PDA

View Full Version : Is aiki a clash of forces?


Pages : 1 [2]

Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Rob Watson
11-30-2012, 11:51 AM
I've been to 3 Dan Harden seminars, I have a degree in physics and work 20+ years doing hands on engineering and started aikido in 1992. I really want to do this stuff and have been able to begin to manifest some aspects (I think) - I can't really even begin to explain how intent fits into a bio-mechanical model and yet can know with certainty that intent causes my flesh to move - this is a result of my meager training in the specific methods of Dan Harden.

At this stage I don't particularly care to be able use physics/engineering to explain this stuff. I don't see a linkage at this stage. I'm pretty sure that when Dan (and a great many others or high skill) use words like force and power they do not mean the same thing when used in a physics context - I'm fine with that (I'm also happy to be mistaken in this assessment).

Iteration, Krystal, (my little net-crush girl) got it exactly right and Dan says exactly the same thing - repeated failure is the key to progress. Propose a hypothesis, find it lacking, retool and repeat until truth emerges- A sound proven methodology - some call it science, some call it life and others refuse to play at some critical point and simply get left behind. My new catch phrase (I sense a new Tshirt coming) "Retool or be a tool".

To bring this right back on topic note that we still can't agree on what 'aiki' is and most are using 'force' incorrectly the topic is stillborn. Plenty of clashing tho ...

ChrisMoses
11-30-2012, 11:52 AM
But appeals to authority are not a basis for rational discussion -- they are appeals to trust, maybe decent rhetorical devices -- but not rational arguments. Reason does not depend on trust. That is one reason why reason is particularly useful. A certificate or degree does not prove or disprove anything. Just because I have a law degree does not mean a layman is wrong on the law when he disagrees with me -- the law is a VERY BIG THING. The physical world is even bigger.

Is it true that there is only one way of knowing something? -- Only one way of describing something? Only one useful way?



We can sit and talk and reason about anything we like. Real science, real research goes out and challenges its beliefs. It yearns for failure. When that anomaly, that failure of reason is reached, it's an opportunity for deeper study and IMPROVED knowledge.

Just some examples from this week's news.

It has long been reasoned, that the only guarantee for lifeforms is that they are born through one of several known processes and eventually die. Scientists however recently confirmed the existence of a species of jellyfish which when it becomes too old, too injured or too stressed, AGES BACKWARDS into it's pupal phase and then grows old again. WHAT? We KNOW that can't happen. We can reason and rationalize that what it means to live is to grow old and die. But, REALITY interferes with our precious logic. New information must affect our reasoning and understanding.

Recently, astronomers have discovered a black hole so massive that it makes up a full 14% of the mass of the galaxy that surrounds it. By all mathematical models (reasoning) that is impossible and is not something that can exist. Yet it does. According to reason, this thing does not exist. And yet it does. New information must affect our reasoning and understanding.

Mercury has long been known to be too close to the sun to have even the possibility of having water or organic material on it. It is simply too hot and spinning too fast. Our a priori knowledge of this celestial body tells us this. We know it. And yet, NASA just announced that they found water ice and most likely organic material in craters on the poles. Again, we find something that we have reasoned to not exist. New information again must affect our reasoning and understanding.

IHTBF comes down to a priori knowledge vs. posteriori knowledge. When I first met Neil, he could do things that were outside of my world experience. There was water on Mercury. When I met Ark and Rob, their bodies responded and felt different to anything I had experienced previously. Things that I KNEW should work and produce certain results, just didn't. There is a black whole that is too massive to exist. When I felt Dan he simply felt different than I thought someone could feel. There is an immortal life form on our planet.

Some things must be experienced. You cannot reason them out of existence or force them into a worldview that existed previously.

Budd
11-30-2012, 01:55 PM
So, if seeing is believing . . does that mean it has to be felt, too?

phitruong
11-30-2012, 02:57 PM
So, if seeing is believing . . does that mean it has to be felt, too?

nope. you can't show feeling with video, so no. :)

Budd
11-30-2012, 03:15 PM
nope. you can't show feeling with video, so no. :)

I dunno, Phi. MC Hammer seems to disagree with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmiR18iGVg#t=0m32s

(I'm a terrible person)

*brief conciliation to being on topic*

Yes, go feel it. Scientific assertions are useful for journals but they won't help you get there until after you "Feel it, Feel it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSN8Cwit_s

But don't listen to me, I'm a terrible person. ;)

(Is it Friday yet? Yes, thank gawd . . . #punchy)

Mert Gambito
11-30-2012, 05:18 PM
This stuff, and other internal body skills, have escaped empirical explanation throughout history, for a reason (we just don't know the reason :p ).

For example, westerners have been trying to figure out how tum-mo, the meditative practice through which Tibetan monks raise their body temperatures in order to dry cold, wet sheets draped over their bodies, works for almost a century. During that time, Harvard and other western researchers have scientifically analyzed groups of monks for the past 30 years. When the Harvard team initially published its findings in 1982, they hypothesized that the monks' ability to raise body temperature by as much as 17 degrees F was due to "vasodilation", and "[t]he physiological changes are . . . a by-product of religious practice". In 2002, the lead researcher, Herbert Benson, who had continued to try to arrive at a scientific explanation for the phenomenon, told the Harvard Gazette, "[t]he heat they [the monks] generate during the process is just a by-product of g Tum-mo meditation" -- so really no additional concrete revelations since the original findings. Again, these guys and gals aren't from the local JC.

Now, who knows whether or not the meditative / intent-driven processes, and the resulting physiological changes, by which the human body can be altered to produce aiki are more or less complex than those needed to voluntarily raise body temperature. All I know is, if multiple teams of dedicated researchers on different continents have spent three decades and millions of dollars trying to figure out the former, we're not gonna figure out the latter in this thread.

Is aiki a clash of forces?

For me at this point, yes: "like a bag of hammers" more often than not.

Mert

gregstec
11-30-2012, 07:00 PM
This stuff, and other internal body skills, have escaped empirical explanation throughout history, for a reason (we just don't know the reason :p ).

For example, westerners have been trying to figure out how tum-mo, the meditative practice through which Tibetan monks raise their body temperatures in order to dry cold, wet sheets draped over their bodies, works for almost a century. During that time, Harvard and other western researchers have scientifically analyzed groups of monks for the past 30 years. When the Harvard team initially published its findings in 1982, they hypothesized that the monks' ability to raise body temperature by as much as 17 degrees F was due to "vasodilation", and "[t]he physiological changes are . . . a by-product of religious practice". In 2002, the lead researcher, Herbert Benson, who had continued to try to arrive at a scientific explanation for the phenomenon, told the Harvard Gazette, "[t]he heat they [the monks] generate during the process is just a by-product of g Tum-mo meditation" -- so really no additional concrete revelations since the original findings. Again, these guys and gals aren't from the local JC.

Now, who knows whether or not the meditative / intent-driven processes, and the resulting physiological changes, by which the human body can be altered to produce aiki are more or less complex than those needed to voluntarily raise body temperature. All I know is, if multiple teams of dedicated researchers on different continents have spent three decades and millions of dollars trying to figure out the former, we're not gonna figure out the latter in this thread.

For me at this point, yes: "like a bag of hammers" more often than not.

Mert

Jeez, Mert, now you have to explain what a 'bag of hammers' is - this thread will never die; it has it's own demonic energy that just leaps out and grabs the unsuspecting and forces normal folks into all kinds of weird and unearthly inanities :D

Greg

Mert Gambito
12-01-2012, 03:28 AM
Jeez, Mert, now you have to explain what a 'bag of hammers' is . . .

Greg,

I'm happy to oblige ;) -- and as I'm sure you can vouch for the fact that the clarifications below are sincere vs. tongue in cheek:


"Bag of hammers", in the context above, could (interestingly) be considered a metaphor for a "clash of forces" that occurs when the body does not move as a unified whole, resulting in power not efficiently being generated within, moving through, and/or being expressed by the body.

This is the "bag of hammers" I use for training (I'm still working with the little ones on top, since #1 above tends to be a problem for me), and of course, for fixing things around the house:
http://i.imgur.com/j1wQX.jpg

Mert

gregstec
12-01-2012, 07:35 AM
Greg,

I'm happy to oblige ;) -- and as I'm sure you can vouch for the fact that the clarifications below are sincere vs. tongue in cheek:
"Bag of hammers", in the context above, could (interestingly) be considered a metaphor for a "clash of forces" that occurs when the body does not move as a unified whole, resulting in power not efficiently being generated within, moving through, and/or being expressed by the body.
This is the "bag of hammers" I use for training (I'm still working with the little ones on top, since #1 above tends to be a problem for me), and of course, for fixing things around the house:
http://i.imgur.com/j1wQX.jpgMert

Smart @ass... :D

phitruong
12-01-2012, 09:04 AM
This is the "bag of hammers" I use for training (I'm still working with the little ones on top, since #1 above tends to be a problem for me), and of course, for fixing things around the house:
http://i.imgur.com/j1wQX.jpg
[/LIST]
Mert

that's not a proper bag of hammers! those are just ball peen hammers! where's the claw hammer where you need the claw piece to pull some teeth. and the rubber mallet for the knee caps. the sledge hammer for big job. the geologist hammer for old folks. of course the jack hammer for the crowd. of course you need some tune for the hammering, like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo. you have to unify mind, body, and spirit for the right sort of aiki-hammering. :D

*blaming Budd for making me going sideway on the topic*

Mert Gambito
12-01-2012, 09:48 AM
. . . the sledge hammer . . .

Oh man, I wish. . . . Maybe, someday -- if not in this life, then the next.

Mert

DH
12-01-2012, 10:01 AM
Ahhh
Since the bag of hammers is my little ditty. I choose Mert's Definition!!:D
How can you contend and manage forces coming in from outside when you can't even manage and balance forces within.
Japan:
Sensei what is Aiki?
Drawing circle on paper with brush.
"Opposing powers" (in you)

China:
Through change ten thousand endings
but only through one theory
the union of opposites

America:
"Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me."

How can anyone even begin to believe they can manage forces when their own body is fighting itself?
Everyone I meet is in various stages of disconnection inside, causing them any number of issues that leaves their centers revealed and easily manipulated.
Now we have yet another series of teachers out their teaching them that it is GOOD idea to connect that mess of a center...to someone else's center...and call THAT internal power. :eek:
Good grief!! You're screwed before you even start.

All of this gets some traction because it is easier and the visual tools work at a certain point in martial art cooperative kata thingies. Meet someone who is even moderately connected..and you...are screwed. It's just another step....in the wrong direction. Sadly, people keep falling into traps that lead away from the one true essential: create a center, build dantian, then create a hidden dantian that makes change internally that makes change throughout all of the bodies tissues and thereafter the body's surfaces, that offer unending aiki opportunities at any contact point. It's the only away to achieve true "no force" that can be offered at any contact point just by you moving.

Japan:
When I move my body, techniques are created.

China:
When one thing moves, everything moves.

America:
What do you think of current budo practices?
Full speed...in the wrong direction!

Why all of the frustration and animosity? Who likes to find out that they spent decades doing something they fell in love with, and all the while:
There is a model, that is superior in every way
That will forever defeat what you have been doing
That is thousand of years old
That your own art was founded on it and your founder quoted it
and
YOU don't know it and never even heard of it before.

I think we need to be kinder to each other and more understanding that as more and more people find out, and one by one they keep switching over almost at a 100% rate, that we just be nice and offer a hand. As Marc Abrams said. I am one of the few who actually ran into this stuff, tried and quit because ...I....couldn't make it work. That makes me a Saul of Tarsus. I was one of those ranting against it!! TIll I got it forced on me through failure against it. Now here I am!! :hypno:
So, I get it. I know what it felt like to have it rammed down my throat as well. Luckily, I eventually listened and ran into the finest work budo has to offer.
Dan

DH
12-01-2012, 10:34 AM
Oh man, I wish. . . . Maybe, someday -- if not in this life, then the next.

Mert
It certainly *helped* blacksmithing, and better still for carrying wood and building stone walls, and better yet again for cutting 3" trees with two handed Katana, and then 16" Kukris, and..
Better still for Aiki.
Sagawa was right.
AIki si about changing the body. Only amateurs think you can learn aiki through techniques.

Yet sadly we read things like this from another thread:
It is important to understand that consciously trying to get KOKYU RYOKU or KI will not produce the desired results, but only frustration. It is therefore best to enjoy training every day, and not think about things that will come by themselves when the time is right.
Virtually ....all...of the planets higher level arts had specific solo drills to beuild the body and create kokyu and generate ki. Sitting around waiting for it to gradually happen in waza is why so many 25-45 years along the path teachers...are training with me.
There...is....a better way.
Hence the above quotes Sagawa Saying
"Aiki is about changing the body. Only amateurs think they can learn it through techniques."

Sagawa admits he lied to his own students and did not teach them the truth, and here we see his number one student teaching in Japan, with no explanations and largely through? Techniques. I watched something like this happen with my own eyes. So have others. So we need to be kind to folks, just like ourselves who were for the most part never taught what it really takes. When, good Lord when, are we going to wise up and realize that we have to help ourselves? We need to build bridges between the arts and with each other to turn this ship around, care more about substance than some rank offered by an organization and take charge of our own training.
I give credit to Ueshiba. He at least talked about what it took, brought in an anatomy book to try and make a connection to the lectures, and he....created men (pre-war) who had it. At least he got it and tried to pass it on.
Dan

Mert Gambito
12-01-2012, 12:00 PM
How can you contend and manage forces coming in from outside when you can't even manage and balance forces within.
Dan,

It's kind of nice being able to say with a straight face that hammers can help "build" a quality budo body (even if we may not know in our lifetimes exactly how or why that happens).

As for PVC, in Hawaii it's now largely gathering dust while folks address their respective bags of hammers. All in good time. . . .

I'm happy for Meyer Goo, and for those seeking peace of mind regarding what aiki is. While many are busy trying to figure out from afar how and why what you're talking about and sharing works, this Goo guy had the great fortune, then burden, of having taken ukemi from Ueshiba (how many people on this board with an opinion of any stripe can say they know what Ueshiba's aiki felt like first hand?) then going through most of his life lamenting the almost complete lack of those qualities elsewhere in the art to which he's been so long devoted. Through your example and model, I hope Goo Sensei lives to be able to express the aiki that inspired him over half a century ago.

/end_thread_drift

If an aikidoka with a skeptical bent and a genuine scientific pedigree really wants to figure out what makes this stuff tick, really the thing to do is get the training, do the training, revel in and scrutinize the results (as slow coming as they may be), then use that first-hand understanding, ability and self-examination to marshall his/her resources in the research community to do the in-depth analysis using him/her as a guinea pig. As with tum-mo, all of that may not pay off with empirical understanding of the how's and why's after all's said and done, but the data collected along the way in of itself might be worth the effort.

Off to do a shiatsu on the wife, then bring my bag of hammers to bear against some bungee cords. . . .

Mert

Erick Mead
12-01-2012, 01:21 PM
I believe that making swords actually requires hammers and lots of hammering -- and so:

So, if seeing is believing . . does that mean it has to be felt, too?
What are you feeling ? More importantly, when are you feeling it.

The mystery that drives the degreed physics and engineering types nuts with head-shaking and cranium scratching maneuvers is that -- if my premise is correct -- there is a reflexive circuit involved, and there is a phase lag between action, perception and counter-control input in EVERYTHING involved in these issues. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=317712&postcount=91)

I happen to be particularly aware of the problems of using voluntary circuitry for physical control because I flew aircraft. Like riding a bicycle -- you cannot use voluntary motor responses to maintain stability -- they are WAAAY too slow -- you need a certain form of reflexive responses -- from much repetitions and refinement of control errors -- but these are polysynaptic reflexes -- just barely within conscious trainability with "muscle memory". That's one level of the problem -- but most people get that -- its like learning to ride a bike -- different from learning to walk -- but not that different.

I summarized the temporal lag aspect in another thread:

... for a trained person [using an polysynaptic reflex] -- the order of event, action and perception is:

Stimulus = 0
Polysynaptic reflex = 75ms
Awareness of stimulus = 75ms
Awareness of reflex = 150ms

A monosynaptic reflex, though, is something else (two nerves, one sensory, one motor, one synapse, ...in the land of Mordor , where... never mind...) . These are the tendon reflexes and the stretch reflexes -- which respectively contract or relax a muscle group in response to possibly structurally dangerous loads.

A monosynaptic latency is on the order of 20-45 ms -- call it 30 ms =0.03s, twice as fast as, or even better, as the visual or pain flinch reflexes. Your conscious awareness latency is more on the order of the visual flinch awareness, (75 ms).

Stimulus = 0
Monosynaptic reflex = 30ms [IN]
[No real awareness of structural stress stimulus]
Awareness of reflex = 75ms
Recovery phase of reflex = 50 -100 ms [YO]
Voluntary reaction to reflex 175 ms

This is the sequence that is disturbing to the conscious mind -- because we do not -- without training -- consciously sense or recognize the structural stimulus that causes the reflex. Or we feel it but we do not know at all how to interpret it. It is occurring at a level way below the conscious mind.
Reflex stuffs -- here (https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B3rVDSZUUsMgaUlwbFpBanVnZ3M/edit).

Some engineers are used to temporal phase lag control systems. Most physicists and most engineers outside of rotary wing aviation have not dealt with bodily operated control systems that use both spatial AND temporal phase lag controls. But in our case there is not only a temporal phase lag, but, because this is a complex harmonic system -- there is a spatial phase lag too.

I learned the significance of phase lag control in bodily operated systems because I flew rotary wing aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_lag_%28rotorcraft%29). Sikorsky himself did not anticipate spatial phase lag -- and it took a good bit of puzzling out even for him -- He basically tried to ignore it with a very different control system in the first operating prototype helo, the VS-300.

The aeromechanical problems involved in rotor phase lag are not directly applicable -- but they sensitize you to this class of problem. In most rotary wing craft -- if the controls were spatially in phase with the rotors then the controls would be paradoxical ("non-sourced"). IOW putting the stick forward = tilt the rotor left; left = back; back =left; right =forward. (Reverse the above if you like Aerospatiale -- they go the other way. :) )

This is a function of the resonance characteristics of a multiple pendulum oscillating system -- not just gyroscopic moments because it spins -- the hinge or teeter SHOULD allow the isolation of gyroscopic precession to the rotor alone -- but the hinge or teeter at the rotor hub creates a resonant connection with the second pendulum of the fuselage -- the resulting moments are a function of the action at the resonant center of both rotations (HINT HINT HINT).

A multiple pendulum is a complex harmonic oscillator and can exhibit resonance (coupled 90 degree phase differences). Coupled oscillators that are 90 degrees out of phase (juji) -- make pretty figures called Lissajous curves -- which just so happen to follow the same class of dual spiral shape and mathematical behavior as torsional shear stress (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=210336#post210336).

