Is aiki a clash of forces?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[HL1978]

You can probably guess my thoughts based off this post. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=318675&postcount=80)

Is aiki a "clashing" of forces, much like a Newton's Cradle (http://www.iaspromotes.com/1108-da510-10509117-promotional-items-corporate-gifts-executive-toys-games.htm)? Well reading the characters which make up the word aiki would indicate otherwise. In a clash of forces, no mixing really occurs, one set of energy overcomes the other, yet much of what we see in practice is a clash where momentum, explosive power, or big redirecting movements, overcome an incoming force of an attacker . Likewise, aiki isn't cooperative where one yields to the other by choice.

So then how exactly does one create aiki without using momentum, explosive power, or redirecting movements?

How does one blend/mix their own energy without these three things?

[gregstec]

You can probably guess my thoughts based off this post. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=318675&postcount=80)

Is aiki a "clashing" of forces, much like a Newton's Cradle (http://www.iaspromotes.com/1108-da510-10509117-promotional-items-corporate-gifts-executive-toys-games.htm)? Well reading the characters which make up the word aiki would indicate otherwise. In a clash of forces, no mixing really occurs, one set of energy overcomes the other, yet much of what we see in practice is a clash where momentum, explosive power, or big redirecting movements, overcome an incoming force of an attacker . Likewise, aiki isn't cooperative where one yields to the other by choice.

So then how exactly does one create aiki without using momentum, explosive power, or redirecting movements?

How does one blend/mix their own energy without these three things?

Maybe use redirecting energy without external movement :)

Greg

[HL1978]

Maybe use redirecting energy without external movement :)

Greg

Yeah, we don't see too much of that do we :P

[ChrisHein]

External/athletic approaches recognize the benefits of relaxing the upper body, to let loads be carried by other major muscle groups and chain muscle movements together to exert onto an opponent.

Internal recognizes relaxation to so that other muscles may take up the loads (mainly in the middle of the body/hip, and not pushing back with the legs), and to let support structures of the body take up and transmit loads, by focusing on these sensations. This is not pushing back with the portions taking up the loads, rather they are taking up the load of the portions of the body above them.

The external approach results in pushing back against the opponent, even if in an direction an opponent is weak and thus there is no mixing of expended energy and no aiki. The internal approach allows for input of the opponents energy plus their own weight added to it and transmitted to/reflected off the ground, and meets a definition of aiki.

Hey Hunter,
First off, please let me say, thank you for this explanation! This seems to me, to be a rare, and thoughtful explanation about the difference between what is called "IP" (internal power) and "EP" (external power).

External/athletic approaches recognize the benefits of relaxing the upper body, to let loads be carried by other major muscle groups and chain muscle movements together to exert onto an opponent.

This is pretty good. I think I believe something very similar to what you are saying here. And I'm pretty sure it's about right.


Internal recognizes relaxation to so that other muscles may take up the loads (mainly in the middle of the body/hip, and not pushing back with the legs),


Okay, I don't want to get lost here. But I'm not sure I get what you are saying. Are you saying that the legs are not pushing back against any force?

If you are saying that, what is taking the force? If the legs aren't doing it, where is the weight of the load going?

I'm pretty sure that you are not saying that if we were to put an "IP" expert on a scale, then put a load on her, the scale woudn't change. If you are saying that please explain.

If you're not saying that, then the legs must be taking the load (assuming our "IP" expert is standing) because if they are not, what else is transmitting the load's weight to the scale?


and to let support structures of the body take up and transmit loads, by focusing on these sensations.


Okay, now when you say "support structures" here, you are not talking about the legs? If I were to take a guess at what you mean I would say that you might be descriging the natural elasticity/structure of the tissues of the body. Please let me know if this is in error.

If you are saying that, don't you still have to include the legs, which are transmitting the force? If not please explane.

This is not pushing back with the portions taking up the loads, rather they are taking up the load of the portions of the body above them.


I'm not sure here how the load is being "taken up" with nothing pushing against it. If I have a table, and I put something on the table, the legs of the table are pushing against the thing I put on the table, not via a muscular force, but by their natural alignment with the ground. If there is nothing pushing against the load, why doesn't the load fall to the ground?

The external approach results in pushing back against the opponent, even if in an direction an opponent is weak and thus there is no mixing of expended energy and no aiki. The internal approach allows for input of the opponents energy plus their own weight added to it and transmitted to/reflected off the ground, and meets a definition of aiki.

I'm not sure I understand you are describing here at all. Could you please rephrase. Sorry.

