannot escape dealing with the chain of hinges that connects them. No matter whether you put most of the load in one hinge (typically the shoulder), spread it out evenly over each hinge or engage the fascia spanning all hinges, in all cases the resultant force will be a straight vector from dantian to hand. That's not what makes it internal. HOW you transfer the force through that chain of hinges, and by which mechanism you keep the hinges from collapsing under the load, that's what matters. OK, could you clarify your assertion about how you transfer forces? The original question was only about whether there is a linear force from the dantien to the opponent. Are a number of other things going on in the body at the same time? Yes, but that was discussed pretty well in previous posts.

Another thing about hinges: their movement is circular. There's no such thing as a straight line force effector within the human body (though pressurizing the abdomen comes close): it's all circles. This does not mean that it's impossible to get a straight line force: just balance two counteracting hinges.

And this is where spirals become interesting: a spiral is the superposition of a (curvi-)linear movement, and a circular movement around it. Now, how do you get linear movement from spiral? Add two of them with opposite directions: the circles cancel out and the linear force remains. Since spiral tensions seem to be a natural consequence of using the fascia in movement, and two spirals can create a linear force, focusing upon the spirals may not be such a bad idea. There are spirals everywhere, Iskander... what spirals are you talking about? What are they composed of? Where are they attached? What is powering them?

OTOH, there is the school of thought which professes that knowing too much in detail is detrimental for training physical attributes. In that regard, it may be better to try and achieve a linear jin by simply willing it (yi): once you have that, you have the two opposing spirals anyway, since they are what the linear force is physically composed of. Which is what "let the body do the rest" means, I guess. It has a certain elegance, though IMO it's way to vulnerable to self-delusion. I prefer knowing what's going on, though that approach has it's own weaknesses.What two spirals are you talking about, Iskander? Are you talking about two-spirals that form some sort of resultant linear vector to an opponent and the force itself from these spirals is the ground-force? The groundforce "starts at the feet, is controlled by the waist, and is expressed in the fingers". What force are you talking about and where/what are these spirals you're positing?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

P.S. BTW.... why don't you clarify for people your relationship to me over the years?

[DH]

The point in clarifying that the "support of the ground" is a linear force and can be conveyed through the body without worrying very much about what sorts of stresses are in the body is that "grounding" a push, pushing with basic jin, and so on is actually fairly simple. Yet, I've been running into a number of people who are missing the fairly simple skill because they've been worrying about "dual opposing spirals".
You are of course referring to me again...you simply can't help yourself. Shot across the bow...okay
I run into people who have been training internals for years focusing on ground paths and vectors who are missing the real skills they should be training and they can't do anything.
In the Qi paradigm, the focus is on how the body works. Regardless of any tensions you set up, right or wrong, within the body, the body will still act as a structure (once you train) that will convey the solidity of the ground through it. Hence, it's correct to just "relax" and let the structure convey the solidity of the ground. Worries about "dual opposing spirals" can come later in training because if a person doesn't have simple jin skills, the worries about other things like spirals is simply a waste of time. Learn the alphabet before trying write an essay.
2 cents.
Mike Sigman
I would say this is all but useless advice.
It is interesting that you deny the need or use of spiral energy (which is just as well as you simply don't understand what it is), then advocate it as past the basics -writing an essay over learning the alphabet.

Movement issues
Isn't it funny I have been run into a whole bunch of people who have trained and have been worrying about vector paths who can't do anything meaningful. This idea that the body will take care of itself once you set up a linear path is the reason I see shoulder issues, scapulars sticking out, hips rocking back, and feet rocking. Point of fact is that so many who are doing these things are not settled and relaxed in the proper way, and their bodies disconnect under load. They remain stiff and when they try to demonstrate fluidity under load it is a weird display; demonstrating obvious sticky points in movement along a line.
Why?
Because their bodies "just relaxing" are in fact...a mess and will remain a mess throughout their careers.
I strongly advocate people get out and train with all of these internet pundits. How they move, how they feel and how they look with a weapon in their hand and how they pole shake, is their statement. Not what they write.
What their methods and opiions have done to themselves...is what they are about to do to you, so choose wisely.
Dan

[Mike Sigman]

You are of course referring to me again...you simply can't help yourself. Shot across the bow...okay
I run into people who have been training internals for years focusing on ground paths and vectors who are missing the real skills they should be training and they can't do anything.

I would say this is all but useless advice.
It is interesting that you deny the need or use of spiral energy (which is just as well as you simply don't understand what it is), then advocate it as past the basics -writing an essay over learning the alphabet.