Putting all this together --

1) The severe temporal phase lag between structural reflex response and perception requires a feed-forward control.
2) The most damaging structural stresses are torsional
3) Unmodulated reflexive action limb behavior is highly pendular in action
4) Tonic structural stability is dynamic and oscillatory;
5) Refelxive action follows patterns dictated by the most immediate reduction of torsional shear stress
6) The patterns of shear stress and multiple pendulum action are mathematically and physically equivalent -- dual opposed spirals;
7) Feed-forward controls for this system must therefore follow the two dominant patterns involved in the reflex activity:
------ a) pendular spiral action characteristic of resonant multiple pendulums; and/or
------ b) the higher frequency damped stability tonic (~5 or ~10 Hz)
8) Structural reflexes can be potentiated by certain counter-damping stresses (e.g. -- Jendrassik maneuver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jendrassik_maneuver))
9) Feed forward control patterns can be habituated in voluntary responses that "feed-in" to reflexive action that occurs involuntarily
10 Aiki Taiso (chinkon kishin) are designed to train, respectively the feed forward patterns of both (7a) the "demon snake" and (7b) the "spirit of bees"
11) Koyku tanden ho paired exercise (and Endo's modified atari exercsie)is designed to prompt, potentiate and exploit reflexive structural stresses and cues in both parties and to develop feed-forward voluntary responses that play upon the involuntary reflexive activity (and the tonic damping changes) thus prompted in the opponent and potentiated in oneself.
12) The IS/IP are methods related to (11) but which particularly work on the potentiating aspects of this form of tonic action in the body (7b), and which seem to depend primarily upon manipulating the tonic damping changes with counter-potentiating stresses responding to the applied stresses, rather than or in preference to (7a) feed-forward followups to reflexive mechanical responses to the applied stresses.

Howard Popkin
12-01-2012, 01:34 PM
What?

Budd
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM
Now we have yet another series of teachers out their teaching them that it is GOOD idea to connect that mess of a center...to someone else's center...and call THAT internal power. :eek:
Good grief!! You're screwed before you even start.

All of this gets some traction because it is easier and the visual tools work at a certain point in martial art cooperative kata thingies. Meet someone who is even moderately connected..and you...are screwed. It's just another step....in the wrong direction. Sadly, people keep falling into traps that lead away from the one true essential: create a center, build dantian, then create a hidden dantian that makes change internally that makes change throughout all of the bodies tissues and thereafter the body's surfaces, that offer unending aiki opportunities at any contact point. It's the only away to achieve true "no force" that can be offered at any contact point just by you moving.



I suppose I'd have to ask, how are you connecting the Dantien out to the extremities so that its power, whether hidden or overt, is expressed cleanly?

Budd
12-01-2012, 04:11 PM
What?

This!

http://youtu.be/otCpCn0l4Wo

Erick Mead
12-01-2012, 04:36 PM
What?That. :)

Or if you like --

1) Body happen fast
2) Brain happen slow
3) Stuff go sideways
4) Catch up lose
5) Play ahead win

Beer ?

Chris Knight
12-01-2012, 04:53 PM
Hmmm nice.

Its a pity you wont meet these guys eric

Carl Thompson
12-01-2012, 07:52 PM
Yet sadly we read things like this from another thread:
It is important to understand that consciously trying to get KOKYU RYOKU or KI will not produce the desired results, but only frustration. It is therefore best to enjoy training every day, and not think about things that will come by themselves when the time is right.

Hi Dan

I think you've taken that out of context. In the original article it reads much more like the argument earlier in this thread in which those trying to analyse IP related it to established knowledge of kinesiology. It's not that kokyu can't be explained by science and rationalising, just that it isn't explained (at least fully) right now. To me, in context, what you quoted reads much more like Alexander Sensei meant consciously rationalising kokyu and Ki is futile as a way to understand them. You've got to train and feel them.

This is from the original article:

As of the present time, KI and KOKYU RYOKU cannot be explained in the context of intellectual reason or science. However, it is my humble observation that KI and KOKYU RYOKU are different, but complementary entities. Whereas KI relates to unity of a person's consciousness with that of another human being and/or the spirit of the universe (the essence is SATORI or "spiritual enlightenment"), KOKYU RYOKU is physically oriented and flows through the body.

I agree, we need to build bridges.

Carl

DH
12-02-2012, 09:05 AM
Hi Carl
I read the article and understand his talking points. Much of which I agree with. The summation is where we differ. In fact I think Aikido itself has demonstrably proven that just letting kokyu and ki *happen* through training is a demonstrable failure. In and of itself it is and should be a revelatory statement in the community that the existing methodologies have failed to produce the unusual power that kokyu and ki are known for on any consistent basis. Therefore just waiting around to experience it, -much more to actually learn it- through a training paradigm that statistically fails to produce it, is not much of viable strategy.

What makes matters worse is that now, on an international stage and with worldwide communication, there is an increasing number of teachers getting out and experiencing real kokyu and ki from many different sources that...surprise.....actually had a specific training model for kokyu and ki. AND as it turns out those methods are well established and were known by the arts founder and many others in the Asian arts.

I understand that is not a very welcomed nor comforting revelation for many teachers, but resisting something that is well known and now being demonstrated consistently on world stage to the arts teachers and students it is not very wise strategy either. In the end, it will make those at the very top look like they are engaging in a very transparent protectionism.

There is no kokyu and ki training that is *unique* to Aikido or the Japanese arts in general, no matter how someone may try to convince us that is the case. Tohei's "one point" is a shining example, as his "one point" was never his. It was given to him through his Yoga teacher and was a staple principle in yoga. So here again we see that all of this singular genius and specific art individuality that everyone is so wrapped up in fails when we see the foundations were common and generations old.
The exposure of the truth that there is specific work all of us could and should be doing should lead to an embracing of a body of knowledge shared by the Asian arts. I see no benefit for protectionism and closed minds to something the arts founder was himself deeply immersed in: that being specific kokyu and ki training. One should be at least considering that since the founder engaged in detailed practice to achieve it....
Maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to look into it.
Dan

MM
12-02-2012, 11:47 AM
What?

It's a lot of science words thrown together that have no meaning in the world of biomechanics. If you take the time to go through his post, most of it falls apart and has no actual basis of reality to it. It's his own personal theories. Sort of like saying the sky is neon orange and then tossing wavelength theory terms to prove it.

Hope to catch you on the mat sometime soon!

Mark

Howard Popkin
12-02-2012, 01:37 PM
Thanks Mark. I have 2 post grad degrees. I just can't handle all theory. Too many people talk without ever meeting the 400 lb. Gorilla in the room :-)

Hope to see you soon as well.

Howard Popkin
12-02-2012, 01:38 PM
And I'm pushing 450 :-)

jeremymcmillan
12-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Here's one example of a smaller body changing the energy of a larger body without clashing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_tractor

mathewjgano
12-02-2012, 02:57 PM
Just had a quick thought: is an inflated balloon a clash of forces? Is that even an apt analogy?

Carl Thompson
12-02-2012, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the reply Dan
The summation is where we differ. In fact I think Aikido itself has demonstrably proven that just letting kokyu and ki *happen* through training is a demonstrable failure. In and of itself it is and should be a revelatory statement in the community that the existing methodologies have failed to produce the unusual power that kokyu and ki are known for on any consistent basis. Therefore just waiting around to experience it, -much more to actually learn it- through a training paradigm that statistically fails to produce it, is not much of viable strategy.
But how do you know his training paradigm fails to produce it? What is that training he is talking about? What if it's extensive solo training to develop the saika tanden (NB: "Saika" = kotodama "seika")? What if it is pair-work that you haven't seen before?

What makes matters worse is that now, on an international stage and with worldwide communication, there is an increasing number of teachers getting out and experiencing real kokyu and ki from many different sources that...surprise.....actually had a specific training model for kokyu and ki. AND as it turns out those methods are well established and were known by the arts founder and many others in the Asian arts.
And yet it appears that Osensei had a 100% failure rate for passing on these skills after the war, at a time when he purposely went to Iwama to establish his own art.

I understand that is not a very welcomed nor comforting revelation for many teachers, but resisting something that is well known and now being demonstrated consistently on world stage to the arts teachers and students it is not very wise strategy either. In the end, it will make those at the very top look like they are engaging in a very transparent protectionism.
Who is resisting here? If something comes along threatening one's art, that thing should be investigated and if it is truly better, then it should be incorporated. The head-in-the-sand approach is a poor way to protect a training model. I'm certainly not disagreeing with that and you may have noticed that I've been one of the people telling people who argue with you to try it out.

Regards
Carl

Erick Mead
12-02-2012, 05:09 PM
Hmmm nice.

Its a pity you wont meet these guys ericThe last serious vacation I planned got cancelled, so I could buy a house -- that was in 2007. Do the math. Travel ain't in my budget -- not with two kids finishing college. If it does not combine with work it does not happen these days.

I suspect that is true of more folks now than it used to be.

Erick Mead
12-02-2012, 05:19 PM
If you take the time to go through his post, most of it falls apart and has no actual basis of reality to it.

No. If you want to take them apart, do so. Everything I have done is based on BOTH study AND experience. It may be wrong in points -- but it is incumbent on anyone attacking them in good faith to examine and challenge those points of error he finds. I would value the contribution. But a naked declaration has no weight or merit.

But sure -- go on ahead ."Nothing to see here" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU)

gregstec
12-02-2012, 05:19 PM
OK folks, we got a lot of gorilla talk going on here - 600lb, 400lb, and even Howard saying he is pushing 450lb; granted, Howard definitely is a force to be reckoned with on the mat, but I think he does himself some injustice - I don't think he is past 300lb, yet :D

Since I am stickler for detail and accuracy, the real term is 800lb Gorilla - more info on that here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=800-pound+gorilla :)

Greg

MM
12-03-2012, 07:46 AM
No. If you want to take them apart, do so. Everything I have done is based on BOTH study AND experience. It may be wrong in points -- but it is incumbent on anyone attacking them in good faith to examine and challenge those points of error he finds. I would value the contribution. But a naked declaration has no weight or merit.

But sure -- go on ahead ."Nothing to see here" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU)

If it is based upon experience, please list the dates you have attended the seminars/workshops with "vetted" IP/aiki teachers ... crickets chirping ... you haven't.

If it's based upon study, please list how you've studied and researched what all those people who have studied with "vetted" IP/aiki teachers ... crickets chirping ... you can't, your theories have never deviated. Yet, 100% of those who did, have changed their studies.

You do not value the contribution because you have tossed it aside over and over again as irrelevant. Had it been assigned relevance, we would not be having this kind of discussion ... over and over and over again. The only reason we do is because I am talking to the readers rather than directly at you. Once you gain "BOTH study AND experience" in this area and start dissecting it appropriately, I may "examine and challenge those points". Until you are even close to the heart/truth/spirit of the matter ... the crickets are playing a nice tune.

With that, I think I'm done being so far off topic.

George S. Ledyard
12-03-2012, 09:23 AM
So why is it that you won't meet me in person????

I would love to see what ALWAYS happens. Yet when you find someone like me, who openly states that what you are saying doesn't add up, you stay behind your computer instead of meeting with me publicly so you can show what you claim.

As this debate has gone on, I have gotten a lot of emails. Emails from people like me, who said you did the same thing to them, you made outrageous claims, then wouldn't let them come to your seminars.

If you don't want to meet me at a seminar, I would be happy to meet with you anytime you're in California. I would love to "touch hands" with you. As a professional martial artist shouldn't you be interested in making that happen?? I claim that all the "work" you have done is for not. I guess you could simply "sit behind your computer" and argue with me. Or you could show me, but you'd have to leave the keyboard to do that, Dan...

For the record... Dan H has been coming several times a year to my dojo to teach. Each time we have offered classes for both people who have had previous experience with Dan's work and separate classes for folks who have never trained with Dan before or have not had much experience with internal work. No one has been turned away from attendance at an event at my dojo.

To that I will add, having trained for almost four decades with many of the finest teachers of Aikido and what I might consider "aiki" arts, I have not encountered any teacher who is more excited about sharing what he knows or takes greater delight in a student "getting it" than Dan. When he teaches, you have to assign someone to insist he end class so you can eat... None of this 10 - noon, 2 to 4 stuff... he get so involved with the work, he'll go until everyone finally goes, "Dan, we have to eat... we're about to fall over." And he looks surprised when he sees the clock... like he can't believe class was supposed to end 45 minutes ago. Whatever else you want to talk about here, discussions about Dan not being available to check out are ridiculous. There are certain individuals, some friends amongst them, who have crossed certain lines of civility and I can't see why anyone would think that Dan would turn around and welcome someone who came in with a 'tude.

I will make one stab at explaining my own opinion that most of these discussions are a waste of time. There are two ways to communicate a set of skills in a martial art. One is to use language to describe what is being done. The second is to show the skill. Dan's methodology insists that his students be able to do both. If you can explain it but can't do it "You suck". If you can do it but not explain it "You suck".

The issue here is that "showing" ones skills requires that one meet face to face and puts hands on. The issue with language requires that the folks trying to communicate have a common language. Since we are on the internet, we are forced to use language. But the folks arguing here do not have a common language, which as far as I am concerned, makes most of the discussion ridiculous.

The idea that engineering / physics models can explain what is being done in "aiki" is possible if one just wishes to explain in a sort of overview how forces might be balanced or directed. But the fact is that "aiki" and internal skills involve the action of the intent on the myofascial structure. I cannot remember anywhere in my readings of physics works ever hearing the terms intent or myofascial ever used. Not in engineering either.

So, lets assume that you have an "engineer / mathematician" who has some skill at Aikido. He may understand what he is doing and he may conceptualize it in engineering or physics terms. But his ability to explain what he is doing to a group of folks who were unfamiliar with the terminology is about zero until he can show what he is doing and develop an understanding of how he uses his terms. In my opinion, the terminology of physics and engineering is pretty close to useless for productive discussion of how to do body skills. Neither of these descriptive systems were designed to describe body skills or talk about the interaction between the mind and body.

On the other hand, the Indian, Chinese, Japanese literature offers highly developed descriptive terminology for precisely this purpose. This terminology has been developed over a period of two thousand years or more. If one understands the terminology in Sanskrit, one can find the identical terms in Chinese. The same terms made it into Japanese. This terminology was specifically designed to describe at an extremely detailed level what one needs to do with ones body and ones mind to have the skills which we might call "aiki".

Aikido literature, at least as it exists in English to date, simply does not have anything like the descriptive terminology that exists in the Chinese internal arts. Interestingly, if one is fluent in Japanese, one can find the same concepts and terminology in Japanese martial arts literature, and this is true of the writings of Morihei Ueshiba as well, they simply haven;t been translated in to English.

Tohei made more of an effort to have a "principle based" descriptive terminology to teach the art. Compared to the sophistication of the Chinese model, it was only a very simple and quite general starting point. Post war Aikido simply doesn't have a descriptive terminology that is body centered and very useful for developing the actual body / mind skills we are ostensibly trying to develop.

Anyway, most of the discussion here is like listening to two people speaking different languages yelling at each other. One person is providing lengthy explanations in Urdu, which hardly anyone in the audience understands. The other is using Lakota Sioux to try to describe the same thing. Each "yells' at the other but neither can really communicate nor can the audience even understand the argument because there is no common descriptive language that is agreed upon.

If you can get repeated exposure to a teacher who has a consistent terminology and can show you in his or her body and your own what these terms mean, then you can start to talk to other people who have that same experience. Since most of the folks here do not share this terminology or. as Aikido people, have only the most simplistic, even misleading, terminology to describe what they are doing. well, the whole discussion ceases to be worth while.

Erick Mead
12-03-2012, 11:12 AM
If it is based upon experience, ...If it's based upon study, ...
If "experience and study" were as limited as suggested...then why would anyone even bother participating here?
You do not value the contribution because you have tossed it aside over and over again as irrelevant. If I did not value the contribution, it would be a waste of time examining it in light of my study and experience ... I do not view it as a waste of time. That I do not have the time ( or feel the strength of need) to approach it in the way you demand -- does not make my interest less sincere, nor are my points meant to be critical or to substitute for any one else's approach.

I am not talking about methods of training -- other than elucidating aiki-taiso as a basis for illustrating the principles that they embody -- so that they are understood and applied to develop the working principles that they plainly invovlve -- and not merely uselessly imitated like some kind of a cargo cult (which is a legitimate criticism of some ways the art is transmitted, I grant you)..

I am looking at principles of action. Understanding principles is not a method of training -- nor is it meant to be -- it is meant to aid ANY method of training by pulling out applicable mechanical and physiological principles that are in play.

We are not, and never have been in conflict here.

HL1978
12-03-2012, 01:43 PM
Just had a quick thought: is an inflated balloon a clash of forces? Is that even an apt analogy?

You can certainly have a "clash" of forces within ones self. For example pushing with the shoulder dillutes any power generated below it, as pushing with the shoulder pushes back into ones self and negates some of the power generated elsewhere.

I'm not so sure this applies to the balloon model, as local muscle usage is reduced, thus the "dillution" discussed above does not happen to the same degree.

James Sawers
12-03-2012, 03:16 PM
Just a passing thought: I logged into AikiWeb last week and somehow wound up on a Forum posting from 2006. In this posting Dan H. was trying to explain his position re aiki. Don't remember who he was talking to, but it seems like we have come full circle. I began to wonder how many times and for how long this discussion has been going on??

Chris Li
12-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Just a passing thought: I logged into AikiWeb last week and somehow wound up on a Forum posting from 2006. In this posting Dan H. was trying to explain his position re aiki. Don't remember who he was talking to, but it seems like we have come full circle. I began to wonder how many times and for how long this discussion has been going on??

I first started talking to Dan about this stuff over the internet some fifteen years ago. Thankfullly, I finally got to meet him.

Best,

Chris

Erick Mead
12-03-2012, 05:00 PM
The idea that engineering / physics models can explain what is being done in "aiki" is possible if one just wishes to explain in a sort of overview how forces might be balanced or directed. But the fact is that "aiki" and internal skills involve the action of the intent on the myofascial structure. I cannot remember anywhere in my readings of physics works ever hearing the terms intent or myofascial ever used. Not in engineering either. ... Neither of these descriptive systems were designed to describe body skills or talk about the interaction between the mind and body.

I have been working through connections between these mechanics issues and the physiological systems that deal with them -- and specifically the myofascia -- on these forums since 2008.

Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus) are affected by certain hormones and by certain mechanical factors. (Notably, they are immune to adrenaline/epinephrine.) But they are contracted by oxytocin (the "loving protection' hormone), by inflammation hormones (histamine) -- and more particularly for our purposes, by repetitive mechanical stress and vibrations, as anyone knows who has experienced clenched hands on a yard tool like a shovel or rake used repetitively.

These first two effects provide increased structural integrity -- and in the second case, aids limb immobilization when injured. The latter mechanical observation however is more subtle. Local twitch response is a spinal reflex, like flexor/extensor reflexes. When it is problematic, it is implicated in myofascial trigger points -- which frequently have a postural cause -- a disruption of normal stable structure to which the body responds by excessively activating myofascial bundles -- which shows that they are intimately concerned wiht posture -- i.e.-- structural stability.

Local twitch response is also seen in what the literature describes as physically "strumming" a tautened muscle bundle. Vibrations thus have physiological effects on reflexive action and the myofascial tissues which strengthen structure. We already know that tonic vibrations are involved in vertical structural stability as a mechanical matter, so these are plainly related aspects of the structural system that we are working on. Furitama is a resonant frequency ~5/~10 Hz. Resonance is something potentially catastrophic that any structural protection system MUST be designed to respond to swiftly, and would be the obvious frequency at which to prompt such structural effects to have destructive effects on stability.

Long story short --all the shaking, shuddering stuff has a very real set of physiological objects to which it is directed, as well as the "crawliing skin" stuffs of myofascial "suits" attested and which are also implicated in the very reflexive protection systems I have noted above. Structural stresses, particularly torsional stresses, create moments in patterns that are the precise mechanical equivalents of moving, loopy oscillations (rotations). When you add the tonic vertical oscillation of mechanical stability, we are plainly in the right territory mechanically and physiologically for the types of structural manipulations and responses in play on these deeply interrelated issues.

This is an objective language for the phenomena we are discussing, empirical and not subject to some of the defects of transmission we have historically seen.