I know you wrote lot's more, but I need to understand each piece in order. I think you have given a good start here. Thank you!

[danj]

On the subject of load, it strikes me that a potentially erroneous assumption is that the applied load/force is somehow fixed and large. However when redirection takes place its not only redirecting the force but changing its magnitude by affecting the ability of it to be generated (as it is limited by the structure of the person applying it)

[HL1978]

Hey Hunter,
First off, please let me say, thank you for this explanation! This seems to me, to be a rare, and thoughtful explanation about the difference between what is called "IP" (internal power) and "EP" (external power).

I think its a lot more usefull than people yelling back and forth.

Okay, I don't want to get lost here. But I'm not sure I get what you are saying. Are you saying that the legs are not pushing back against any force?

If you are saying that, what is taking the force? If the legs aren't doing it, where is the weight of the load going?

I'm pretty sure that you are not saying that if we were to put an "IP" expert on a scale, then put a load on her, the scale woudn't change. If you are saying that please explain.

If you're not saying that, then the legs must be taking the load (assuming our "IP" expert is standing) because if they are not, what else is transmitting the load's weight to the scale?

Gravity, of course is transmitting the weight to the scale, but its more about where the loads go in one's body. You want to, at first, passively let the force go to the ground. Most people have a tendency to push back against an incoming force (resisting it or redirecting it into a weak direction), but instead you want to relax and let it pass right through you. This is what Mike Sigman refers to as a ground path. At a more advanced level, you can push/pull, within yourself, in the same exact direction of the force being applied to you (not against it, but with it!) and add to it, to make it more powerful. If you do this in a relaxed manner, your legs will not get tired as they would when pushing back. It's rather counterintutive, because by relaxing, the person pushing is effectively pushing against the ground via your body, instead of only having them push into your legs.

Yes, you don't want to push back against any force. If you were to stand on a bathroom scale, and perfectly relaxed, you would see a total of your weight, plus the force of a person pushing on you. If you push back with the legs or anything else, that number will increase, because the resultant force will push yourself back. That is to say that when you push back against something heavy enough, strong enough, or more skilled than you, you will eventually push yourself away.

So for example, if I push on a big rock with my lower body, and then i start pushing with my upper body too, I start to actually push myself away, in part because of pushing from a higher point. When you do it with the legs only, or against a less skilled person, you won't notice the pushback. If you push back against someone who can access the ground directly without pushing back, you will push yourself back, because they are sourcing power even lower than you. For a long time, I thought I had to just source power lower and lower, until someone said to me, well you can't get lower than the ground, can you?

Okay, now when you say "support structures" here, you are not talking about the legs? If I were to take a guess at what you mean I would say that you might be descriging the natural elasticity/structure of the tissues of the body. Please let me know if this is in error.

If you are saying that, don't you still have to include the legs, which are transmitting the force? If not please explane.


So in normal external movement, muscle groups generate power, and this power is transmitted via the skeletal structure. In reference to IS, its more along the lines of tensigrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity). Sure, you can use the skelatal system as well as ligaments, tendons, fascia etc, but they are used to transmit forces to and from the ground, rather than from the muscles. The muscles can be used as well, but so long as they aren't pushing against the incoming force, because as we talked about above, that pushes yourself away.

I'm not sure here how the load is being "taken up" with nothing pushing against it. If I have a table, and I put something on the table, the legs of the table are pushing against the thing I put on the table, not via a muscular force, but by their natural alignment with the ground. If there is nothing pushing against the load, why doesn't the load fall to the ground?

Right, in this case, the legs of the table are under compression. You want to be like the legs of the table, passively transmitting the forces to the ground under compression. You don't want to be like a fork lift, where a hydralic motor presses up against the weight of the load. Like I said earlier, the legs are being used as a passive conduit, you don't fight against the force. This passive transmission is just a foot in the door, entry level thing.

So, I think you lift weights right? The next time you go to the gym, walk around with a 35lbs weight in one hand (or heavier depending on your strength). Relax and have the weight hanging from your arm. Don't let any muscle hold it up. You will feel a stretch in your arm and shoulder, much like if you were trying to touch the ceiling. You will eventually feel the tendons being pulled on as well. That weight is now part of your body and you experience no muscle fatigue from holding it up, though the tendons may get sore. If the shoulder/biceps engage at all, its no longer part of your body, because you are pushing/pulling against it and you feel that resistance in the arm. You want to eliminate that resistance. Good weight lifters can do this sort of thing in terms of integrating weights (squats and olympic lifts are great for this), but they tend not to be able to integrate people into their bodies in such a fashion like they can with weights.