Movement issues
Isn't it funny I have been run into a whole bunch of people who have trained and have been worrying about vector paths who can't do anything meaningful. This idea that the body will take care of itself once you set up a linear path is the reason I see shoulder issues, scapulars sticking out, hips rocking back, and feet rocking. Point of fact is that so many who are doing these things are not settled and relaxed in the proper way, and their bodies disconnect under load. They remain stiff and when they try to demonstrate fluidity under load it is a weird display; demonstrating obvious sticky points in movement along a line.
Why?
Because their bodies "just relaxing" are in fact...a mess and will remain a mess throughout their careers.
I strongly advocate people get out and train with all of these internet pundits. How they move, how they feel and how they look with a weapon in their hand and how they pole shake, is their statement. Not what they write.
What their methods and opiions have done to themselves...is what they are about to do to you, so choose wisely.
Dan

Dan, this is supposed to be a factual thread with a modicum of support to any assertions. Also, putdowns, implied putdowns, etc., need to be left at the door. Can you tell *how* your ideas work, why, etc.? In terms of relaxing and using the support of the ground, that's a mainstay of the study of internal strength and you can find it in many books. Try, as one example, Cheng Man Ching's "13 Treatises" where he mentions a number of the classical commentaries.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[DH]

Dan, this is supposed to be a factual thread with a modicum of support to any assertions. Also, putdowns, implied putdowns, etc., need to be left at the door. Can you tell *how* your ideas work, why, etc.? In terms of relaxing and using the support of the ground, that's a mainstay of the study of internal strength and you can find it in many books. Try, as one example, Cheng Man Ching's "13 Treatises" where he mentions a number of the classical commentaries.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Lets take a poll Mike
How many people know I am the only one who has been strongly advocating spiral energy and talking about duel spirals here?
How many know what this really is?

Your entire opener, the other thread that Jun blew up that was an outright personal attack... are all ill-disguised attempts for you shoot down what I do. You have this obsession and competition thing going on.

As for your argument here
You have no support for your assertions other than your opinion and your skill..That leaves you gaping holes in your constant harassing of me.
a. You have never adequately defined spiraling; either in what I do or in taiji theory.
b. Your videos and public teaching have demonstrated no competence in doing what I do.
What possible motive do I have in debating someone who doesn't know the subject and can't do what I do and is obsessed with shooting it down?
I'd rather wish you well in your own search and be done with it.

My continued recommendation is for people to go train with others and see what they can do. There are good players out there with theories of their own. Many of whom think you and I are full of B.S. Fine by me. I have no interest or need to compete with you or anyone else. My understanding is in my own hands to be judged and I am actually helping people and making a difference.
Dan

[Mike Sigman]

Lets take a poll Mike Dan, what has a popularity poll got to do with a factual discussion? You asserted that there wasn't a way for a linear force to be used as was being discussed. That point has been shown to be simply wrong, but if you want to debate it, please do so.

How many people know I am the only one who has been strongly advocating spiral energy and talking about duel spirals here?
How many know what this really is?
I don't know what "spiral energy" is, other than a vague term. I'm on record and video teaching "silk reeling" exercises for many years (long before they came up in any of your posts), but silk-reeling is not "energy", in a correct use of the term "energy". Your "dual spirals" are, as I said, apparently misunderstandings of the old Chinese observation about the two ways of winding that naturally occur in the human body. I've been teaching those 2 methods for many years, even before the QiJin forum. I originally learned the essence of them from Zhang Xue Xin back in the 1980's. Your idea that the natural spirals of the body somehow cause people not to be movable in the jin sense isn't correct. A simple statics diagram should tell you that in an instant. However, if that's your position, can you tell us how it works?

[snip personal remarks by Dan]

Mike Sigman

[Marc Abrams]

OKAY FOLKS!

LET'S REVIEW:

1) Mike Sigman begins another thread that is DIRECTLY related to his disagreement with Dan Harden, while at the same time, wanting to somehow keep it "not personal".

2) Dan weighs in on post #27. He does not directly reference Mike, but the MERE PRESENCE of a response from him is like a nice piece of magnesium.

3) Mike responds on post #28 with slight, back-handed, personal attack at Dan. Ah, Water and Magnesium meet......

4) Mike recovers and post #29 is all about his beliefs, along with supporting documentation.

5) Jonathan tries to reinforce the neutral response zone nature of posts between the two of them in post #30.

6) Mike responds in post #31 to Jonathan and almost makes it to the end, and then falters in trying to re-assert that his position is not a perspective but "fact".

7) Alex jumps in with post#32 and provides a counter argument based upon non-personal information.

8) Mike begins to violate his own attempt at not letting things get personal with his response to Alex (post #33).

9) Dan directly calls Mike to task in post#34 about how Mike is using this thread to once again try and prove himself right while proving Mike wrong.

10) The familiar back and forth between Mike and Dan now place this thread in the basket with all others when ANY reference from either of them have to do with the other person.

This is Marv Albert signing off. Damn, I need to take that skirt off. Is there any woman nearby that I can bite.........:D :D :D :D .