On the other hand, the Indian, Chinese, Japanese literature offers highly developed descriptive terminology for precisely this purpose. ... Aikido literature, at least as it exists in English to date, simply does not have anything like the descriptive terminology that exists in the Chinese internal arts.
....
If you can get repeated exposure to a teacher who has a consistent terminology and can show you in his or her body and your own what these terms mean, then you can start to talk to other people who have that same experience. And is the art to be doomed again ? It has failed before in relying on a recurring pattern of using idiosyncratic bodies of terminology, framed on ad hoc models, analogies or metaphors to illustrate its actions -- and tied only on the personally shared experience of those who have been able to label those the hysical phenomena with those terms?

When they die the knowledge dies with them, and only a select few seem to "get it" natively in those terms. Kudos to those who may have found (or found again) their superior methods -- but the content of the physical objects or systems to which those methods are directed can be easily lost or misapplied -- look at the aiki-taiso/chinkon kishin. In other words, we would be replicating the very problem that has recurrently cause the transmission of the knowledge to fail, over and over again.

I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY. I could go further and say that the existence of "okuden" teaching on these issues may be more a function of the face-saving of Asian teachers whose personal accomplishment is often not shared by many of his immediate students -- who did not "get it." And when they find those who do "get it" they can save face as to their ability to teach what they plainly know -- by claiming "secret teaching" for those selected as "worthy" students -- precisely because they do not actually need it -- they just "got it."

Ueshiba recognized this problem implicity. He tried a different mode he hoped might work better. His recourse to Kojiki's concrete mythical images is an admission that some of the other more traditional means of communicating principles in CMA and equivalent Japanese adoption was necessary. So he tried the concrete images embodied in myth. His Doka are a similar but slight variation on the same approach -- and they actually have invaluable images that match these concepts.

But his approach also failed MISERABLY -- in terms of ensuring regularity of transmitting the spooky "power" that some people DO GET from the training methods he nonetheless transmitted -- Ikeda (whom I have felt) is among the most recent crop of aikido leadership that seem to have "got it." IMO. It is in feeling him and precisely in wrestling with this confusion in the traditional concepts that caused me to pursue the task of finding a more correct way to overlay the Western concrete objective terms onto the Eastern terms. I have had a modicum of success -- if any one cares to read my blog posts.. I can define ki in terms of purely Western ideas, and with consistency of reference in BOTH systems (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/physical-theory-of-ki-a-dialogue-3404/). I don't think Ikeda is willingly inscrutable -- I think he may lack what O Sensei and Sagawa lacked -- a more reliable way of putting what he knows.

Aiki -- being an applied aspect of ki -- and a subtle one -- has required this degree of delving into the mechanics and physiology. I think the effort has been both fruitful and worthwhile. I am not actually indulging any advice on method at all. What works works. But the old concepts are the danger to future transmission, and have proved so, over and over again. In debates over the terms of reference (hardly just little ole me alone) they can be a danger to present transmission as well.

While nothing is perfect, physiology and mechanics are not vulnerable in those ways. This body of concepts I have been teasing out promises more yet -- and not from agreeing with me -- but for anyone willing to wrestle with their mind on these concepts as willingly as they will do with their bodies -- they will assure the future of their skills and methods because they will be better able to describe them in objective terms..

Marc Abrams
12-03-2012, 06:49 PM
Lets host a joint seminar.
Eric's Scientific model of aiki
Dan's Model of aiki
Why?

The bottom line is simple. Beyond all debate and lengthy and discussion:
1. The results of his theories (of what Ueshiba was doing) produced him, right?
2. The results of my theories (of what Ueshiba was doing) produced me, right?

Let's find out which model produced results that were amazing, exceptional, unusual or different.
You could even scan the internet and find out who has met us both and what they had to say. You know, sort of like buying car. Consumer reports and all that. Maybe that might help you decide.

Do you want unusually powerful skills? Who feels like what?
Dan

This post bears repeating. I offer my dojo as a site for this seminar. We can schedule for 2013.

Marc Abrams

Cady Goldfield
12-03-2012, 07:31 PM
Erick wrote:
I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY.

To the contrary, Sagawa had a very detailed and specific training regimen that drove the development and refinement of his skill throughout his life. He chose not to share it with others until a few years before his death. Once he did share some of his training methods, his students started to develop skills.

Sagawa said (as translated from Transparent Power, by Tatsuo Kimura):
"I have taught my disciples a few things about how to train because no matter how much they trained, got strong, and challenged me, I still managed to throw them around easily -- but until a few years ago, I didn't tell anyone even this much. Having a secret method known only to you leads to improvement. If you teach others everything, you become just like everyone else. You lose the drive to advance. I have my own methods that no one else knows about, which I have continued to practice."

Gary David
12-03-2012, 08:20 PM
...............

I am not talking about methods of training -- other than elucidating aiki-taiso as a basis for illustrating the principles that they embody -- so that they are understood and applied to develop the working principles that they plainly invovlve -- and not merely uselessly imitated like some kind of a cargo cult (which is a legitimate criticism of some ways the art is transmitted, I grant you)...............

Erick
Maybe you can talk to the principles involved with the aiki-taiso, how they relate to movement, some level of detail in how they should be taught and how they connect to the waza. I am interested in how you see them teaching connected body, keeping the shoulders out of the picture, training integrated movement and whole body generated from the center.

The aiki-taiso seem to be one set of solo exercises that everyone could add to their kitbag.

Gary

Lorel Latorilla
12-03-2012, 09:47 PM
I have been working through connections between these mechanics issues and the physiological systems that deal with them -- and specifically the myofascia -- on these forums since 2008.

Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus) are affected by certain hormones and by certain mechanical factors. (Notably, they are immune to adrenaline/epinephrine.) But they are contracted by oxytocin (the "loving protection' hormone), by inflammation hormones (histamine) -- and more particularly for our purposes, by repetitive mechanical stress and vibrations, as anyone knows who has experienced clenched hands on a yard tool like a shovel or rake used repetitively.

These first two effects provide increased structural integrity -- and in the second case, aids limb immobilization when injured. The latter mechanical observation however is more subtle. Local twitch response is a spinal reflex, like flexor/extensor reflexes. When it is problematic, it is implicated in myofascial trigger points -- which frequently have a postural cause -- a disruption of normal stable structure to which the body responds by excessively activating myofascial bundles -- which shows that they are intimately concerned wiht posture -- i.e.-- structural stability.

Local twitch response is also seen in what the literature describes as physically "strumming" a tautened muscle bundle. Vibrations thus have physiological effects on reflexive action and the myofascial tissues which strengthen structure. We already know that tonic vibrations are involved in vertical structural stability as a mechanical matter, so these are plainly related aspects of the structural system that we are working on. Furitama is a resonant frequency ~5/~10 Hz. Resonance is something potentially catastrophic that any structural protection system MUST be designed to respond to swiftly, and would be the obvious frequency at which to prompt such structural effects to have destructive effects on stability.

Long story short --all the shaking, shuddering stuff has a very real set of physiological objects to which it is directed, as well as the "crawliing skin" stuffs of myofascial "suits" attested and which are also implicated in the very reflexive protection systems I have noted above. Structural stresses, particularly torsional stresses, create moments in patterns that are the precise mechanical equivalents of moving, loopy oscillations (rotations). When you add the tonic vertical oscillation of mechanical stability, we are plainly in the right territory mechanically and physiologically for the types of structural manipulations and responses in play on these deeply interrelated issues.

This is an objective language for the phenomena we are discussing, empirical and not subject to some of the defects of transmission we have historically seen.

And is the art to be doomed again ? It has failed before in relying on a recurring pattern of using idiosyncratic bodies of terminology, framed on ad hoc models, analogies or metaphors to illustrate its actions -- and tied only on the personally shared experience of those who have been able to label those the hysical phenomena with those terms?

When they die the knowledge dies with them, and only a select few seem to "get it" natively in those terms. Kudos to those who may have found (or found again) their superior methods -- but the content of the physical objects or systems to which those methods are directed can be easily lost or misapplied -- look at the aiki-taiso/chinkon kishin. In other words, we would be replicating the very problem that has recurrently cause the transmission of the knowledge to fail, over and over again.

I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY. I could go further and say that the existence of "okuden" teaching on these issues may be more a function of the face-saving of Asian teachers whose personal accomplishment is often not shared by many of his immediate students -- who did not "get it." And when they find those who do "get it" they can save face as to their ability to teach what they plainly know -- by claiming "secret teaching" for those selected as "worthy" students -- precisely because they do not actually need it -- they just "got it."

Ueshiba recognized this problem implicity. He tried a different mode he hoped might work better. His recourse to Kojiki's concrete mythical images is an admission that some of the other more traditional means of communicating principles in CMA and equivalent Japanese adoption was necessary. So he tried the concrete images embodied in myth. His Doka are a similar but slight variation on the same approach -- and they actually have invaluable images that match these concepts.

But his approach also failed MISERABLY -- in terms of ensuring regularity of transmitting the spooky "power" that some people DO GET from the training methods he nonetheless transmitted -- Ikeda (whom I have felt) is among the most recent crop of aikido leadership that seem to have "got it." IMO. It is in feeling him and precisely in wrestling with this confusion in the traditional concepts that caused me to pursue the task of finding a more correct way to overlay the Western concrete objective terms onto the Eastern terms. I have had a modicum of success -- if any one cares to read my blog posts.. I can define ki in terms of purely Western ideas, and with consistency of reference in BOTH systems (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/physical-theory-of-ki-a-dialogue-3404/). I don't think Ikeda is willingly inscrutable -- I think he may lack what O Sensei and Sagawa lacked -- a more reliable way of putting what he knows.

Aiki -- being an applied aspect of ki -- and a subtle one -- has required this degree of delving into the mechanics and physiology. I think the effort has been both fruitful and worthwhile. I am not actually indulging any advice on method at all. What works works. But the old concepts are the danger to future transmission, and have proved so, over and over again. In debates over the terms of reference (hardly just little ole me alone) they can be a danger to present transmission as well.

While nothing is perfect, physiology and mechanics are not vulnerable in those ways. This body of concepts I have been teasing out promises more yet -- and not from agreeing with me -- but for anyone willing to wrestle with their mind on these concepts as willingly as they will do with their bodies -- they will assure the future of their skills and methods because they will be better able to describe them in objective terms..

Erick, those "old concepts" are actually useful, if you are provided hands-on guidance from a skilled practitioner. And I found that as you grow in skill, reading the more "mystical" things start to make sense, on a real sensational/physical level. So your idea of "old concepts" are the danger to future transmission is unfounded.

In fact, no offense to your knowledge, but I gain nothing from what you write. I am more comfortable with the metaphors and mental pictures that you denigrate.

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself. Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.

Cady Goldfield
12-03-2012, 10:43 PM
Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself. Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.

Not only that, but the prevailing "old way" of teaching (which persists today) in many Asian cultures was to give specific things to people on a personal basis, tailoring what the student was taught to his individual traits and nature. In a roomful of people, each person would be given something to work on, and it might be quite different than what the student standing next to him would be given. As a result, individuals got certain things and developed in a particular direction that might be good for them, but they did not receive or learn the entire system. In that environment, typically one person was selected to learn the entire art and carry the body of knowledge into the next generation; the rest learned varying amounts of the system, but not the innermost core (the "family jewels").

RonRagusa
12-03-2012, 10:48 PM
I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing.

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge.He even admitted it himself.

At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing. ;)

Ron

Cady Goldfield
12-03-2012, 11:01 PM
At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing. ;)

Ron

Except that as was mentioned, when Sagawa chose to share some of his training methods with his students, they immediately started to make progress and improve in their abilities. His student Kimura, who faithfully and diligently trained in what Sagawa gave him, progressed further and at a quicker pace than his fellows. Evidently, Sagawa was quite capable of conveying his training methods effectively to others when he CHOSE to.

Erick Mead
12-03-2012, 11:01 PM
Erick, those "old concepts" are actually useful, if you are provided hands-on guidance from a skilled practitioner. And I found that as you grow in skill, reading the more "mystical" things start to make sense, on a real sensational/physical level. So your idea of "old concepts" are the danger to future transmission is unfounded.
Then why did it nearly fail? It nearly failed with Takeda in Japan by all accounts; Sagawa had few to follow him -- whether he intended it or not. China is a mass of splinters or impenetrable clans.

In fact, no offense to your knowledge, but I gain nothing from what you write. I am more comfortable with the metaphors and mental pictures that you denigrate.

No offense taken -- or meant. I don't denigrate them. I value them. I mine them. I translate them -- there is no disrespect involved. Quite to the contrary. There is immense knowledge within them -- but it does not explain itself well. They simply do not serve as well in the forms they have come down to us, and for many reasons, some of which I have suggested. The proof is in the very precarious state of affairs that Dan and others have been very critical of. I don't reject anyone's points

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself. Because he said so? A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? No, there is much more going on there.
Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.No, I am not trading in stereotypes but in simple realities of a major -- and real-- cultural difference -- I am simply acknowledging that the perversities of on and giri in Japan make for tragedies real and literary that Shakespeare would have wept over. And the history of this body of knowledge alone is replete with such occasions...

Lorel Latorilla
12-03-2012, 11:06 PM
At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing. ;)

Ron

Well if that was true, someone like Kimura (who Sagawa said was the only person he really taught) would not have the skills. There a testimonies of many people that can give account to that. Sure some methodologies are better articulated than others, but to say that Sagawa didn't purposely hide stuff from students is ridiculous. Sagawa must have had a clear methodology with intelligible language...if he didn't, would it have been possible for him to get to the level of aiki that he got to? Is it all "hard work" and no understanding of what he is training?

Erick Mead
12-04-2012, 12:04 AM
Well if that was true, someone like Kimura (who Sagawa said was the only person he really taught) would not have the skills. There a testimonies of many people that can give account to that. Kimura plainly "got it' -- there is no reason to question it.. How and in what manner-- there's the question. The same question goes for Sagawa and his father in their experience with Takeda, and Ueshiba after them.

Sure some methodologies are better articulated than others, but to say that Sagawa didn't purposely hide stuff from students is ridiculous. Sagawa must have had a clear methodology with intelligible language...if he didn't, would it have been possible for him to get to the level of aiki that he got to? Did he? On what evidence? The statement of the man who in the same breath admits to deceiving students who trusted him? Don't get me wrong, noting this disconnect is not meant as disrespect -- but a man who burdens himself with the cloak of dishonesty suggests a greater shame he conceals.

Is it all "hard work" and no understanding of what he is training?Not "no understanding" -- but not a conceptual understanding from objective principles-- THAT is the Western way -- and it also has its faults -- but inconsistency and lack of distinctions is not among them.

Lorel Latorilla
12-04-2012, 12:22 AM
Then why did it nearly fail? It nearly failed with Takeda in Japan by all accounts; Sagawa had few to follow him -- whether he intended it or not. China is a mass of splinters or impenetrable clans.

No offense taken -- or meant. I don't denigrate them. I value them I mine them. I translate them -- there is no disrespect involved. Quite to the contrary. There is immense knowledge within them -- but it does not explain itself well. They simply do not serve as well in the forms they have come down to us, and for many reasons, some of which I have suggested. The proof is in the very precarious state of affairs that Dan and others have been very critical of. I don't reject anyone's points

Because he said so? A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? No, there is much more going on there.
No, I am not trading in stereotypes but in simple realities of a major -- and real-- cultural difference -- I am simply acknowledging that the perversities of on and giri in Japan make for tragedies real and literary that Shakespeare would have wept over. And the history of this body of knowledge alone is replete with such occasions...

1) Sure Takeda is of the same stock as Sagawa or even his son Tokumine. All of them engaged in some kind of "hiding knowledge". How did Takeda fail, when he was able to produce dudes like Sagawa, Ueshiba, Horikawa, etc.? Would you consider them failures? Was it ever a desire for someone like Takeda to spread the tentacles of Daito Ryu? What's more probable? That Sagawa, Ueshiba, and Horikawa were flukes? Or was it more probable that they, who were hungry for such knowledge, were dceliberately taught the secrets of Daito Ryu?

2) Erick. Trust me, if you were to show up and show us your skills, or if your method produced results, people would be talking about you. You would be in demand.

3) " A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? " This is silly. The fact that Sagawa produced Kimura and a couple of others, or Takeda produced Ueshiba, Horikawa, and Sagawa shows that they were not lying about the fact that they were not lying. You are probably right, there is more to that. I think Sagawa, Horikawa, and Ueshiba were more hungry to learn than other students, which put them in the proper state to learn and absorb the things Takeda was teaching. Same goes for Kimura. Maybe you can interpret the "hiding" as Sagawa just giving up on his students, who he probably saw as pathetic guru worshippers that were more awed by the fact that they were learning in Sagawa dojo and didnt care about learning and refused to do the work. I can testify to that fact that this country (Japan that is) produces students that "learn" for other reasons besides learning. So it was not the methodology that was lacking, it was the lack of will to learn. The articulation of the methodology and its improvement is only helpful for the one who had the will to learn, and had his foot in the door. Maybe Sagawa and Takeda could have been more empathetic and be patient towards his students and find ways to ease them into a learning state, but I don't think they were ultimately interested in that. I don't think they were interested in the betterment of people through the medium of bujutsu. It was like, if you didn't want to learn, you will not learn--if you wanted to learn, you got it. In this context, it is understandable that Sagawa and Takeda gave hints to people who were not remotely interested in learning but ultimately did not go out of their way to teach the goods to these people. From soem other aspect and the way Sagawa probably interpreted it, this was "hiding the goods" from people.

Lorel Latorilla
12-04-2012, 12:38 AM
Kimura plainly "got it' -- there is no reason to question it.. How and in what manner-- there's the question. The same question goes for Sagawa and his father in their experience with Takeda, and Ueshiba after them.

Did he? On what evidence? The statement of the man who in the same breath admits to deceiving students who trusted him? Don't get me wrong, noting this disconnect is not meant as disrespect -- but a man who burdens himself with the cloak of dishonesty suggests a greater shame he conceals.

Not "no understanding" -- but not a conceptual understanding from objective principles-- THAT is the Western way -- and it also has its faults -- but inconsistency and lack of distinctions is not among them.

1) There is a tradition of training for these things, Erick. Maybe you should investigate these things. Dan learned Daito-Ryu from some legit guys...maybe you should ask him? He is part of that continuing tradition.You can pick his brain on how we as able to arrive at the skills he posseses now.

2) We can play burden of proof games all day. Sagawa obviously had a language to describe his skills that were phenomenologically convenient for him, otherwise he wouldnt have the skills he possesed. To suggest that his methodology failed is ridiculous--first, it didn't fail him. It actually made hima budo legend in Japan. Second, it didn't fail Kimura. Even if he went out of his way to make the principles more phenomenologically convenient for others, the burden of learning lies in the student. If he doesn't care about learning, he will never put himself into that proper state of absorbing the principles, even if they are being taught in a methodology that is carefully articulated.

3) I am not familiar with the language of physics, but what I have learned from the people I met works..even if the language they use were not derived from language of physics. I personally don't see any problems with metaphors and all that. Makes it easier for people who are not as physics-oriented. The fact that the "metaphoric" or "Asian" way of conveying principles has failed students is pretty delusional, I think.

James Sawers
12-04-2012, 01:10 AM
I first started talking to Dan about this stuff over the internet some fifteen years ago. Thankfullly, I finally got to meet him.

Best,

Chris

Thanks, Chris....