Eventually you want to figure out how to access that sensation from all positions (being "under" that weight), so that it feels the same as when it is hanging, as when your arm is parallal to the ground. For most people when they hold a 35lbs weight out in front of them at the end of their arm, they fall in that direction. If you relax and are under it, so that the weight becomes part of your body, you won't fall forwards, but neither will you be leaning backwards to offset the weight.

I'm not sure I understand you are describing here at all. Could you please rephrase. Sorry.



It might make more sense in context with the above. With internals, you want to, at first, passively let the incoming weight/force reflect off the ground. You don't want to push against the incoming push. That only serves to unbalance yourself. If it goes into the ground, the other person pushes themselves away.

[Cliff Judge]

Well reading the characters which make up the word aiki would indicate otherwise.

Hunter,

One thing I wanted to ask you is, what's your understanding of the word :ai: :ki: and what's your academic background with regards to the Japanese language?

I took a couple of college-level courses, never lived in Japan or developed any fluency. But the way I understand it, kanji are evocative of meaning and not descriptive; meaning is highly dependent on context, and in some areas of Japanese thought, the context is such that there are several meanings at once.

One thing that has always perplexed me about :ai: is to what extent it carries a meaning of unity or oneness, as opposed to a joining of different things.

I.e. when "two" things come together - is this two things joining into a new whole, or is it as two halves reuniting into one thing.

[Chris Li]

I.e. when "two" things come together - is this two things joining into a new whole, or is it as two halves reuniting into one thing.

It depends - I can think of examples of both cases, as well as some others.

Best,

Chris

[ChrisHein]

Hey Hunter,
Thanks for the reply.

What you outlined there sounds about right. I admit I only read it once, so maybe I missed something, but so far, I think I can agree with what you are talking about.

How is that different then something athletes do? I know, this is kind of vague, but I'm trying to get at why Internal might be different then external.

We both recognize that both "IP" and "EP" uses relaxation. And both use "ground-path" or the ability to direct something from an appendage/body part to the ground. And they both use good structure, they ability to hold the frame in a relaxed state. So, how is "IP" doing this differently or better then someone trained in an external method?

[ChrisMoses]

We both recognize that both "IP" and "EP" uses relaxation. And both use "ground-path" or the ability to direct something from an appendage/body part to the ground. And they both use good structure, they ability to hold the frame in a relaxed state. So, how is "IP" doing this differently or better then someone trained in an external method?

Really, really, really, really, really overly simplistic response would be that normal/external would be using "beauty" or "gym" muscles where an internal paradigm would be using support muscles to move/support different parts of the body. In the external model, when you 'relax' you introduce a lot of slack, in the internal model you may be relaxed but still recruited/engaged throughout the body.

[ChrisHein]

Really, really, really, really, really overly simplistic response would be that normal/external would be using "beauty" or "gym" muscles where an internal paradigm would be using support muscles to move/support different parts of the body. In the external model, when you 'relax' you introduce a lot of slack, in the internal model you may be relaxed but still recruited/engaged throughout the body.

Okay, so you believe that professional athletes are not staying relaxed but still recruited/engaged? And this is the difference between "IP" and "EP", or a basic difference anyways?

[ChrisMoses]

Okay, so you believe that professional athletes are not staying relaxed but still recruited/engaged? And this is the difference between "IP" and "EP", or a basic difference anyways?

Don't know, I don't work with professional athletes. Would be pure speculation on my part. Please don't try to create a yes/no black/white litmus test from my extremely general statement.

[ChrisHein]

Sorry.

I guess what I'm getting at is, have you ever played any sports, where you see this kind of relaxation while still engaged kind of thing is going on? I would describe this kind of thing in several sports I've played.

I see where this is going. I've got to feel it. Okay. And I guess what I'm saying is kind of the same thing, you've got to feel serious athletes. That's fair.

[danj]

I think the days of the 'jock' or dumb athlete are over, at least in high performance sport. There are phenomenal resources available and applied in garnering of competative success for $$$, king and country. The access to biomechancal expertise, coaching, perceptual training, strengthening and conditioning and skill acquisition expertise are really impressive with many mechanisms quite well understood and put through the litmus test of competition.

enjoying the conversation, albeit from the cheap seats

[HL1978]

Hunter,

One thing I wanted to ask you is, what's your understanding of the word :ai: :ki: and what's your academic background with regards to the Japanese language?