SERIOUSLY FOLKS:

This is why I suggested some ground rules in which Dan and Mike agree to NOT reference the other person in any manner, shape or form. I frankly cannot understand why Jun does not make this standard operating procedure.....

Marc Abrams

[DH]

Dan, what has a popularity poll got to do with a factual discussion? You asserted that there wasn't a way for a linear force to be used as was being discussed. That point has been shown to be simply wrong, but if you want to debate it, please do so.
It is wrong and it leaves so many of you with all the issues I described. Many of those training that way know it and show it. It is a common failure in the External and internal arts. Why do I want to debate a model with you? I'd rather spend time fixing it in the people who obviously need it.

I don't know what "spiral energy" is, other than a vague term. I'm on record and video teaching "silk reeling" exercises for many years (long before they came up in any of your posts), but silk-reeling is not "energy", in a correct use of the term "energy". Your "dual spirals" are, as I said, apparently misunderstandings of the old Chinese observation about the two ways of winding that naturally occur in the human body. I've been teaching those 2 methods for many years, even before the QiJin forum. I originally learned the essence of them from Zhang Xue Xin back in the 1980's. Your idea that the natural spirals of the body somehow cause people not to be movable in the jin sense isn't correct. A simple statics diagram should tell you that in an instant. However, if that's your position, can you tell us how it works?

Mike Sigman
You haven't made one correct statement yet.
1. You telling me what my ideas are would require your understanding of them and expertise or at least competence in their use. I have seen you move.
2. I never used the term silk reeling, I was told I was silk reeling by two "real" experts and a host of lower level teachers. I still don't use silk reeling as a term. I never used the term, kua or mingmen either. I had a master class Taiji teacher with his hands all over me use those terms.
3. I have adopted some terms, not others, and adopted some good training drills from three teachers of ICMA....and?

4, FWIW, winding is not spiraling. You shouldn't confuse the two.
And once again You're putting words in my mouth doesn't make a case. "My idea of using the natural spirals of the body somehow cause people not to be movable in the jin sense".... is not what I say or do. That's your misguided ideas and statement. You're missing some fairly important things.

Terminology
You should consider that there are people using their bodies congruent with the Chinese arts who never knew the Chinese terms...or not, whatever fits your agenda.

I'm out. I said what I wanted to say.
Many of us have seen and met people who followed your methods and what happened to them. Same for me, Ark, Sam Chin etc. It's all known.
We'll revisit it in years to come with all of us and all of them who do the work and those who kid themselves. I tend to separate out people who do the real work with master debaters.
See ya
Dan

[Lorel Latorilla]

Yeah Marc.

I think what's happening here is that Mike wants to have a "purist's" conversation about what the "internal" is, whereas Dan is saying that all that crap won't help anybody in a fight.

Agree that they should not post in the same threads. Heh.

[DH]

This is why I suggested some ground rules in which Dan and Mike agree to NOT reference the other person in any manner, shape or form. I frankly cannot understand why Jun does not make this standard operating procedure.....
Marc Abrams

Lorel writes:
Yeah Marc.
I think what's happening here is that Mike wants to have a "purist's" conversation about what the "internal" is, whereas Dan is saying that all that crap won't help anybody in a fight.
Agree that they should not post in the same threads. Heh.
Mike consistently starts threads attacking me or what I teach, they get deleted sometimes.
Within other threads Mike consistently starts attacks and swipes at me and anyone who trains with me (lap dogs, cults, experts now, etc.)

The real question is......why is this allowed here?

Find me where I do the same?
I remain defensive.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of being considered the same.

Lorel
If you think Mike is offering the one pure and correct view of internal you are in for some big surprises later?
And all I am talking about is fighting and not internal?
God speed. I wish you luck with that.

Don't worry about this thread
See ya
Dan

[MM]

I am unsure why Mike is allowed to get away with direct personal insults (calling me a lap dog) either.

[Mike Sigman]

Well, Dan and his followers just ruined another thread by piling on. I'll start another to pick up where I left off on the discussion of jin and spiralling.

Every factual thing I've said in the thread can be supported by both physics and by comments from actual masters in internal martial arts. Grounding, pushing, etc., are as I described them and has been acknowledged by different experts, including comments about what some of the students who've been to workshops are doing (one of these comments to a woman in Germany by one of the Four Tigers of Chen Village). So none of this can be shoved off as just my opinion.

Mike Sigman

[Keith Larman]

Ok, I have an actual physics degree, so let me comment on this.

Leaving the rest aside, thanks for the post. I enjoyed it. Food for thought...

[Lorel Latorilla]

Mike consistently starts threads attacking me or what I teach, they get deleted sometimes.
Within other threads Mike consistently starts attacks and swipes at me and anyone who trains with me (lap dogs, cults, experts now, etc.)

The real question is......why is this allowed here?