ChrisMoses
12-04-2012, 09:12 AM
I have a Physics degree with a minor in Mathematics (specializing in applied Maths). I also went back to school years later intending to go into Physical Therapy and completed all of the prereqs for a DPT, including over 400 hours volunteering in clinics and observing treatment. I have hands on experience with Akuzawa and Dan. I'm in a pretty good position to see the truth/usefulness of what Eric has offered over the years. Personally I don't find it even slightly useful. *Even if he was exactly right in what he says* it would not help you be able to accomplish these things because it's just not about applying a model to an interaction, it's about changing how your body is and functions. You can't do that without putting in the work and his descriptions of what might be happening, don't tell you what to do to change yourself. Given my own background I could not come up with a better model to *teach* these things than what I have been shown. Further I cannot imagine someone who did not have these skills deeply and functionally being able to even offer an explanation for what's in fact happening. It's just absurd to even think of. Like a third grader explaining Diff EQ to Hawking... :freaky:

yugen
12-04-2012, 09:59 AM
Given my own background I could not come up with a better model to *teach* these things than what I have been shown.

Excellent post Chris. After just experiencing my third seminar with Dan and seeing how he removes a little more onion layer for you each time with his training exercises, I know more so now that its time for me to post less and sweat thru more committed practice!

DH
12-04-2012, 11:03 AM
I have a Physics degree with a minor in Mathematics (specializing in applied Maths). I also went back to school years later intending to go into Physical Therapy and completed all of the prereqs for a DPT, including over 400 hours volunteering in clinics and observing treatment. I have hands on experience with Akuzawa and Dan. I'm in a pretty good position to see the truth/usefulness of what Eric has offered over the years. Personally I don't find it even slightly useful. *Even if he was exactly right in what he says* it would not help you be able to accomplish these things because it's just not about applying a model to an interaction, it's about changing how your body is and functions. You can't do that without putting in the work and his descriptions of what might be happening, don't tell you what to do to change yourself. Given my own background I could not come up with a better model to *teach* these things than what I have been shown. Further I cannot imagine someone who did not have these skills deeply and functionally being able to even offer an explanation for what's in fact happening. It's just absurd to even think of. Like a third grader explaining Diff EQ to Hawking... :freaky:
Excellent post Chris. After just experiencing my third seminar with Dan and seeing how he removes a little more onion layer for you each time with his training exercises, I know more so now that its time for me to post less and sweat thru more committed practice!
Ryan
Interesting isn't it?
Lets look at their arguments

Accusations
1. You can describe and model it. You are just being cagey and only want to make money, so you refuse.
2. You are a fraud and there is nothing different in what you do.
3. You're not intelligent enough to model what you are doing.

On going statements and real world testing
1. "We all feel the same and are operating with the same body parts so everything is the same."
2. This has been proven NOT to be true by thousands of testimonies. These testimonies by their seniors....GO unanswered and ignored. Those testimonies by seniors teachers and professionals; I train Martial art teachers and students from many different arts, who are Doctors, Nurses, Physical therapists, Chiropractors, Massage therapists, and all manner of other body workers...Physicists, Engineers, Architects etc. And yet none of them, not one of them, (and no one arguing against this training matches their qualifications) can do anything any better then any one else by knowing either the body parts or the mechanics involved.

Methods
No one I know or have heard of who HAS unusual power and aiki uses the modern methods based on mechanics to train muscles as described by the people who feel normal. Every one of them uses older models from Asia, involving mind body control (through training intent to change the body) utilizing unusual metaphors and descriptive visualization. In fact, to a man they reject the modern methods.

Results
It is interesting that the physics and mechanics and western medicine crowd all want and demand, an explanation that they can relate to. Why? They, tell me, that its the only way to produce better results.
Yet for all of their understanding they fail to accept a tried and true scientific method: observe.
They have produced no comparative results!
As I have said to Eric and others who write endlessly trying to model this training and telling me they knows what this work is about:
All of your methods produced....you.
All of the older methods we use produced.......us.
If you knew what we were doing, you wouldn't feel like you do and you would have people coming from all over to train with you. The reason you don't, is that you feel like everyone else! What evidence do you have that you understand anything we are saying?
None!

Observations on Aiki and clashing of forces
If no forces intersect by action or intent there is no aiki? Right? No.
Either person can have aiki ...just standing there.
Ueshiba stated it over and over. Aiki is opposing forces (in you). And once again he was stating an ancient model that budo people I have met have no demonstrable understanding of. Yin and Yang in your own body before contact. Aiki in me, before aiki between thee and me.

I stand in rooms and offer a hand and have someone push on it. I barely move, if at all. Everyone just saw me do it at Aikido Eastside. I then do two different things that look EXACTLY the same. One leaves their power to come into me, the other they are off-balanced with their push. To any observer I made no change. But, in the first demonstration I used my arm like everyone else I meet. In the second, I changed my body organization on the inside to produce different results on the outside.
From the looks of it...I clashed with them! And yet they were off-balanced by aiki. First, by aiki within me, secondly by aiki on contact.

Hands on Keyboard, or hands on people
If Ueshiba and Takeda were alive today, the "debaters" would be cranking up their keyboards to challenge their understanding and teaching models,too!! :rolleyes:
There is one inescapable outcome that most avoid.
Your understanding is in your own hands!
Can you stand in open rooms, sometimes hostile rooms, and demonstrate unusual power and skill among a group of professionals, across a broad spectrum of arts, and from around the world. Yes or no?
If not, why not?
What does that really say about what you truly understand
As opposed to what you claim to understand?
Dan

Josh Lerner
12-04-2012, 11:39 AM
Eric,

I am an acupuncturist and manual therapist who specializes in pain, orthopedic problems, and myofascial trigger points, both in my private practice and in my position as an educator.

With a few exceptions, italicized parts are from your post (I'm too lazy to break it up with the quote function).

Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus)

Myofascia is not a form of smooth muscle like the uterus, the intestines, or the heart.

Myofascia is a term used to describe the entire muscular and fascial system of the body, and in clinical literature is usually referring to skeletal muscle, not smooth muscle, because patients come in with problems stemming from skeletal muscle issues. The term was created when people who deal with muscular pain and postural problems started realizing that talking about the muscles in isolation from their surrounding connective tissue matrix didn't make much sense, so instead of talking about just "muscles" they started talking about "myofascia". "Myo" means muscle, so the term means "muscles plus fascia". "Myofascial bundle" is a term that describes a particular bundle of skeletal muscle with its surrounding (and interpenetrating) fascia.

are affected by certain hormones and by certain mechanical factors. (Notably, they are immune to adrenaline/epinephrine.) But they are contracted by oxytocin (the "loving protection' hormone), by inflammation hormones (histamine) -- and more particularly for our purposes, by repetitive mechanical stress and vibrations, as anyone knows who has experienced clenched hands on a yard tool like a shovel or rake used repetitively. These first two effects provide increased structural integrity -- and in the second case, aids limb immobilization when injured. The latter mechanical observation however is more subtle. Local twitch response is a spinal reflex, like flexor/extensor reflexes. When it is problematic, it is implicated in myofascial trigger points -- which frequently have a postural cause -- a disruption of normal stable structure to which the body responds by excessively activating myofascial bundles -- which shows that they are intimately concerned wiht posture -- i.e.-- structural stability.

You are conflating smooth muscle and myofascial trigger points. Smooth muscle has receptors for things like oxytocin and histamine, but trigger points are a completely separate phenomena. This is the definition of a myofascial trigger point:

- A hyperirritable node located within a palpable, taut band of skeletal muscle. It is tender to palpation, and can refer pain or other symptoms in a recognizable pattern.

There are some types of trigger points that fall outside of this definition, such as those that occur in tendons or ligaments (and therefore are not in a palpable band of skeletal muscle), and some might, I guess, in theory, occur within smooth muscle, although I've never come across that discussed in the literature. And even if they do, that has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make.

Note that trigger points are *not* an inflammatory phenomenon, and their formation is independent of histamines (and certainly have nothing to do with oxytocin). There are many biomechanical, nutritional, endocrine, and other causes of trigger points, but those are not some of them.

The most recent discussions of fascial contractablility note that it seems to be able to contract in a smooth muscle-like manner. But fascia is not smooth muscle, and the myofascial trigger points that researchers and therapists are talking about in the literature are not smooth muscle phenomena.

Local twitch response is also seen in what the literature describes as physically "strumming" a tautened muscle bundle. Vibrations thus have physiological effects on reflexive action and the myofascial tissues which strengthen structure.

Local twitch response is what sometimes happens when a trigger point is stimulated, usually by applying direct pressure to it and very commonly by inserting a needle into it. It has nothing to do with "vibrations"; what they mean when they say "strumming" is squeezing the taut band of muscle between your thumb and fingers and letting it snap through them, not rhythmically vibrating it like a guitar string. The significance of strumming is the sudden application of pressure to the trigger point. It has nothing to do with vibrations.

I don't know enough about physics to critique your application of physical models to aikido, but I know myofascial trigger points. If you want your theories to be more accepted, you should stop cherry-picking words and phrases that sound impressive but that you don't really understand to bolster your arguments. Unless you are doing it purposefully to get attention from people like me who then feel compelled to post in response to you. If so, bravo! Mission accomplished!

Josh

Erick Mead
12-04-2012, 01:50 PM
Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus)

Myofascia is not a form of smooth muscle like the uterus, the intestines, or the heart.
Myofascia is a term used to describe the entire muscular and fascial system of the body, and in clinical literature is usually referring to skeletal muscle, not smooth muscle,... When I use the term I mean to distinguish the contractile connective tissue forming a matrix around other tissues-- including all muscle fiber bundles -- where it is dubbed myo-fascia. The clinical use of the term to refer to the complex formed with the muscle fiber bundles should not cause difficulty with the basic understanding of the anatomy of the fascia as different from the tissues it forms and envelope, such as muscle fiber bundles.

The most recent discussions of fascial contractablility note that it seems to be able to contract in a smooth muscle-like manner. We are in agreement. The fascia -- considered in isolation from the striated muscles it envelops -- acts like smooth muscle -- oxytocin-responsive and all (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Jxl65lf75ggJ:www.imbw.pl/pdf/pdfart/Fascia%2520is%2520able%2520to%2520contract%2520a%2520smooth%2520muscles.%2520Ulm %2520Uniw.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShTC0uvHeCgS1OnJcmXrm8m73ky3yjQ_xJdy4ydxw_F0AsulxsUyO0IZfoZmN9swb8HNh oBQSEWdUhcxRZT5UAaZnwtNWi0AdnHjifM0i51Ujx6UuBvUVpKRawHv-E0P7Qy5uPa&sig=AHIEtbS8pFprp0D_JkjqiTKolEkWCiKC7Q).
But fascia is not smooth muscle, ...
Considered in isolation -- if it is not a form of smooth muscle tissue-- what would you call it ? As to its being or behaving as smooth muscle tissue it is a distinction without a difference. I am less interested in names than behaviors. Walk like a duck. Quack like a duck. Not a dog, cat or chicken. Small goose, maybe -- waterfowl, definitely.

... and the myofascial trigger points that researchers and therapists are talking about in the literature are not smooth muscle phenomena. That is not established -- though it is plainly a complex of tissues involved -- the contribution of the smooth muscle behavior of the fascia to the problem is not ruled out. The complex interaction with the muscle tissue proper and reflexive systems give rise to the documented behaviors or effects that I take interest in for our subject matter -- but on the points of influence that seem to control in those issues -- also seem to have relevance to the trigger point phenomenon from the same suite of causes.

You are conflating smooth muscle and myofascial trigger points. No, I am distinguishing them anatomically whereas you conflate them clinically -- which is just fine for clinical use.

Smooth muscle has receptors for things like oxytocin and histamine, ...
The striated muscle tissues interleave with the fascia -- which has this smooth-muscle behavior -- including the hormonal sensitivities -- which we apparently agree on -- (plus the study noted above).

... but trigger points are a completely separate phenomena. That is not established. Perhaps, perhaps not. The complex interrelation and the undeniable postural source of most myofascial pain indicates a connection between adverse structural position and dynamic compensations that may overstimulate tissues. The positional fixation combined with the underlying tonic vibration or stress oscillation involved in stayinhg dynamically stable in such a bad posture -- that is exactly like hand-clenching from repetitive grip stress of a tool, but just occurring in and shortening sections of the muscle tissues (possibly from the Cinderella effect) rather than the gross shortening of the forearm muscles that clench the hands involuntarily. These connections are plain and highly suggestive and have not been ruled out.

This is the definition of a myofascial trigger point:

- A hyperirritable node located within a palpable, taut band of skeletal muscle. It is tender to palpation, and can refer pain or other symptoms in a recognizable pattern.

There are some types of trigger points that fall outside of this definition, such as those that occur in tendons or ligaments (and therefore are not in a palpable band of skeletal muscle), ... It is interesting that we can observe the "trigger point" conditions stemming from fascia not enveloping muscle. All tendons also have a fascial matrix that is not readily distinguishable from that of the muscle tissues to which they connect -- by means of that fascia. Fasica is in a sense the substrate of both . That logically suggests that it is the common tissue -- the fascia -- that is the predominating element in trigger points.

Moreover, the afferent effect of the pathological myofascial bundle in the local twitch response spinal reflex -- suggests that there is a relationship between these as pathological examples of structures with similar reflexive behavior and triggers that arise in normal development (like muscle spindles for the stretch reflex and its inverse reflex mediated by Golgi tendon organs) These spinal reflexes are of great interest and application to our subject matter - I use them -- and provoke them in people all the time.

Note that trigger points are *not* an inflammatory phenomenon, and their formation is independent of histamines (and certainly have nothing to do with oxytocin). We are in agreement and I did not say they were -- it is simply that those are differential identifying criteria for a tissue that behaves like smooth muscle ...

There are many biomechanical, nutritional, endocrine, and other causes of trigger points, but those are not some of them. It is the biomechanicals effects and causes that are of interest -- but in the context of considering fascia in martial applications Ueshiba's sense of budo as "love" and the "spirit of loving protection" to ignore the involvement of oxytocin -- the love hormone -- is to ignore some obvious evidence or directions for inquiry from a seemingly knowledgeable source.

Local twitch response is what sometimes happens when a trigger point is stimulated, usually by applying direct pressure to it and very commonly by inserting a needle into it. It has nothing to do with "vibrations"; what they mean when they say "strumming" is squeezing the taut band of muscle between your thumb and fingers and letting it snap through them, not rhythmically vibrating it like a guitar string. IOW -- you just described plucking it like a fat guitar string. It is the effective influence of the resulting vibration on the systems in question that are of interest and the local twitch response is one more among the spinal reflexes that are mediated by such methods of striking, plucking or vibrating in another way. They do -- interesting -- things to people.

The significance of strumming is the sudden application of pressure to the trigger point. It has nothing to do with vibrations. Pressure versus vibration. Since vibration is useful in such therapeutic massage or manipulations -- as is pressure -- and since vibration in tissue is just an oscillation of pressure-- I am not sure the distinction is that significant.

FWIW -- and in appreciation of this post -- it is worth commenting that this is the kind of engagement by which things can advance usefully. In budo, debate should be like training -- quite pointed, -- challenging, skeptical, but unmistakably polite and relating relevant information directly and carefully to the points put forward. It is much better than people simply comparing the intellectual equivalents of their martial style badges or belt colors as though those proved or disproved anything on what really matters.

Many thanks, Josh.

Garth
12-04-2012, 03:19 PM
You can choose to reply or not but, how does the SIMPLE question of , "Is aikido a clash of forces" turn into a battle between alleged Einsteins and Hawkins of martial arts. Or how the language you are using helps to clarify a question where a simple yes or no will suffice? Also and if a yes or no, state because, "in my personal experience so and so has happened". Not try to compare the human body to pair of 'scissors" or other "mechanical" paradigm, but human to human( and alive human to human would be best, and if not someone who actually felt the no longer present party and can make a comparison, just like Ellis Amdur's "it had to be felt" prerequisites). You know apples to apples, and then why does this apple stand out for a mysterious reason. I think this thread would be better served.:freaky:

When I use the term I mean to distinguish the contractile connective tissue forming a matrix around other tissues-- including all muscle fiber bundles -- where it is dubbed myo-fascia. The clinical use of the term to refer to the complex formed with the muscle fiber bundles should not cause difficulty with the basic understanding of the anatomy of the fascia as different from the tissues it forms and envelope, such as muscle fiber bundles.

We are in agreement. The fascia -- considered in isolation from the striated muscles it envelops -- acts like smooth muscle -- oxytocin-responsive and all (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Jxl65lf75ggJ:www.imbw.pl/pdf/pdfart/Fascia%2520is%2520able%2520to%2520contract%2520a%2520smooth%2520muscles.%2520Ulm %2520Uniw.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShTC0uvHeCgS1OnJcmXrm8m73ky3yjQ_xJdy4ydxw_F0AsulxsUyO0IZfoZmN9swb8HNh oBQSEWdUhcxRZT5UAaZnwtNWi0AdnHjifM0i51Ujx6UuBvUVpKRawHv-E0P7Qy5uPa&sig=AHIEtbS8pFprp0D_JkjqiTKolEkWCiKC7Q).

Considered in isolation -- if it is not a form of smooth muscle tissue-- what would you call it ? As to its being or behaving as smooth muscle tissue it is a distinction without a difference. I am less interested in names than behaviors. Walk like a duck. Quack like a duck. Not a dog, cat or chicken. Small goose, maybe -- waterfowl, definitely.

That is not established -- though it is plainly a complex of tissues involved -- the contribution of the smooth muscle behavior of the fascia to the problem is not ruled out. The complex interaction with the muscle tissue proper and reflexive systems give rise to the documented behaviors or effects that I take interest in for our subject matter -- but on the points of influence that seem to control in those issues -- also seem to have relevance to the trigger point phenomenon from the same suite of causes.

No, I am distinguishing them anatomically whereas you conflate them clinically -- which is just fine for clinical use.

The striated muscle tissues interleave with the fascia -- which has this smooth-muscle behavior -- including the hormonal sensitivities -- which we apparently agree on -- (plus the study noted above).

That is not established. Perhaps, perhaps not. The complex interrelation and the undeniable postural source of most myofascial pain indicates a connection between adverse structural position and dynamic compensations that may overstimulate tissues. The positional fixation combined with the underlying tonic vibration or stress oscillation involved in stayinhg dynamically stable in such a bad posture -- that is exactly like hand-clenching from repetitive grip stress of a tool, but just occurring in and shortening sections of the muscle tissues (possibly from the Cinderella effect) rather than the gross shortening of the forearm muscles that clench the hands involuntarily. These connections are plain and highly suggestive and have not been ruled out.

... It is interesting that we can observe the "trigger point" conditions stemming from fascia not enveloping muscle. All tendons also have a fascial matrix that is not readily distinguishable from that of the muscle tissues to which they connect -- by means of that fascia. Fasica is in a sense the substrate of both . That logically suggests that it is the common tissue -- the fascia -- that is the predominating element in trigger points.

Moreover, the afferent effect of the pathological myofascial bundle in the local twitch response spinal reflex -- suggests that there is a relationship between these as pathological examples of structures with similar reflexive behavior and triggers that arise in normal development (like muscle spindles for the stretch reflex and its inverse reflex mediated by Golgi tendon organs) These spinal reflexes are of great interest and application to our subject matter - I use them -- and provoke them in people all the time.

We are in agreement and I did not say they were -- it is simply that those are differential identifying criteria for a tissue that behaves like smooth muscle ...

It is the biomechanicals effects and causes that are of interest -- but in the context of considering fascia in martial applications Ueshiba's sense of budo as "love" and the "spirit of loving protection" to ignore the involvement of oxytocin -- the love hormone -- is to ignore some obvious evidence or directions for inquiry from a seemingly knowledgeable source.

IOW -- you just described plucking it like a fat guitar string. It is the effective influence of the resulting vibration on the systems in question that are of interest and the local twitch response is one more among the spinal reflexes that are mediated by such methods of striking, plucking or vibrating in another way. They do -- interesting -- things to people.

Pressure versus vibration. Since vibration is useful in such therapeutic massage or manipulations -- as is pressure -- and since vibration in tissue is just an oscillation of pressure-- I am not sure the distinction is that significant.

FWIW -- and in appreciation of this post -- it is worth commenting that this is the kind of engagement by which things can advance usefully. In budo, debate should be like training -- quite pointed, -- challenging, skeptical, but unmistakably polite and relating relevant information directly and carefully to the points put forward. It is much better than people simply comparing the intellectual equivalents of their martial style badges or belt colors as though those proved or disproved anything on what really matters.

Many thanks, Josh.

Josh Lerner
12-04-2012, 04:21 PM
Hi Eric,

I don't have time to address every point you've brought up, so I will only address the main ones of yours that I was refuting. And I will also attempt to put together your assertions in a logical structure, because I'm having trouble following them. I will also use the abbreviation LTR for localized twitch response.

That is not established -- (referring to my statement that the myofascial trigger points that researchers and therapists are talking about in the literature are not smooth muscle phenomena.) though it is plainly a complex of tissues involved -- the contribution of the smooth muscle behavior of the fascia to the problem is not ruled out.

If you are talking about myofascial trigger points that can undergo LTR, it is absolutely well established. Those trigger points are localized contractions of sarcomeres in skeletal muscle. There is a very clear electron microscope image of trigger points that usually shows up in the literature, and although I couldn't find the specific image I'm thinking of online, here is a variation -
http://home.earthlink.net/~sports-therapy/may14.htm

The localized twitch response is a further contraction of the skeletal muscle fibers when the trigger point is stimulated, after which the knots are relaxed because the micro-contractions have released. The most current and accepted theory about the formation of trigger points that I am aware of has to do with damage to the sarcomeres and Ca++ pump and the ensuing shortage of ATP. You can google "energy crisis theory" for more details.

Now, in terms of what causes them - sure, tight fascia that causes the skeletal muscles fibers to be overworked and damaged is a causative factor. So are lots of other similar things like scar tissue, emotional stress, vitamin deficiencies, hypoglycemia and other endocrine disorders. So in terms of things that are contributing to the problem, the smooth muscle-like contractibility of the fascia that tightens it is certainly not ruled out and can be an aspect of the problem. But if you are talking about trigger points that can have a localized twitch response, tight fascia is not the trigger point.

The complex interrelation and the undeniable postural source of most myofascial pain indicates a connection between adverse structural position and dynamic compensations that may overstimulate tissues. The positional fixation combined with the underlying tonic vibration or stress oscillation involved in stayinhg dynamically stable in such a bad posture -- that is exactly like hand-clenching from repetitive grip stress of a tool, but just occurring in and shortening sections of the muscle tissues (possibly from the Cinderella effect) rather than the gross shortening of the forearm muscles that clench the hands involuntarily. These connections are plain and highly suggestive and have not been ruled out.

The mechanical issues you are talking about - poor posture, keeping the hand in a clenched position - have to do with how skeletal muscle reacts to eccentric or isometric contractions and not to vibrations or stress oscillations. It can happen in response to oscillations but it can just as easily happen without them. The problem with postural distortions is that they involve chronic low-level muscle contractions which overuse the earliest-recruited muscle fibers (since later-recruited fibers never get the chance to fire without a full contraction) and which cause excess intramuscular pressure to build up, leading to localized hypoxia and ischemia.

If I sit in meditation for two hours with my head slightly forward, without moving at all, the constant low level contraction of various fibers in muscles like the trapezius will cause the formation of trigger points without any need for oscillations or vibrations.

The striated muscle tissues interleave with the fascia -- which has this smooth-muscle behavior -- including the hormonal sensitivities -- which we apparently agree on -- (plus the study noted above).
(snip)
It is the biomechanicals effects and causes that are of interest -- but in the context of considering fascia in martial applications Ueshiba's sense of budo as "love" and the "spirit of loving protection" to ignore the involvement of oxytocin -- the love hormone -- is to ignore some obvious evidence or directions for inquiry from a seemingly knowledgeable source.

Following your logic -

Practice aikido >
Develop feelings of "loving protection" >
production of oxytocin >
stimulates smooth muscle-like aspect of fascia >
fascia tightens >
develop Ueshiba's level of martial efficacy (and develop trigger points, I guess?)

If I add up all of the individual statements you are making, that is the only conclusion I can come to about what you are saying. To which I really just have no response.

IOW -- you just described plucking it like a fat guitar string. It is the effective influence of the resulting vibration on the systems in question that are of interest and the local twitch response is one more among the spinal reflexes that are mediated by such methods of striking, plucking or vibrating in another way. They do -- interesting -- things to people.

Pressure versus vibration. Since vibration is useful in such therapeutic massage or manipulations -- as is pressure -- and since vibration in tissue is just an oscillation of pressure-- I am not sure the distinction is that significant.

No, it is not the influence of the vibration on the system, and yes, the distinction is very significant.

Sure, it is a spinal reflex like the stretch reflex. But you are talking about the LTR as it occurs in trigger points that are "strummed", and I repeat that your ideas about vibration and oscillation are extraneous to the subject.

I get LTR in patients all the time by slowly holding a muscle with constant pressure or by inserting a needle into it, with no vibration or oscillation of any kind. With manual pressure, the twitch often doesn't occur for ten seconds or up to a minute or two. The fact that vibration can relax muscles and tight fascia is a separate issue. I have many manual vibrating techniques that I also use with patients, and sure, they are very effective for relaxing tight muscles and connective tissues, realigning structures and even relaxing people emotionally. And with thousands of treatments using these techniques, I've never felt an LTR when using them.

And with that, I have expended my available time and energy resources for this topic. Carry on.

Josh

Janet Rosen
12-04-2012, 04:37 PM
Josh, just want to say you are right - this RN would NEVER equate skeletal muscle OR fascia with "smooth muscle." Most of the trigger points I experience + see/feel in others are due to chronic contraction of skeletal muscles creating the shortened sarcomeres, and the releases involve pressure/release, NOT vibration.
Accuracy counts.

DH
12-04-2012, 05:04 PM
Baaa...here comes the herd mentality again. If you don't talk about this in a certain way you can't talk about it without the herd coming out saying all the same rhetoric again.....baaaaaaaa!
Ouch, Mary!! That sort of prejudicial mindset defies reasonable discussion. Think of how dismissive your post is to scores of shihan, 6th dan and 5th dans Who have extensive budo backgrounds. There is no way...no way... you are going to get all of these independent people to have herd mentality over their training.

I imagine that as more round earthers came on the scene; flat earthers could have accused the new thinkers as having herd mentality.
There are times when there is right and wrong, Mary. And the empirical results are coming in year after year, shihan after shihan, teacher after teacher. Along with the empirical testing, we now have better translations from Ueshiba and others that place the teaching of this material in context on a global scale. Look at it this way...Ueshiba was right after all!!

As Bill Gleason (and a growing cadre of teachers around the world agree) says "This...is...Aikido." It takes quite a bit of doing to consistently change the mind of so many jaded 40 plus year experienced teachers, but there ya go. Flat earth/round earth...from better information.

I say to those with offering biomechanics, physics as training methods......Prove it!
We certainly had to, and did.
Dan

Tengu859
12-04-2012, 05:29 PM
Baaa...here comes the herd mentality again. If you don't talk about this in a certain way you can't talk about it without the herd coming out saying all the same rhetoric again.....baaaaaaaa!

Black Sheep, Blind Sheep

Trying to Stand Tall,

Blind Sheep, Black Sheep

Baaa!!! Some will Fall...!!! ;0)

Enjoy,

ChrisW

George S. Ledyard
12-04-2012, 06:13 PM
Baaa...here comes the herd mentality again. If you don't talk about this in a certain way you can't talk about it without the herd coming out saying all the same rhetoric again.....baaaaaaaa!

It is not "herd mentality" when there is a commonly accepted set of terms which describe something, this terminology goes back two thousand years and crosses a number of cultures and languages, and folks who understand what these terms mean can have common discussion. Then folks come along, trying to describe the same things and use completely different terms or, use the same terms but differently... And then, they use terms with precise definitions i terms of anatomy and use them differently than the accepted usage. Well, that makes discussion virtually impossible.

Which is why I keep saying these discussions are largely a waste of time. You have a bunch of folks who have done a certain type of work and have learned the generally accepted terminology. This allows them to speak to each other. You have another group of people who have not done that kind of work, do not share the terminology and use language to describe what they do. I don't have a problem with that per se but those people cannot then go to the larger community and have meaningful discussion because when they try non one knows what they mean or, as often happens, you suspect you do know, but it just reveals that they don't have a clue.

When a group of people know what they are talking about, and a perhaps much larger group which doesn't, end up arguing about something. I fail to see how it is "herd mentality" for the folks who do know and do understand to point out the errors in someone's thinking when they voluntarily entered into such a discussion. No one here is "dojo busting", showing up on your doorstep and showing you up in front of your students. No one here is following people around the Internet, bashing anyone's skills on their Facebook page, posting critical messages on their Google+ profile, un-endorsing anyone for lack of skills on LinkedIn. It is anyone's choice to engage in discussions. Doing so pretty much means that you have to deal with it when a large group of folks decides you are wrong. When I personally posted a few things over the years that a majority of responders disagreed with I had to decide whether I was in fat wrong or they disagreed but I didn't care. But I didn't tell them that they were exhibiting "herd" mentality. I had to concede that the number of folks who disagreed with me in itself was an indicator that I was probably wrong. When I see and directly experience the quality of the folks you are lumping into the "herd" and know for myself just how qualified they are and I can see and directly experience any number of other folks, I have to say I weight the responses differently. Not everyone's opinion carries the same weight. I am sorry but this so-called herd has some of the most talented and brightest folks I know.

One of the reasons that more folks who have a high level of skill do not participate on the forums is the generally low level of the discussions. (There are other reasons too, which have to do with the vituperation and the personalities) The fact that the folks in this so-called "herd" have not simply walked away is interesting in my opinion. I have largely absented myself from the boards lately because the discussions I am interested in largely go nowhere. Some of the folks in the "herd" seem to have more interest in getting folks who don't "get it" to do so. I don't have the energy. It's like arguing about evolution with my born again friend. No amount of factual information will change anything he believes.

It just rankles when someone decides that the opinions of a bunch of folks whom I personally know to understand what they are talking about, several on a level of sophistication that I find awe inspiring, are just part of a "herd" because they have the collective temerity to point out that someone's argument is wrong. Aikido is a really messed up art these days. The amount of wishful thinking that takes place is staggering. I'd like to see that get fixed. Part of that is going to be the process of saying BS when something's BS. Some folks won;t like hearing it. I'm sorry about that. But one of the things that has led to this mess is the idea that we are all ok. Everyone's ideas are valid, everyone's approaches should be respected. I think that's nuts when it comes to Budo. I can really like you, I can respect you as a person, enjoy your company, and still think your Aikido isn't very good. The Aikido I was presented by my teacher had some grounding in reality. It was expected that, if another martial artist of the same experience level as you, walked in the door of your dojo, you could actually handle yourself. I see very few Aikido teachers out there one could say that about. The art is in danger of dying out as a Budo.

While I do actually think that fighting is not the point of training and that the Founder created the art as a practice for spiritual development, I have never understood why many folks think that a shallow understanding of the physical / energetic principles behind the art could possibly yield any kind of depth on the spiritual side. Now, in this instance, I am not saying Erick's understanding of anything is shallow. Quite the opposite... What I am saying is that Erick's terminology is not a step forward. I know something about this stuff and I largely find his explanations largely incomprehensible. Maye it's because I am stupid and he's so smart. But I teach professionally and I think I am quite good at explaining what I am doing and getting others to do it. Erick's reinvention of a new language to talk about this stuff, including using accepted terms in non-accepted ways, might actually work for him. Maybe it's how he really thinks about what he is doing. But I would say that as general practice I wouldn't recommend it. It divorces you from the entire corpus of literature going back hundred and hundreds of years. It divorces you from the entire community of folks who have high skills and already share a common descriptive language for talking about it. And it necessitates spending a good five to ten years teaching others the language so you can start effectively teaching them. Doesn't make sense to me.

I mean Dan H and Mike Sigman don't agree on much of anything in this universe, maybe even multi dimensionally, but they can actually talk to each other and argue using a common language which both understand. Erick can't do that and be understood by anyone but himself. Now maybe folks who aren't technical and don;t already have a descriptive terminology would read Erick's stuff and feel they understand what he's talking about. I suspect that it would mostly be projection if they did, but what the hell. But there's no way for him to talk to the people on the forums who really are doing some hard work on the aiki / internal power development without a constant interruption caused by mutually exclusive use of terminology. And it's certainly not "herd" mentality when the folks who know what they are talking about, and have direct hands on experience with the teachers posting here, point out that "that word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means".

gregstec
12-04-2012, 06:14 PM
"There is no disappointment so numbing...as someone no better than you achieving more."

― Joseph Heller (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3167.Joseph_Heller)

IMO, some people just don't know when to let things go and just agree to disagree and stay out of each other's way. :(

Greg

Garth
12-04-2012, 06:42 PM
It is not "herd mentality" when there is a commonly accepted set of terms which describe something, this terminology goes back two thousand years and crosses a number of cultures and languages, and folks who understand what these terms mean can have common discussion. Then folks come along, trying to describe the same things and use completely different terms or, use the same terms but differently... And then, they use terms with precise definitions i terms of anatomy and use them differently than the accepted usage. Well, that makes discussion virtually impossible.

Which is why I keep saying these discussions are largely a waste of time. You have a bunch of folks who have done a certain type of work and have learned the generally accepted terminology. This allows them to speak to each other. You have another group of people who have not done that kind of work, do not share the terminology and use language to describe what they do. I don't have a problem with that per se but those people cannot then go to the larger community and have meaningful discussion because when they try non one knows what they mean or, as often happens, you suspect you do know, but it just reveals that they don't have a clue.

When a group of people know what they are talking about, and a perhaps much larger group which doesn't, end up arguing about something. I fail to see how it is "herd mentality" for the folks who do know and do understand to point out the errors in someone's thinking when they voluntarily entered into such a discussion. No one here is "dojo busting", showing up on your doorstep and showing you up in front of your students. No one here is following people around the Internet, bashing anyone's skills on their Facebook page, posting critical messages on their Google+ profile, un-endorsing anyone for lack of skills on LinkedIn. It is anyone's choice to engage in discussions. Doing so pretty much means that you have to deal with it when a large group of folks decides you are wrong. When I personally posted a few things over the years that a majority of responders disagreed with I had to decide whether I was in fat wrong or they disagreed but I didn't care. But I didn't tell them that they were exhibiting "herd" mentality. I had to concede that the number of folks who disagreed with me in itself was an indicator that I was probably wrong. When I see and directly experience the quality of the folks you are lumping into the "herd" and know for myself just how qualified they are and I can see and directly experience any number of other folks, I have to say I weight the responses differently. Not everyone's opinion carries the same weight. I am sorry but this so-called herd has some of the most talented and brightest folks I know.

One of the reasons that more folks who have a high level of skill do not participate on the forums is the generally low level of the discussions. (There are other reasons too, which have to do with the vituperation and the personalities) The fact that the folks in this so-called "herd" have not simply walked away is interesting in my opinion. I have largely absented myself from the boards lately because the discussions I am interested in largely go nowhere. Some of the folks in the "herd" seem to have more interest in getting folks who don't "get it" to do so. I don't have the energy. It's like arguing about evolution with my born again friend. No amount of factual information will change anything he believes.

It just rankles when someone decides that the opinions of a bunch of folks whom I personally know to understand what they are talking about, several on a level of sophistication that I find awe inspiring, are just part of a "herd" because they have the collective temerity to point out that someone's argument is wrong. Aikido is a really messed up art these days. The amount of wishful thinking that takes place is staggering. I'd like to see that get fixed. Part of that is going to be the process of saying BS when something's BS. Some folks won;t like hearing it. I'm sorry about that. But one of the things that has led to this mess is the idea that we are all ok. Everyone's ideas are valid, everyone's approaches should be respected. I think that's nuts when it comes to Budo. I can really like you, I can respect you as a person, enjoy your company, and still think your Aikido isn't very good. The Aikido I was presented by my teacher had some grounding in reality. It was expected that, if another martial artist of the same experience level as you, walked in the door of your dojo, you could actually handle yourself. I see very few Aikido teachers out there one could say that about. The art is in danger of dying out as a Budo.

While I do actually think that fighting is not the point of training and that the Founder created the art as a practice for spiritual development, I have never understood why many folks think that a shallow understanding of the physical / energetic principles behind the art could possibly yield any kind of depth on the spiritual side. Now, in this instance, I am not saying Erick's understanding of anything is shallow. Quite the opposite... What I am saying is that Erick's terminology is not a step forward. I know something about this stuff and I largely find his explanations largely incomprehensible. Maye it's because I am stupid and he's so smart. But I teach professionally and I think I am quite good at explaining what I am doing and getting others to do it. Erick's reinvention of a new language to talk about this stuff, including using accepted terms in non-accepted ways, might actually work for him. Maybe it's how he really thinks about what he is doing. But I would say that as general practice I wouldn't recommend it. It divorces you from the entire corpus of literature going back hundred and hundreds of years. It divorces you from the entire community of folks who have high skills and already share a common descriptive language for talking about it. And it necessitates spending a good five to ten years teaching others the language so you can start effectively teaching them. Doesn't make sense to me.

I mean Dan H and Mike Sigman don't agree on much of anything in this universe, maybe even multi dimensionally, but they can actually talk to each other and argue using a common language which both understand. Erick can't do that and be understood by anyone but himself. Now maybe folks who aren't technical and don;t already have a descriptive terminology would read Erick's stuff and feel they understand what he's talking about. I suspect that it would mostly be projection if they did, but what the hell. But there's no way for him to talk to the people on the forums who really are doing some hard work on the aiki / internal power development without a constant interruption caused by mutually exclusive use of terminology. And it's certainly not "herd" mentality when the folks who know what they are talking about, and have direct hands on experience with the teachers posting here, point out that "that word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means".

What Ledyard Sensei said. And I didn't have any trouble following ....Baaaaaa!!

Erick Mead
12-04-2012, 09:15 PM
If you are talking about myofascial trigger points that can undergo LTR, it is absolutely well established. Those trigger points are localized contractions of sarcomeres in skeletal muscle. There is a very clear electron microscope image of trigger points that usually shows up in the literature, and although I couldn't find the specific image I'm thinking of online, here is a variation -
http://home.earthlink.net/~sports-therapy/may14.htmThe localized twitch response is a further contraction of the skeletal muscle fibers when the trigger point is stimulated, after which the knots are relaxed because the micro-contractions have released. The most current and accepted theory about the formation of trigger points that I am aware of has to do with damage to the sarcomeres and Ca++ pump and the ensuing shortage of ATP. You can google "energy crisis theory" for more details. Given. The tension they create implicates reflex circuits. That may well contribute to the constant afferent stimulation that affects some but not all the fibers -- possibly through the spindles. Activating the reflex may simply disrupt the abberant signal -- or possibly relieve an exhausted synaptic electrolyte threshold caught in a feedback loop. Activating the LTR reflex seems to be important to the effectiveness (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DuN6PI4-NBEJ:www.rsds.org/pdfsall/hong_myofascial_pain.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjAhuFmsih87MqK4B11uHGRDrpZbyQDb_ZrThQ5qMbILmUw2MAEliVoHyE_bnEkEWuTgn bbjNhbsafiy7MPoOr5PBNWjUHGgSDISkJfxMDeUNmXO98rqqnU59SnTYOilHNAAlST&sig=AHIEtbTtmqLqx5hrJngVh6UhnHbYOkrkIg) of needle treatment -- which to me begs the question whether it is the reflex arc stimulation that is the proper target rather than the affected fibers themselves.. And the fact that the treatment involves provoking counter-reflex activity -- implicates a key part of the afferent effect of the golgi tendon reflex -- it inhibits the alpha motor neurons in the target muscle with the trigger points -- removing at least one source of a constant action potential that may keep the trigger points actively contracted.