Find me where I do the same?
I remain defensive.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of being considered the same.

Lorel
If you think Mike is offering the one pure and correct view of internal you are in for some big surprises later?
And all I am talking about is fighting and not internal?
God speed. I wish you luck with that.

Don't worry about this thread
See ya
Dan

Dan, I never said that. I said Mike WANTS to have a PURIST conversation about the "internal". On the surface at least, he does. I'm not gonna comment about what lies beneath the surface.

What I got was that some of the stuff that "internal guys" do is tactically unsound. I forgot to add that you are trying to tell Mike that you are doing someting he is not aware of...and that because he is trying to have a discussion about the internal in his own parameters (which he, as you mention, does not define), you cannot have a word in about what the "dual spirals" are.

Thats why I agree with Marc that both of you should just ignore each other.

[Hareksu]

Hello, "Iskander":

That's in agreement with what I said.

Well, you're introducing the undefined term "internal" into the discussion. Can you tell us what makes a force "internal" or not, in the way that you're using it?

Yeah, I brought that on myself, eh... :) Well, call it connected whole body force driven by some form of shenfa. Don't want to exclude any interesting mechanisms out of 'big 3' puritanism. Not really relevant to the discussion though...

OK, could you clarify your assertion about how you transfer forces? The original question was only about whether there is a linear force from the dantien to the opponent.

First of all, you add force vectors, you get a force vectors, and vectors are by definition linear. So the entire 'linear force' schtick is both as true as 1=1, and equally useless. Secondly, when resisting a push, if the forces along the path through the body are uniformly distributed, the summed force between dantian and hand will coincide with a line between them. But this goes for any point along the path, be it the foot or the shoulder, so that's not what makes dantian special. Also, since the body is not uniform (chain of hinges remember), uniform distribution is only an approximation, something to strive for. Finally, there is no guarantee that equally distributed force is the only solution leading to this dantian-hand force vector, probably plenty of ways of doing it wrong using local force. Which is what I said to you earlier, and probably (though I won't speak for him) what Dan's saying in his criticism of your "just relax" admonition. Too vague, too many ways of doing it wrong while deluding yourself you're doing it right.

Regarding spirals, I'm sure you're capable of finding spirals in human movement (after all, you've mentioned them yourself), but they're not really relevant to the scope of my point.


P.S. BTW.... why don't you clarify for people your relationship to me over the years?

Aaaaaaand now he gets personal... :rolleyes: Why do I bother?
My relationship to you? Why, I'm your arch-nemesis obviously, twirling my mustache while plotting your downfall in the shadows, jealously scheming to steal your 733+ skillz and cursing you each time you escape my evil machinations! You know, like everyone else you've ever encountered :D
Oh, and by the way, if you're trying to be clever about internet nicknames, try and get the spelling right...

[Mike Sigman]

Yeah, I brought that on myself, eh... :) Well, call it connected whole body force driven by some form of shenfa. Don't want to exclude any interesting mechanisms out of 'big 3' puritanism. Not really relevant to the discussion though... Thanks. However that's vague enough that I question(ed) the premise of "internal" with which you start your discussion. "Whole body", someone might also pipe up, what's *not* whole body? You see my point..... "internal", what's that? Etc.

First of all, you add force vectors, you get a force vectors, and vectors are by definition linear. So the entire 'linear force' schtick is both as true as 1=1, and equally useless. Like the "internal" schtick?

Secondly, when resisting a push, if the forces along the path through the body are uniformly distributed, the summed force between dantian and hand will coincide with a line between them. But this goes for any point along the path, be it the foot or the shoulder, so that's not what makes dantian special.
That's a good point. I agree to some extent, except that I'd note that the dantien is at/near the center of mass of the body and it's on the receiving end of the legs' connection to the ground. I.e., it is not just a point on a line.

If we got into dynamics of the dantien, then I'd note that the dantien is much more than just a point on the line, but we weren't discussing dynamics.


Also, since the body is not uniform (chain of hinges remember), uniform distribution is only an approximation, something to strive for. Finally, there is no guarantee that equally distributed force is the only solution leading to this dantian-hand force vector, probably plenty of ways of doing it wrong using local force. Which is what I said to you earlier, and probably (though I won't speak for him) what Dan's saying in his criticism of your "just relax" admonition. Too vague, too many ways of doing it wrong while deluding yourself you're doing it right.

Regarding spirals, I'm sure you're capable of finding spirals in human movement (after all, you've mentioned them yourself), but they're not really relevant to the scope of my point.
So you don't have a real counterpoint, just a sort of picking at the edge of 'vagueness'? The spirals thing I dealt with in another post earlier today. I think the veil is lifted for a number of people.

My relationship to you? Sort of like Justin Smith and Stan Baker. Very similar... except they always signed their names.

Mike Sigman