Following your logic -

Practice aikido >
Develop feelings of "loving protection" >
production of oxytocin >
stimulates smooth muscle-like aspect of fascia >
fascia tightens >
develop Ueshiba's level of martial efficacy (and develop trigger points, I guess?)
I have not expressed any such progression -- much less that one-- nor yet concluded whether the involvement of oxytocin on fascia in this context is an operative element, a resultant or signpost effect, or simply a coincidence of association with Ueshiba's religious thought. The Doka don't read that way. It is something not trivially dismissed. However -- the more an more of these connections that I find, I conclude it is less and less likely to be merely the latter.

Erick Mead
12-04-2012, 09:28 PM
Josh, just want to say you are right - this RN would NEVER equate skeletal muscle OR fascia with "smooth muscle." Most of the trigger points I experience + see/feel in others are due to chronic contraction of skeletal muscles creating the shortened sarcomeres, and the releases involve pressure/release, NOT vibration.
Accuracy counts.Point taken -- but I am not equating them -- I am drawing out the directly related functions -- and the fascia is certainly described like smooth muscle in the literature noted and in others. The point of my examination structurally is that stress (pressure) and vibration are equivalent -- structurally. Moments are just static stresses of potential dynamic rotations. Therefore, the same stability systems respond to them similarly.

As to manipulating flexor and extensor reflexes in the art -- it works both from postural stress (kokyu tanden exercises) or from tekubi furi or furitama application. The former is more subject to voluntary modulation, as these reflexes can be voluntarily modulated, though not eliminated. But the latter (furitama) is more powerful and more immediately destructive of stability- as there is no time to modulate it they just pop or drop, depending. People with a certain kind body tone are notably less susceptible -- but that kind of tone does not help their movement or action, generally.

Josh Lerner
12-04-2012, 09:44 PM
Activating the LTR reflex seems to be important to the effectiveness (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DuN6PI4-NBEJ:www.rsds.org/pdfsall/hong_myofascial_pain.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjAhuFmsih87MqK4B11uHGRDrpZbyQDb_ZrThQ5qMbILmUw2MAEliVoHyE_bnEkEWuTgn bbjNhbsafiy7MPoOr5PBNWjUHGgSDISkJfxMDeUNmXO98rqqnU59SnTYOilHNAAlST&sig=AHIEtbTtmqLqx5hrJngVh6UhnHbYOkrkIg) of needle treatment -- which to me begs the question whether it is the reflex arc stimulation that is the proper target rather than the affected fibers themselves..

Just for a data point, needle stimulation does not actually have to produce LTR in order for treatment to be effective, although that has been the standard model until recently. A technique I often use is similar to what is called superficial dry needling, where the needle is inserted very shallowly into the skin above the trigger point, but not into it, and left in for a very short period of time. This PDF mentions the technique on page 6 - http://www.thedryneedlinginstitute.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Myofascial-Dry-Needling.pdf

Erick Mead
12-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Aikido is a really messed up art these days. The amount of wishful thinking that takes place is staggering. I'd like to see that get fixed. Part of that is going to be the process of saying BS when something's BS. Some folks won;t like hearing it. I'm sorry about that. But one of the things that has led to this mess is the idea that we are all ok. Everyone's ideas are valid, everyone's approaches should be respected. I think that's nuts when it comes to Budo... Erick's terminology is not a step forward. I know something about this stuff and I largely find his explanations largely incomprehensible. ... But I teach professionally and I think I am quite good at explaining what I am doing and getting others to do it. a new language to talk about this stuff, ... I would say that as general practice I wouldn't recommend it. It divorces you from the entire corpus of literature going back hundred and hundreds of years. It divorces you from the entire community of folks who have high skills and already share a common descriptive language for talking about it. And it necessitates spending a good five to ten years teaching others the language so you can start effectively teaching them. Doesn't make sense to me.... But there's no way for him to talk to the people on the forums who really are doing some hard work on the aiki / internal power development without a constant interruption caused by mutually exclusive use of terminology. This is helpful. Forget for a moment anything I have said, and assume for the purpose of this question that it is all completely wrongheaded and even just wrong.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the art would be advanced by a purely Western understanding of the mechanics and physiology involved, at least as an adjunct to the descriptive terminology in use in the methods of which you approve?

I repeat: I am not concerned with methods on these topics. They have some. They work. I get it. No issue. That is procedural knowledge -- how-to. But if anything is to DEVELOP -- and not just be repeated -- it has to, eventually, become nativized in its current conceptual environment to flourish. Math is procedural knowledge -- but also conceptual knowledge. But developing new mathematical procedures -- new methods -- requires conceptual grasp of the nature of the subject matter and of the operation and relationships between existing methods.

One thing my examination of the concept of Ki in that way revealed to me is that the categories used on either side do not overlay well at all. The concept maps used in the traditional terminology are organized very differently from ours -- and this poor concept mapping between them is a cause of the disconnect.

This is one reason why I think the "technical" types look at the traditional terminology and their practical increase of a grasp of training in those other terms which they can't relate technically -- and have abandoned any thought of trying to fit it within their technical maps. In one sense they are right, they DO NOT fit. Then they look at what I am doing and wonder "why bother?" because they already "know" that it cannot fit.

But they are not actually unintelligible or unrelatable to one another -- but it is like an optical illusion -- the faces/vase image or others -- you first have to trick your perceptual maps to get it. If you read the short dialogue that Ron Ragusa thoughtfully provoked me into to laying out on the nature of KI in our terms (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/physical-theory-of-ki-a-dialogue-3404/) you will have some idea of what I am getting at when it comes to terms of reference that are at right angles to what you expect.

renshin
12-05-2012, 02:19 AM
But if anything is to DEVELOP -- and not just be repeated -- it has to, eventually, become nativized in its current conceptual environment to flourish.

The thing is: That's just what Dan is doing. He's talking about these things in a way that even me, a simple guy without your academic background or any medical expertise, can understand. He's talking about stuff that Ueshiba's closest students didn't get because of lack of a common language. Ueshiba talked about the gods and topics from the Kojiki. His students were youngsters of a different, modern era. Yasuo Kobayashi, among many, has told us that they just wanted Ueshiba to stop talking so they could train - in their version of Aikido...

Dan also provides the methods you need to "get this" from the start. It's not like in schools where you spend 20+ years of training waza and then maybe, if you're one of the few, get it.

So, Dan and others are working hard to show people like myself what Ueshiba was talking about. In a way that we can relate to and understand. As a result, people are gathering, across borders, to practice these things and to talk about it in a common language. He provides a set of terms and explanations that you can use immediately.

I understand it if you have a hard time grasping these concepts from writing. I did, too. When I met Dan, however, all of the things I had read made sense. There is no way you will get this with a purely academic approach. And there is no way you can do it purely physically. It's a mind's game, both physically and mentally.

FWIW - there is nothing wrong with the terminology and methods Dan provides. The challenge lies in the willingness to put in the time and effort required to turn theory into practice.

Now, what was the original question again?

DH
12-05-2012, 08:42 AM
Life and time are precious. There is no other endeavor.... BUT budo.....ths doesn't require real results....... So two hundred pages of physics and mechanics that produces your average Nidan, or a collection of concepts and metaphors in real world training that produces world class power and aiki??
Tick toc
Tick toc:cool:

DH
12-05-2012, 08:44 AM
Life and time are precious. There is no other endeavor.... BUT budo.....that doesn't require real results....... So two hundred pages of physics and mechanics that produces your average Nidan, or a collection of concepts and metaphors in real world training that produces world class power and aiki??
Tick toc
Tick toc:cool:

DH
12-05-2012, 09:12 AM
How do you absorb?
How do you project?
How do you sink?
How do you suppress?
Without big outward movement?
The answer....is.....physics and mechanics, but physics and have no practical training model to get you there. They ALWAYS fail. The Asians had a well developed method using metaphor and solo training. The Asians created the higher level arts.
Hmmmm......
Dan

Garth
12-05-2012, 09:52 AM
How do you absorb?
How do you project?
How do you sink?
How do you suppress?
Without big outward movement?
The answer....is.....physics and mechanics, but physics and have no practical training model to get you there. They ALWAYS fail. The Asians had a well developed method using metaphor and solo training. The Asians created the higher level arts.
Hmmmm......
Dan

Well there you go. I was going to post that you could have several pages easily on the biological, physical, physiological, mental, chemical, mechanical processes involved in say hitting a baseball. And why a 90 mph fastball appears as big a watermelon to some hitters, but until you go to the batting cage and face a 90 mph fastball your just Bob Costas. A lot may think they are doing aiki or their "version" of it, but it does not explain 1000 strikeouts or the "Babe Ruths" of aiki.:confused:

gregstec
12-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Sincere writers with the intent to truly inform, will write to the level of their audience. If they are missing that mark, the readers will provide feedback and the writer should adjust their writing accordingly. If this feedback is ignored and the writer continues with the same approach, it is very evident that the writer is not writing ‘to' their audience, but is writing ‘at' their audience with the simple intent to impress and not to inform; and the only thing being impressed is the writer's ego as his audience silently walks away with a sigh.

DH
12-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Well there you go. I was going to post that you could have several pages easily on the biological, physical, physiological, mental, chemical, mechanical processes involved in say hitting a baseball. And why a 90 mph fastball appears as big a watermelon to some hitters, but until you go to the batting cage and face a 90 mph fastball your just Bob Costas. A lot may think they are doing aiki or their "version" of it, but it does not explain 1000 strikeouts or the "Babe Ruths" of aiki.:confused:
Yup
I have never met or seen someone really unusual and stellar in skill that pursued that type of analysis. I have nothing against it. I'm just a very....VERY practical guy.

I said it before.
I train ...REAL.... physicists, Doctors, Chiropractors, Physical therapists, acupuncturists and body workers. None of whom have anything favorable to say about analysis as budo-even their own.
Eric is as interested as I am in getting his work out there so...
I have a proposal.
A Budo as a science seminar!!
1. Eric can present his theories on movement. I can bring real physicists, doctors and therapists to the seminar -who are also budo teachers and students- to then ask questions.
2. I will give a talk on metaphors used in budo down through the ages. They can ask me questions.

Then we each demonstrate how our theories work in our bodies on those same people.
Then we discuss conclusions.

I will show up anywhere Eric wants. I figure I can get 50-60 people to come and Eric and I can donate to charity. It would be a great way to once again have aikiweb as a center point and pivotal changer in Aikido like Aikido journal was. We all sort of know each other anyway and budo geeks being geeks...we would no doubt have a great time.
Wadda ya think?
Dan

DH
12-05-2012, 11:07 AM
I left out another important part. At least then, Eric, you would get a chance to then accurately model what I am really doing. Even then it will not help anyone one single bit, in actually doing it, but you would know.
Dan

Krystal Locke
12-05-2012, 11:26 AM
Life and time are precious. There is no other endeavor.... BUT budo.....that doesn't require real results....... So two hundred pages of physics and mechanics that produces your average Nidan, or a collection of concepts and metaphors in real world training that produces world class power and aiki??
Tick toc
Tick toc:cool:

How about 200 pages of physics and mechanics AND a collection of concepts and metaphors AND real world training? Wouldn't that expand the student base? Why not nod at the base physical reality that is there, that can be researched and communicated?

Metaphor is useful but dangerous because it is not consistent between people. Clearly this is shown by the complete clusterfuck that happens here when someone tries to discuss anything more profound than what they had for dinner last night. We cannot communicate effectively about aiki because because we have not agreed on what aiki is. The neat thing about physics and mechanics is that the language used in science is pretty much fixed. Force is mass times acceleration. Mass is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Acceleration is the time based rate of change of the time based rate of change of position in a moving object. Because those terms are objectively defined, we can safely discuss forces, we can confidently make predictions about forces that are borne out in the real world, and we can design and build things that create or direct or withstand forces as they should.

I also find metaphor dangerous because it is very easy to stop thinking once someone "gets", or worse, thinks they "get" the metaphor, and they start to believe that the metaphor is the actual message. This is the foundation for religion and other forms of magical thinking. I want my budo to be strongly reality based and free of magical thought.

Mr Mead may be out there and mostly incorrect (as far as I can tell, and I am beginning to agree a bit with Mark Murray's assessment of Mead's hypotheses about the physics of IP as incorrect and not particularly useful) with what he is proposing as a scientific basis for IP, but if he is able to do functional, correct research, he can get to a real understanding of the physics behind IP. That would be a great boon to the practice and to humanity. He may or may not be able to embody his knowledge and practice what he preaches, but the preaching would not be incorrect. And it would be very useful to me, someone who finds value in precise, reliable, verifiable, repeatable explanation and instruction. While I am also physically (interesting word, that) experiencing and practicing what I am told will work in the real world.

It really is turtles all the way down, and the turtles are physics.

Dan, a rather superficial direct question for you. What is the best way to find your seminar schedule? Do you have a website that lists your calendar? I would love to put some of this argumentation to rest and be able to say that I have indeed felt you. My life requires great planning at the moment, and getting away for a seminar would take some advanced notice, like a month or so, and the seminar would have to fall at a fortuitous time. Do you know where you are going to be 3 months out, or is it catch as catch can?

Krystal Locke
12-05-2012, 11:32 AM
Sincere writers with the intent to truly inform, will write to the level of their audience. If they are missing that mark, the readers will provide feedback and the writer should adjust their writing accordingly. If this feedback is ignored and the writer continues with the same approach, it is very evident that the writer is not writing ‘to' their audience, but is writing ‘at' their audience with the simple intent to impress and not to inform; and the only thing being impressed is the writer's ego as his audience silently walks away with a sigh.

That is very true, and it goes both ways. Now, who is the audience for this discussion?

phitruong
12-05-2012, 11:48 AM
I also find metaphor dangerous because it is very easy to stop thinking once someone "gets", or worse, thinks they "get" the metaphor, and they start to believe that the metaphor is the actual message. This is the foundation for religion and other forms of magical thinking. I want my budo to be strongly reality based and free of magical thought.


problem is the eastern languages are full with metaphors. sort of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_xp8dGy5Q

asian are a bunch of dangerous buggers. can't trust 'em. one moment you ordered mu shu pork, the next moment to got mu gu gai pan or worst, poo poo plater! *urinating dog urinating dog* :)


It really is turtles all the way down, and the turtles are physics.



turtles are not physics; elephants are.

*sorry for folks who aren't terry pratchett fan*

Lorel Latorilla
12-05-2012, 11:51 AM
How about 200 pages of physics and mechanics AND a collection of concepts and metaphors AND real world training? Wouldn't that expand the student base? Why not nod at the base physical reality that is there, that can be researched and communicated?

Metaphor is useful but dangerous because it is not consistent between people. Clearly this is shown by the complete clusterfuck that happens here when someone tries to discuss anything more profound than what they had for dinner last night. We cannot communicate effectively about aiki because because we have not agreed on what aiki is. The neat thing about physics and mechanics is that the language used in science is pretty much fixed. Force is mass times acceleration. Mass is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Acceleration is the time based rate of change of the time based rate of change of position in a moving object. Because those terms are objectively defined, we can safely discuss forces, we can confidently make predictions about forces that are borne out in the real world, and we can design and build things that create or direct or withstand forces as they should.

I also find metaphor dangerous because it is very easy to stop thinking once someone "gets", or worse, thinks they "get" the metaphor, and they start to believe that the metaphor is the actual message. This is the foundation for religion and other forms of magical thinking. I want my budo to be strongly reality based and free of magical thought.

Mr Mead may be out there and mostly incorrect (as far as I can tell, and I am beginning to agree a bit with Mark Murray's assessment of Mead's hypotheses about the physics of IP as incorrect and not particularly useful) with what he is proposing as a scientific basis for IP, but if he is able to do functional, correct research, he can get to a real understanding of the physics behind IP. That would be a great boon to the practice and to humanity. He may or may not be able to embody his knowledge and practice what he preaches, but the preaching would not be incorrect. And it would be very useful to me, someone who finds value in precise, reliable, verifiable, repeatable explanation and instruction. While I am also physically (interesting word, that) experiencing and practicing what I am told will work in the real world.

It really is turtles all the way down, and the turtles are physics.

Dan, a rather superficial direct question for you. What is the best way to find your seminar schedule? Do you have a website that lists your calendar? I would love to put some of this argumentation to rest and be able to say that I have indeed felt you. My life requires great planning at the moment, and getting away for a seminar would take some advanced notice, like a month or so, and the seminar would have to fall at a fortuitous time. Do you know where you are going to be 3 months out, or is it catch as catch can?

You want your budo to be "reality-based"? It's simple. You have theories (or rather your own metaphors--nobody mistakes metaphors as reality themselves, but as pictures of reality--I am sure you have your own "pictures" or metaphors with martial movement) or your own preconceptions about budo. The only way you can know if it is "reality-based" is to test them in ...you know..the real world. I don't think it is metaphor is not the dangerous thing--it is the unwillingness to not test your metaphors or your mathematical formulas against brutal reality that is dangerous.

gregstec
12-05-2012, 12:31 PM
That is very true, and it goes both ways. Now, who is the audience for this discussion?

Which discussion? - there are about five or so different discussions weaving their way through this thread :)

Greg

Krystal Locke
12-05-2012, 12:34 PM
problem is the eastern languages are full with metaphors. sort of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_xp8dGy5Q

asian are a bunch of dangerous buggers. can't trust 'em. one moment you ordered mu shu pork, the next moment to got mu gu gai pan or worst, poo poo plater! *urinating dog urinating dog* :)

turtles are not physics; elephants are.

*sorry for folks who aren't terry pratchett fan*

As we can see in the STNG ep, metaphorical communication is very inefficient, requires an initially concrete, descriptive, objective vocabulary, and demands rather tightly shared experience. Not good for transmitting new information.

Erick Mead
12-05-2012, 12:36 PM
The thing is: That's just what Dan is doing. He's talking about these things in a way that even me, a simple guy without your academic background or any medical expertise, can understand. ... Dan also provides the methods you need to "get this" from the start.

FWIW - there is nothing wrong with the terminology and methods Dan provides. The challenge lies in the willingness to put in the time and effort required to turn theory into practice.

Now, what was the original question again? I understand and question none of that -- save one thing only: "Theory into practice." Practice requires no theory. None.

Theory, on the other hand, objectively worked out, tends to expand the realm of possibilities for refining existing practices and even new practical applications never before developed. That is the history of the West. Japan learned our lessons well. China is coming along. India likewise. Why should these matters be any different?

It is said , "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not." That is because good theory, well conceived, always points beyond any practice of the moment. Where it points may have little immediate application to existing practice -- if all that concerns you is improving one's own grasp of existing practice.

We have different aims. It is the "what" of the thing not the "how" of the thing that I am aiming at on this topic. People who are practical-minded may view the "what" with disinterest relative to the "how" -- but it interests me. The "what" is not captured by the traditional training terminologies -- not in Western terms -- That terminology was never concerned with the "what" -- it was concerned with "how-to."

If our technical development had ignored theory in favor of existing practice, then we would all have DC elcectrical appliances -- and have to pay for fueling and maintaining household generators. As it is, we have large-scale generation and AC transmission -- which, in theory, was more efficient. But AC has all kinds of complicated practical concerns that DC lacks -- like cyclic phases -- which are not even problems encountered with DC circuits. But that theory changed the existing practice, resulting in cheap electrical power wherever a wire can run.

I find correspondence in much of what he describes -- as I would expect to if his practical methods work and if my conceptual work is at least in the neighborhood of reality, even if it still has rough patches. There are many of the "how-to's" --better or worse as understood or applied -- and I'll freely accept the testimony of all concerned that his is among the better. That is not and never was the issue. I am not concerned with promoting any methods, be it my own (I have none) or any others, and to presume such is to utterly miss the point.

Budo as a science seminar!!

Since I have no "methods" to compare -- and I think the traditional ones work just fine, properly understood (and which seems to be a point of general agreement) -- what is the point of a meeting to compare? "What" or "How"? What would be compared -- apples and pineapples? I am not saying no, just asking what the purpose to be accomplished would be.

This came later:
At least then, Eric, you would get a chance to then accurately model what I am really doing. True. There is no substitute for observation and experience -- My point is that what I think I experienced and what actually happened may diverge when the causes, effects and perceptions are -- physiologically speaking -- out of sync and the sequence of events and perceptions is not reliable subjectively, which is a critical part of what I am looking at as part of the mechanism. As much or more than "feeling" it for myself would be to watch others feeling it too -- because watching it objectively, the sequence remains intact, and undisturbed by the internal delay/disconnects built in to our different perception and action pathways.

Some of this eagerness to meet on the one side versus reticence on the other gets routinely misinterpreted -- it is largely a matter of personality -- extroverts versus introverts. Extroverts love company; introverts, not so much. I look for more intensive contact on ideas and things of particular personal importance -- not for contest, nor for fests of general convivial presentations. I got into law so I could avoid unending business meetings and constantly competitive goal-setting -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd rather take apart a brief and build a better line of thought, and argue the point. From a standpoint of budo, while contingency rules-- if find I have contest on my hands-- then something was wrong with my strategy. If it is premised as a contest -- I have zero interest. I have oodles of conflict everyday in my profession -- which oddly, I do enjoy -- but certainly have no desire to go looking for more of it. And beer waza would need to be mandatory. ;)

Somebody asked or suggested Fresno, at some point I think. I lived in California for almost seven years and I never went to Fresno -- not that there's anything wrong with Fresno.... I did try in good faith to arrange something down here a few years back. It got quite unnecessarily tangled up. As a result, there is little interest amongst anyone else here who has to be consulted. I would not go far out of my way , here or elsewhere, despite the invitation. Fact is that I have not taken a vacation in five years, and if I did -- my wife has dibs on any significant travel -- and would kill me to take one solely for this purpose. Something in Atlanta might be doable -- Jon Reading and Mike Magno are at Emory, someone might inquire if they have any interest, perhaps, and ask if they would want to host or coordinate. My wife likes the Scott's Antique Market (http://www.scottantiquemarket.com/antiqueshows_dates.html), and that will keep her occupied for a goodly part of a weekend. So for my druthers it would be one of those weekends, (January 10-13 • February 7-10, March 7-10 • April 11-14) but not January or February for me, as I have major hearings to prepare that would conflict.

chillzATL
12-05-2012, 12:43 PM
for this purpose. Something in Atlanta might be doable -- Jon Reading and Mike Magno are at Emory, someone might inquire if they have any interest, perhaps, and ask if they would want to host or coordinate. My wife likes the Scott's Antique Market (http://www.scottantiquemarket.com/antiqueshows_dates.html), and that will keep her occupied for a goodly part of a weekend. So for my druthers it would be one of those weekends, (January 10-13 • February 7-10, March 7-10 • April 11-14) but not January or February for me, as I have major hearings to prepare that would conflict.

There have been talks about Atlanta in January already, so nudge away in that direction.

Erick Mead
12-05-2012, 12:44 PM
Which discussion? - there are about five or so different discussions weaving their way through this thread :) ONLY five ...?

renshin
12-05-2012, 01:13 PM
I understand and question none of that -- save one thing only: "Theory into practice." Practice requires no theory. None.


Well - my point was that the real work is in taking what you are told in words and by example - and turning it into something physical / mental that you actually do to improve your skills - and not just discuss online :)

jonreading
12-05-2012, 01:39 PM
Something in Atlanta might be doable -- Jon Reading and Mike Magno are at Emory, someone might inquire if they have any interest, perhaps, and ask if they would want to host or coordinate. My wife likes the Scott's Antique Market, and that will keep her occupied for a goodly part of a weekend. So for my druthers it would be one of those weekends, (January 10-13 • February 7-10, March 7-10 • April 11-14) but not January or February for me, as I have major hearings to prepare that would conflict.

We can make something happen. We are off campus now and in our own place. Just had our first seminar with Steve Fasen and it was great (if I do say so myself). Nudge away...

To be fair, Shindai dojo in Orlando is having some real heavyweight aiki do people next year. Steve ran down the list and staggered me... Ledyard, Messisco, Gleason, to name a few. I will be there for at least a few, if not several...

George Sensei mentioned some issues with the communication language and after reading more posts about Internal power I'd agree - I think we need to let the IP lead that dance and give us the language. If we want to try our own translation after we see what they are doing, fine. But, I think we owe it to see what they are doing before we pass judgment.

As I see it, the future of aikido in the US could be great. We have some excellent aikido people here. I think that does place some pressure on the elite groups to migrate the Eastern curriculum into the West and establish a Western transmission process. So while I appreciate the specificity to comprehend the Eastern delivery methodology, I am looking forward to these guys once they make the transmission change.

I think these forums are advantageous to help the community more concisely define and clearly illustrate aikido, yet we tend to not consolidate our lexicon. I guess its individual choice, but the IP guys are trying to tell us how they do things and we are saying, but we "do it this way". So?

When I first started playing golf, my coach looked at my swing and gave me a golf ball to keep in my pocket. No science (I was 13), but that ball changed the way I swung. Right now, I am damned if I can do it. Once I do, then I'll try to explain it.

Conrad Gus
12-05-2012, 01:42 PM
I mean Dan H and Mike Sigman don't agree on much of anything in this universe, maybe even multi dimensionally, but they can actually talk to each other and argue using a common language which both understand.

Ledyard Sensei,

I have a question about this. Just because Dan H and Mike Sigman have a common language doesn't mean that they are using the terms to refer to the same things.

Would you say they share a common underlying model and methodology, despite their disagreements? If so, and if they both are at a high level (as some people claim), it seems odd to me that they don't recognize each other's abilities and understanding.

What do you think?

Just curious,

Conrad

mathewjgano
12-05-2012, 02:00 PM
You can certainly have a "clash" of forces within ones self. For example pushing with the shoulder dillutes any power generated below it, as pushing with the shoulder pushes back into ones self and negates some of the power generated elsewhere.

I'm not so sure this applies to the balloon model, as local muscle usage is reduced, thus the "dillution" discussed above does not happen to the same degree.
Thanks for the reply, Hunter! I can definately see clashing in my own body: in trying to "push" from some given area I find other areas tightening up which then seems to limit my range as well as my ability to approach that range (and thus, I assume, my overall power potential)...nevermind subtler aspects of moving that I'm not cued in to yet.
I forget what prompted the balloon analogy, but I remember a physics class showing vectors going in opposite directions. In a sense they're clashing (i.e. opposite directions), but they also create a more or less balanced interior pressure which when combined with the elasticity of the balloon, makes for interesting load tranfers (pushing into one point will apply pressure throughout). If we can control the elasticity at will, I would think we could diffuse incoming pressures and shape their direction. If we picture a balloon sitting more or less on top of the hips with a pole running vertically, with limbs and whatnot, you have roughly where my mind is at with trying to apply "internals" concepts to strengthening and balancing my structure. This balloon idea is basically where my mind goes when I try to consider a union of opposites; as I twist my torso, for example, I can feel the "balloon" develop stretches and they're never as symmetrical as I'd like them to be (i.e. opposites not unionized...er...something like that:D).
Does that more or less fit with your understanding?


turtles are not physics; elephants are.

*sorry for folks who aren't terry pratchett fan*

I'm hoping to round out my Discworld Doctrine this Christmas; I find it's good for the soul...or least one of them occupying at least one of the myriad foamy universes.
I'd also just like to say thanks to Krystal for speaking with a clarity I've regularly failed at in these conversations. It's been a pleasure to read.
Take care, y'all!
Matt

DH
12-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Ledyard Sensei,

I have a question about this. Just because Dan H and Mike Sigman have a common language doesn't mean that they are using the terms to refer to the same things.

Would you say they share a common underlying model and methodology, despite their disagreements? If so, and if they both are at a high level (as some people claim), it seems odd to me that they don't recognize each other's abilities and understanding.

What do you think?

Just curious,

Conrad
Mike doesn't move anything like me. And from what I hear, we don't teach the same stuff either.
Train with Mike, train with Ark, train With Sam...just go train, listen and feel.
Dan

phitruong
12-05-2012, 02:21 PM
As we can see in the STNG ep, metaphorical communication is very inefficient, requires an initially concrete, descriptive, objective vocabulary, and demands rather tightly shared experience. Not good for transmitting new information.

and the situation here is different how? IP/IS folks said hand-on time for shared experience. other folks said we should be able explain it in words. IP/IS folks = tamarian, other folks = federation. in the STNG ep, the tamarian capt came up with a good solution. and yes, no knowledge/understanding without sacrifice. sacrifice in this case = get off your butts and get some hand-on time, then come back and let us know if you can describe it in technical terms. and if you don't get off your butts, then "when the wall fell".

if you do get your hand on dan or one of the IP/IS folks, ask them to do a zero-inch punch, then see if you can explain that in term of F=ma. the m is easy to explain. the "a" is a bit harder since it's "m/s/s and m(distance)=0". try to figure out how to make "a" non-zero is quite interesting.

phitruong
12-05-2012, 02:31 PM
I have a question about this. Just because Dan H and Mike Sigman have a common language doesn't mean that they are using the terms to refer to the same things.



haven't meet dan, but i believed they have more in common than they argued about. but then again, i don't know if we want them both in the same room. it's kind of like matter meets anti-matter. personally, i am willing to be uke in that case. i can take them! :D

mathewjgano
12-05-2012, 02:33 PM
if you do get your hand on dan or one of the IP/IS folks, ask them to do a zero-inch punch, then see if you can explain that in term of F=ma. the m is easy to explain. the "a" is a bit harder since it's "m/s/s and m(distance)=0". try to figure out how to make "a" non-zero is quite interesting.

How far does that zero-inch fist travel into the target? Wouldn't that make a non-zero "a" easy?

phitruong
12-05-2012, 02:43 PM
How far does that zero-inch fist travel into the target? Wouldn't that make a non-zero "a" easy?

F1=m1a1 (nage - one who did the punch)
F2=m2a2 (uke - one who got launch)
F1 = F2
a1 is the one that's interesting. zero-inch punch = nage fist flat against uke body, no draw back any part of the body. this is one of the teacher tests, i believed.

mathewjgano
12-05-2012, 03:14 PM
F1=m1a1 (nage - one who did the punch)
F2=m2a2 (uke - one who got launch)
F1 = F2
a1 is the one that's interesting. zero-inch punch = nage fist flat against uke body, no draw back any part of the body. this is one of the teacher tests, i believed.

I get there's no draw back or chambering, but there is still movement at the point where the strike begins (regardless of how much windup), right? In other words, there is still an accelleration of mass into the target mass, even though it starts from contact, right?
<sigh> I need to relearn physics. Why must we lose it if we don't use it? I was hoping my knowledge would age like wine, but each time I go back to retrieve a bottle it's missing. There seems to be some entity sucking it all up...and I hate to think of what it's been replaced with.
Mr. N. Tropy what have you done with my fine spirits?!:eek:

phitruong
12-05-2012, 03:36 PM
I get there's no draw back or chambering, but there is still movement at the point where the strike begins (regardless of how much windup), right? In other words, there is still an accelleration of mass into the target mass, even though it starts from contact, right?


everything accelerates forward. i can tell you from uke point of view, since it was done on me. the pressure of nage fist on my skin/body contact point didn't change, then boom me flew into the wall a few feets away and i meant flew as in my feet off the floor kind of flew. the question is how did nage accelerate his mass, without drawing back or chambering of anykind, through a zero distance? took me awhile, as in years, to figure out and have been working on it with some modest success where i can launch myself across the kitchen and grab some coffee. :)

Howard Popkin
12-05-2012, 03:40 PM
Phi,

I love you man :)

DH
12-05-2012, 03:42 PM
Phi
Everything is mass and acceleration. The differences are how much mass and the levels of acceleration we use that most of you are simply not capable of doing. And we....are going to get better as we age (to a certain point). Tissue recruitment is a starting point for a hands on discussion since it can be shown that normal people are greatly deficient. I have never run into an argument on this point in person. The models I use are fairly self explanatory and the manner in which people fail are rather obvious. This flies in the face of the "athletes" who think they go it down and they actually sometimes the worst ones in the room as their tight bodies cannot generate force in a whole body move the same way.

They argue and debate their high level sport science western modes of movement studies....then fail over and over. Then ask me how to do what I am doing.
Dan

Mert Gambito
12-05-2012, 04:06 PM
Sigh. This thread is the poster child for why this stuff was developed and survived . . . in Asia vs. the west.

Mert

Marc Abrams
12-05-2012, 04:10 PM
Sigh. This thread is the poster child for why this stuff was developed and survived . . . in Asia vs. the west.

Mert

Hey! I resemble that round-eyed remark....:D The good news is that there is an ever-growing body of westerners who are working on this stuff (and SLOWLY getting better). I think that the larger issue is the difficulty in letting go of what we think that we know and being open to experiencing something different.

Regards,

marc abrams

yugen
12-05-2012, 04:22 PM
Since this thread has touched on this subject... Maybe this link has already been posted:

http://med.stanford.edu/mcr/2008/taichi-0507.html

Mert Gambito
12-05-2012, 05:21 PM
Marc,

Just to be clear (and I trust it is to you, anyway): I'm talking about Asia vs. Asians, the west vs. westerners.

I don't get why people choose to remain stuck in the sight-unseen analytical infinite loop regarding all this: isn't first-hand observation and experience still a requirement for formulating a valid theory in modern science? Fortunately, Dan and others with the ability to provide the source inputs are easier to encounter then Bigfoot and the Roswell aliens.

Mert

Mert Gambito
12-05-2012, 05:26 PM
Since this thread has touched on this subject... Maybe this link has already been posted:

http://med.stanford.edu/mcr/2008/taichi-0507.html

Ryan,

Do you know if there were any follow-ups to this research conducted and published since 2008?

Mert

gregstec
12-05-2012, 05:34 PM
Marc,

Just to be clear (and I trust it is to you, anyway): I'm talking about Asia vs. Asians, the west vs. westerners.

I don't get why people choose to remain stuck in the sight-unseen analytical infinite loop regarding all this: isn't first-hand observation and experience still a requirement for formulating a valid theory in modern science? Fortunately, Dan and others with the ability to provide the source inputs are easier to encounter then Bigfoot and the Roswell aliens.

Mert

What, you have not encountered Tom (Bigfoot) Holz yet? and I swear that Don Soucy guy is an alien; he is just too weird to be from this planet ;)

Greg

yugen
12-05-2012, 05:42 PM
Ryan,

Do you know if there were any follow-ups to this research conducted and published since 2008?

Mert

I haven't found anything else.

Mert Gambito
12-05-2012, 05:59 PM
What, you have not encountered Tom (Bigfoot) Holz yet? and I swear that Don Soucy guy is an alien; he is just too weird to be from this planet ;)

Greg

Greg,

Who are these people (checking the MonsterQuest website now . . .)?

Mert

jeremymcmillan
12-05-2012, 07:18 PM
Dan Harden: Your original reply stands on its own.

DH
12-05-2012, 09:41 PM
Dan Harden: Your original reply stands on its own.
Hi Jeremy
I think my edited post #93 was better. To be frank I think it was the only substantive post addressing the fuller spectrum of the question on the whole thread. There really is no discussion to be had when folks can't even demonstrate the little I laid out, much less intelligently discuss it. There is no debate to be had either. It is the essence of everything they are trying to do. They just haven't figured that out yet.
Dan

phitruong
12-06-2012, 07:35 AM
Hey! I resemble that round-eyed remark....:D

marc abrams

marc, you can become asian too through adoption. i can adopt you as my brother-in-arm. you would have to answer some tough questions, since we asian have high standard.

have you ever party for more than 24 hrs?
have you knowledge in carousing?
have you spent time with strange men and touching them in strange way while wearing a skirt?
have you look at your big gut and said "my hara is looking good" and ask your significant other to feel it?
have you gone commando or at least zebra thong under your hakama?
have you large stock of ibuprofen, icyhot and similar ointments?
have you consider steak as part of vegetarian diet?
have you weep over kimchi (at least because of it)?

Marc Abrams
12-06-2012, 07:56 AM
marc, you can become asian too through adoption. i can adopt you as my brother-in-arm. you would have to answer some tough questions, since we asian have high standard.

have you ever party for more than 24 hrs?
have you knowledge in carousing?
have you spent time with strange men and touching them in strange way while wearing a skirt?
have you look at your big gut and said "my hara is looking good" and ask your significant other to feel it?
have you gone commando or at least zebra thong under your hakama?
have you large stock of ibuprofen, icyhot and similar ointments?
have you consider steak as part of vegetarian diet?
have you weep over kimchi (at least because of it)?

Phi- my - adopted- brother-in-arms:
1) Yes- We use to have "anti-days" at my old fraternity.....
2) Yes- I can neither confirm nor deny this answer......
3) Yes- And I did not even have to call myself a lumberjack ...( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg )
4) Yes- the result of the touch is further tissue expansion.....
5) Yes.... Just hiding my tanto.....
6) Yes.... Brew my own Chinese liniments..... Two cellars full of muscle relaxing, pain relieving grape extracts....
7) Yes- Is is my standard vegetarian meal!
8) Yes- Tears usually follow "I surrender!"

I can envision our future.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE9VSEgV90Y

Brotherly,

Marc Abrams

Tom Verhoeven
12-06-2012, 01:55 PM
Since this thread has touched on this subject... Maybe this link has already been posted:

http://med.stanford.edu/mcr/2008/taichi-0507.html

Thanks for the link.

The punch that he gave was 60 mph. That is a good punch. But as far as I know not exceptional. It seems that a speed like that is not uncommon in boxing or TKD, muay thai, etc.?

Tom

ChrisMoses
12-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Thanks for the link.

The punch that he gave was 60 mph. That is a good punch. But as far as I know not exceptional. It seems that a speed like that is not uncommon in boxing or TKD, muay thai, etc.?

Tom

Force = mass x acceleration
Power = force x velocity

If you have 20lbs of mass behind a 100 mph strike, you have less power than if you can recruit 34lbs of mass behind a 60 mph punch. (just throwing numbers out to point out that the raw speed of a strike is not the ultimate litmus for how much power (or potential power) there is there)

yugen
12-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Thanks for the link.

The punch that he gave was 60 mph. That is a good punch. But as far as I know not exceptional. It seems that a speed like that is not uncommon in boxing or TKD, muay thai, etc.?

Tom

Whether exceptional or not I don't know. Whether muay thai or TKD produce 14 times the bodyweight in torque, I don't know either. Whether or not he's an exceptional taiji master I don't know.

this link shows some conventional measurements of Karate, olympic boxers, etc.
http://www.connectsavannah.com/news/article/102548/

The link wasn't to make a point one way or the other, just an example of western science being applied to analyze IP/IS. The researchers themselves who study movement, gait, golf swings, etc seemed to be impressed. Most conventional striking in muay thai, TKD, etc doesn't amount to much more than good athletic swinging, so I don't think the link and research would have been made public if there wasn't something more there, but that's an assumption on my part. The IP/IS strikes are typically demonstrated without wind up or reach (i.e. zero inch punch).

If I had to take away anything from the link is that there's been a lot of back and forth in this thread about trying to scientifically analyze and explain this stuff. The sensors and measuring done in the study were sensors placed on the external form. i.e. to feel how to do this stuff and to be taught it is not a straight forward equation that Dan or some other IP/IS could write on the board. If it were we'd all be doing it.

Or hell.. I'd make a home device using the Microsoft kinect camera with body mounting transmitting piezo shock sensors and be selling it... :eek: Quick to the patent lawyer's office!

Keith Larman
12-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Force = mass x acceleration
Power = force x velocity

If you have 20lbs of mass behind a 100 mph strike, you have less power than if you can recruit 34lbs of mass behind a 60 mph punch. (just throwing numbers out to point out that the raw speed of a strike is not the ultimate litmus for how much power (or potential power) there is there)

I was discussing this very point recently and did a strike on a student (who had a protective foam pad on his chest) from a half inch away. No way to get much speed but I was able to recruit a *lot* of my significant body in the punch. He had to bow off the mat and rest for a while after the strike. He later said it knocked a lot of the wind out of him and he felt it in his toes. And I've been hit by folk who do stuff like Systema and find that they can do a lot of damage with what appears to be a slower, relaxed strike. Same idea, you feel it throughout your body or in a penetrating fashion rather than as a "crush" on the surface. Heck, they even sound different when they land. A deep thud rather than a slap. FWIW.

Just a small tangent...

Keith Larman
12-06-2012, 02:28 PM
Oh, and fwiw I was watching some video of Ark last night -- I'd hate to get hit or kicked by that guy. Same sound... He could probably punch you in the belly and loosen your teeth...

Cady Goldfield
12-06-2012, 04:36 PM
Thanks for the link.

The punch that he gave was 60 mph. That is a good punch. But as far as I know not exceptional. It seems that a speed like that is not uncommon in boxing or TKD, muay thai, etc.?

Tom

It's about more than velocity, but the nature of the mechanics -- what's behind the punch. I would be curious to see the researchers compare the amount of force created by the taichi punch and a TKD/muay Thai punch traveling at the same velocity and rate of acceleration, by individuals of the same general size and weight/body mass.

Thomas Campbell
12-07-2012, 12:25 PM
Ryan,

Do you know if there were any follow-ups to this research conducted and published since 2008?

Mert

Ryan and Mert--

While the bajiquan shown in that motion-study clip is exterrnally impressive, Chen Xiang can do things more related to his taiji training that are even more skillful (in my opinion) and not really addressed with what the Stanford students were monitoring. Chen exhibits (I've felt) very strong "pulsing" power with no windup, very heavy connected arms when striking or doing push-hands (and can "turn off" the connection so you can feel the difference), and excellent neutralization. Chen was in Seattle and the Bay Area in October. I think he comes to the Bay Area at least once a year: maybe the Stanford lab could measure the external movement of the more subtle taiji work.

But the real interest in "no-inch power" I think would be in "tissue recruitment," which can also be measured in various ways. Some of the scrawny guys who demonstrate amazing feats of strength are said to recruit more motor units with a higher stimulation frequency. This is a largely neural function that to a certain extent can be trained. There are limits, of course (see, for example, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4255 ).

This kind of pulsing power is the yang side of the situation. But it's the way that the highly-skilled guys can use their power under pressure that makes it so effective, i.e., more than dumb force-on-force. For example, the angle relative to the line of incoming/attacking force at which they apply the power is important to its effectiveness in fighting (d'oh). Even more critical is the skill of neutralization--that is the yin side of the equation. Balancing forces within you--the "aiki in me" Dan writes about--is very important.

That obviously wasn't addressed by the Stanford motion study of Chen's bajiquan. But tissue recruitment and functioning during neutralization is possible to monitor. It would be expensive--and unlikely to receive a NIH grant anytime soon--and there are a paucity of credible research subjects. I just wanted to mention it because people get distracted by the external impressiveness of outward-directed power when the more subtle but equally critical skills of neutralization (without bracing) get ignored.

George S. Ledyard
12-09-2012, 04:47 PM
Ledyard Sensei,

I have a question about this. Just because Dan H and Mike Sigman have a common language doesn't mean that they are using the terms to refer to the same things.

Would you say they share a common underlying model and methodology, despite their disagreements? If so, and if they both are at a high level (as some people claim), it seems odd to me that they don't recognize each other's abilities and understanding.

What do you think?

Just curious,

Conrad

Conrad,
The answer to your question is a bit complicated... Even the Chinese themselves argue about the details. Yes, Dan and Mike argue a lot about these things. But their arguments come from a place of mutual understanding of the basic concepts. Like two trained engineers arguing about a design. They at least have the same basic underpinnings about how they talk about.

Then there is the fact that this is never cut and dry. This is an area in which there is simply no limit to how good you can get or the level to which you might aspire. So, the heated debates of the top level folks might seem nit picky to those of us who are more at an entry level to the skills but of critical importance to them since a mistaken idea about how things really work can stop ones progress.

There are a lot of higher level folks around but I think that certain folks stand out both as parctitioners and as teachers. That's my take on it.

DH
12-10-2012, 04:08 PM
Ryan and Mert--

While the bajiquan shown in that motion-study clip is exterrnally impressive, Chen Xiang can do things more related to his taiji training that are even more skillful (in my opinion) and not really addressed with what the Stanford students were monitoring. Chen exhibits (I've felt) very strong "pulsing" power with no windup, very heavy connected arms when striking or doing push-hands (and can "turn off" the connection so you can feel the difference), and excellent neutralization. Chen was in Seattle and the Bay Area in October. I think he comes to the Bay Area at least once a year: maybe the Stanford lab could measure the external movement of the more subtle taiji work.

But the real interest in "no-inch power" I think would be in "tissue recruitment," which can also be measured in various ways. Some of the scrawny guys who demonstrate amazing feats of strength are said to recruit more motor units with a higher stimulation frequency. This is a largely neural function that to a certain extent can be trained. There are limits, of course (see, for example, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4255 ).

This kind of pulsing power is the yang side of the situation. But it's the way that the highly-skilled guys can use their power under pressure that makes it so effective, i.e., more than dumb force-on-force. For example, the angle relative to the line of incoming/attacking force at which they apply the power is important to its effectiveness in fighting (d'oh). Even more critical is the skill of neutralization--that is the yin side of the equation. Balancing forces within you--the "aiki in me" Dan writes about--is very important.

That obviously wasn't addressed by the Stanford motion study of Chen's bajiquan. But tissue recruitment and functioning during neutralization is possible to monitor. It would be expensive--and unlikely to receive a NIH grant anytime soon--and there are a paucity of credible research subjects. I just wanted to mention it because people get distracted by the external impressiveness of outward-directed power when the more subtle but equally critical skills of neutralization (without bracing) get ignored.
Hi Tom. Interesting stuff isn't it? That will go nowhere.
There is more to the "generation of power" side of things that cannot be filmed or sourced. It has to do with the level of sustained yin/ yang through the use of intent. Something as simple as manifesting six directions, and how that effects the body tissues can be felt, but it's not going to necessarilly be seen.

I would add to that, that the manifestion of yin and yang can be shown in a single arm movement. I do this at seminars where I have someone put force into my arm and I move and they move. I then do the exact same movement now deviod of yin and yang and their power comes in or I have to use muscle. Then....apply yin and yang...I move, they move.

There are so many things, just like this, that can be shown, and all the "experts" on the internet fail at duplicating, all while claiming understanding. As the twentieth Chapter of the classics explains
"The weight of a feather cannot be added, a fly cannot alight...." As they also state;
"Yin and yang is the comprehension of energy."

Dan

DH
12-10-2012, 04:56 PM
Another thing, Tom
As time goes by, there is another form of testing taking place that is more relevant....hands on...and it will remain the standard. I say more relevant, as the level of education in this work improves, more and more teachers are going to be "outed" for the level they are really at. This work is like nothing else in the arts. You can't fake it and it is testable beyond waza and fighting. So when someone claims they do their budo ...moving from center. Or they cut with Sword, Naginata, or yari ...with center, their development can actually be tested. Time will tell, but I think we will find a nice group of teachers who really do know what they are talking about when they say it. Beyond that, there are interesting facets of creating aiki from there while using it.
Dan

Krystal Locke
12-10-2012, 11:49 PM
marc, you can become asian too through adoption. i can adopt you as my brother-in-arm. you would have to answer some tough questions, since we asian have high standard.

Standards? High? Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

James Sawers
12-11-2012, 12:35 AM
Standards? High? Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

Korea sure has changed since I was stationed there.............They should send this to N. Korea.....they'd build a bigger Fence....

phitruong
12-11-2012, 07:41 AM
Standards? High? Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

deep down, you want to do gangnam style. just admit it! :)

i went to seminar taught by Howie Popkin. he made us do this ministry of silly walk thing. now i thought of it, it's actually gangnam style! :D

Krystal Locke
12-11-2012, 08:02 AM
deep down, you want to do gangnam style. just admit it! :)

i went to seminar taught by Howie Popkin. he made us do this ministry of silly walk thing. now i thought of it, it's actually gangnam style! :D

If I had ANY dance ability whatsoever, ANY, I so want to do that dance as I walk back into line after my nidan exam. I dont know if the 6 weeks or so I have left is enough to learn it. I doubt it, time probably better spent elsewhere.

Marc Abrams
12-11-2012, 08:02 AM
deep down, you want to do gangnam style. just admit it! :)

i went to seminar taught by Howie Popkin. he made us do this ministry of silly walk thing. now i thought of it, it's actually gangnam style! :D

Oh My God! It's true, Howie has become a mole for North Korea! What's next....... Long Island Jewish Fan Club for the Sexiest Man of The Year :eek:

Marc Abrams

ChrisMoses
12-11-2012, 10:03 AM
I would add to that, that the manifestion of yin and yang can be shown in a single arm movement. I do this at seminars where I have someone put force into my arm and I move and they move. I then do the exact same movement now deviod of yin and yang and their power comes in or I have to use muscle. Then....apply yin and yang...I move, they move.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that I'm actually expressing in-yo in a single arm, but something that I got from Ark and Rob was the idea of kaeshi (returning) within the body. Mentioning the arm reminds me of this because one of the ways Ark demonstrated how he was doing was different than Tohei's "extend ki" paradigm was to explain that for every amount of "out" he was expressing, he was expressing an equal amount of "in".

To make that clearer do (or attempt) the following:

*Tohei/Ki society version: you know the drill, do the unbendable arm trick, arm like firehose! Shoot ki out your fingers! Reach for the $100 bill! and bang, your partner can't bend your arm at the elbow. ---but neither can you without making your arm "empty". So, yes you're very "strong" feeling but you've created a direct line into your center and you've given up freedom of movement and sensitivity. Not good.

*Aunkai/Ark/garden hose version: OK, so now the mental image is that you have a a garden hose that runs out to your fingertips but then is looped back on itself, so all of the intent/water/ki/midicloreans you are shooting out to your fingertips are pulled back just as hard as you extend them out. Focus on pulling intent back along the return pipe since you're probably already used to pushing them out. Now have someone do the unbendable arm thing on you. When you're doing this right, most find that you are just as stable resisting/being unmoved by a partner's attempt to collapse the elbow *but* you are now free to open and close their own elbow at will. The arm is now alive because it's basically a closed system of intent.

And just to be clear, while this post is a reply to Dan's, this is actually aimed at other readers since Dan either knows this or has a different paradigm that he's operating under. :)

gregstec
12-11-2012, 10:55 AM
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that I'm actually expressing in-yo in a single arm, but something that I got from Ark and Rob was the idea of kaeshi (returning) within the body. Mentioning the arm reminds me of this because one of the ways Ark demonstrated how he was doing was different than Tohei's "extend ki" paradigm was to explain that for every amount of "out" he was expressing, he was expressing an equal amount of "in".

To make that clearer do (or attempt) the following:

*Tohei/Ki society version: you know the drill, do the unbendable arm trick, arm like firehose! Shoot ki out your fingers! Reach for the $100 bill! and bang, your partner can't bend your arm at the elbow. ---but neither can you without making your arm "empty". So, yes you're very "strong" feeling but you've created a direct line into your center and you've given up freedom of movement and sensitivity. Not good.

*Aunkai/Ark/garden hose version: OK, so now the mental image is that you have a a garden hose that runs out to your fingertips but then is looped back on itself, so all of the intent/water/ki/midicloreans you are shooting out to your fingertips are pulled back just as hard as you extend them out. Focus on pulling intent back along the return pipe since you're probably already used to pushing them out. Now have someone do the unbendable arm thing on you. When you're doing this right, most find that you are just as stable resisting/being unmoved by a partner's attempt to collapse the elbow *but* you are now free to open and close their own elbow at will. The arm is now alive because it's basically a closed system of intent.

And just to be clear, while this post is a reply to Dan's, this is actually aimed at other readers since Dan either knows this or has a different paradigm that he's operating under. :)

If I remember correctly in my old days of training in the Ki society (mid to late 70s) we used the fire hose metaphor for the ki extension in the unbendable arm demo, but you also needed to extend ki from the one point; and the 'key' here is that as ki is being projected out in any form from the body, you also had new ki coming into your one point to replenish - this gave you a feedback loop of energy that helped to establish stability. I think the real lesson here is the fact that there needs to be an in/yo relationship to establish the internal stability - Ark's example above has in/yo, my example of Tohei has in/yo, and Dan's model of dual opposing spirals has it as well. Now the question is, which model provides for more stability in a static as well as dynamic state.

Greg

DH
12-11-2012, 12:14 PM
The arm is now alive because it's basically a closed system of intent.
And just to be clear, while this post is a reply to Dan's, this is actually aimed at other readers since Dan either knows this or has a different paradigm that he's operating under. :)
Yes. Different paradigm.
I do not return power out with power back to the zero point. In every sense of meaning you just allowed power a channel back to your center. This works great with the make connect, center to center, make a four legged animal, extend ki crowd. Now its a matter of time and skill before they meet someone good enough to follow that line into their center and they are toast.

The next step in their training is that they have to manipulate ground paths and extending ki in different paths to manipulate forces from a one point returning to a one point. It's all groovy, and the people who show it, are showing it to people who really don't have much of a connection anyway, so the model looks all cool and people want to learn it.
I say it over and over; so...you think making a connection to someones center is a good idea right?
Okay. In theory then...go back in time and "make connect" to Morihei Ueshiba's center...
Hows that working out for ya?
In seminars I tell people..."Okay..come "connect" to my center." It never works out well for them either.

The idea of making a connection to another persons center... who is developed.. is as moronic as it sounds and so is the idea of establishing a path back to your own center. This is low level internal training, used in a tightly controlled martial art box. As I said , it impresses folks who themselves are not really connected. It will never...EVER...be a good idea when touching hands with truly developed people.
Now, martial art boxes are cool, people love them because they are predictable and you know what you get when you open them. But boxes and defined movements lend themselves to all manner of reverse engineering "crutches" based on presumption and pretext. People in fact do not all move the same, and have widely varied reactions to forces- trained fighters/grapplers having the best. They function outside of prescribed movement and reactive force. The inherent limitations of structure of making a kata look like a kata, handicaps people (even world famous teachers) into thinking certain principles apply and are high level. They don't realize they are themselves "caught" in a false feedback loop. Were some of these famous internal teachers to go put their center in touch with people who actually developed their center under severe stresses at extreme speed, they would be in for one...big...hell of a surprise.

Beep...Please leave a message. My center is not available or interested in connecting to yours. :freaky:
You can utilize ki in such a way that "no-force" becomes a permanent state, and power coming back to one point along the same path is not part of it. By managing forces in a more complete fashion (one blogger called it an overly complicated system-meaning it is simply over his head), things like the unbendable arm become something completely different and is no longer a trick. In fact done correctly it can instantly rise above being yet another...stupid jin trick™...in that it can express some fairly sophisticated IP and aiki all in one in a continuous state of being. A living state of "no-force." This is what most people actually desire to achieve in their Aikido, they just don't know how to do it.

Dan

Janet Rosen
12-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Yes. Different paradigm.
I do not return power out with power back to the zero point. In every sense of meaning you just allowed power a channel back to your center. This works great with the make connect, center to center, make a four legged animal, extend ki crowd. Now its a matter of time and skill before they meet someone good enough to follow that line into their center and they are toast....I say it over and over; so...you think making a connection to someones center is a good idea right?
Okay. In theory then...go back in time and "make connect" to Morihei Ueshiba's center...
Hows that working out for ya?
In seminars I tell people..."Okay..come "connect" to my center." It never works out well for them either.....
Now, martial art boxes are cool, people love them because they are predictable and you know what you get when you open them. But boxes and defined movements lend themselves to all manner of reverse engineering "crutches" based on presumption and pretext. People in fact do not all move the same, and have widely varied reactions to forces- trained fighters/grapplers having the best. They function outside of prescribed movement and reactive force. The inherent limitations of structure of making a kata look like a kata, handicaps people (even world famous teachers) into thinking certain principles apply and are high level. They don't realize they are themselves "caught" in a false feedback loop. Were some of these famous internal teachers to go put their center in touch with people who actually developed their center under severe stresses at extreme speed, they would be in for one...big...hell of a surprise.

Beep...Please leave a message. My center is not available or interested in connecting to yours. :freaky:
You can utilize ki in such a way that "no-force" becomes a permanent state, and power coming back to one point along the same path is not part of it. By managing forces in a more complete fashion (one blogger called it an overly complicated system-meaning it is simply over his head), things like the unbendable arm become something completely different and is no longer a trick. In fact done correctly it can instantly rise above being yet another...stupid jin trick™...in that it can express some fairly sophisticated IP and aiki all in one in a continuous state of being. A living state of "no-force." This is what most people actually desire to achieve in their Aikido, they just don't know how to do it.

Dan

Dan, you've developed the ability to write more and more cogently over the many years you've been plugging away on these forums, and I think this is one of the clearest posts yet in terms of "compare and contrast." Really well expressed.
Writing as someone who has been delighted to meet and train with you, but has not pursued further training for reasons entirely within me/who I am and not in any way a reflection of you or who you are or what you do, my two cents is:
I think some folks are happy and will be happy to stay within a lower level of structure/power, because polishing the aikido they are already working on meets their own personal training needs or goals.
Those folks should have no need to argue per se since what you are doing and writing about is not a threat to their daily training and enjoyment.

Dave de Vos
12-11-2012, 06:33 PM
If I had ANY dance ability whatsoever, ANY, I so want to do that dance as I walk back into line after my nidan exam. I dont know if the 6 weeks or so I have left is enough to learn it. I doubt it, time probably better spent elsewhere.

Tips from the master himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZmkU5Pg1sw&feature=player_detailpage#t=120s