I took a couple of college-level courses, never lived in Japan or developed any fluency. But the way I understand it, kanji are evocative of meaning and not descriptive; meaning is highly dependent on context, and in some areas of Japanese thought, the context is such that there are several meanings at once.


Sure, while my undergraduate degree is in Electrical Engineering, I have a minor in Japanese language, with 32 credits in Japanese. I also spent a semester at 国際基督教大学 (International Christian University), and probably have spent a year and a half in japan in total with offers to work in an total japanese environment in both engineering and intellectual property (sorry, no eikaiwa work for me, but the Japanese still don't pay well enough compared to the US for engineers). I also spent a semester studying chinese, and I am learning at home as my inlaws don't speak english.

While I studied the language, I did not spend a ton of time on the history of characters, learning the meanings of radicals is a biproduct of the higher level courses where you spend a fair amount of time looking up kanji in a kanji dictionary. Going by radical gives you a hint of an interpretation of the character, but given that so many are in a more simplified form, the "story" may not quite be correct in terms of the origin, but may be good as a memonic device.

Lets look purely at the radicals of ai and ki, while not all kanji are pictograph's the radicals do tell a story. For those reading this thread, who are unfamiliar, radicals are the constituent components of the chinese characters, each of which have their own meaning.

For "go", awa(su), a(i), Nelson's japanese-english character dictionary uses kuchi (mouth) a 3 stroke radical as the root. When looked at pictorialy, the character is considered to be a rice pot with a lid, however the other 2 radicals are jin/hito and ichi, one. A lit fits on a pot, and joins the two together.

For "ki", you have three radicals, the bottom one is rice, the second is a lid, and the top one is air. Thus it pictorally represents steam coming off of rice with a lid on it, or pressure/air pressure. In chinese it can mean vapor or steam, in addition to its normal meanings in japanese..

So asides from the rice fixation, a given since it is staple, we have joining of air pressure. This idea of air pressure in a martial context is very important, as air pressure is used to not only condition tissues, but initiate movement from the middle (tanden/hara centric movement) and power that movement from the middle on out. I'm not going to go into the whole chinese cosmology of this, but you can read up on that on your own.

Thus through the use of air pressure and movement from the "middle", you join with the opponent to create aiki.

I can pull out my 国語辞典, if you want for a japanese to japanese definition, if you think it would be helpful to this conversation. None the less I'm hardly the first person to bring up this topic.

Or maybe if you eat a lot of rice you get a fat bellly :P

One thing that has always perplexed me about :ai: is to what extent it carries a meaning of unity or oneness, as opposed to a joining of different things.

I.e. when "two" things come together - is this two things joining into a new whole, or is it as two halves reuniting into one thing.

Well, I can't speak on a scholarly level with regards to the entomology, as my minor is more in the usage and study of the language in a practical basis. My personal opinion is that its two things joining to create a new hole, in a martial context, but given that there are multiple meanings, I can't say which is more "correct."

[HL1978]

Hey Hunter,
Thanks for the reply.

What you outlined there sounds about right. I admit I only read it once, so maybe I missed something, but so far, I think I can agree with what you are talking about.

How is that different then something athletes do? I know, this is kind of vague, but I'm trying to get at why Internal might be different then external.

We both recognize that both "IP" and "EP" uses relaxation. And both use "ground-path" or the ability to direct something from an appendage/body part to the ground. And they both use good structure, they ability to hold the frame in a relaxed state. So, how is "IP" doing this differently or better then someone trained in an external method?

Sure, I've trained with or attended seminars with people who range from BJJ browns/purples, state power lifting record holders, army rangers, Kyokushin champs, guys with MMA records etc, none of whom could replicate the sensations you get when you touch someone who has IS. If they moved me dramatically, it was the result of a windup of power, momentum, rotation, physically dropping etc. Thats basically the point of Sigman's teacher test. If you push on the shoulder and you get moved without the teacher moving at all, then they have something worth studying.

None of the people I listed above, were able to do that, despite pretty good athletic backgrounds. There are guys who can generate considerable power, externally, but it has a different quality to the result. Mainly that it lacks the unbalancing sensation achieved with no windup.

Now we can see where some of this stuff used to be in other arts. For example in the judo kata, itsutsu no kata, you see some pretty "wacky" stuff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nQlx8rSxQAY#t=41s). Quite honestly it makes no sense, in modern judo, there's no waza, per say, no bunkai, and both gentlemen move in a very strange way. One guy "falls" backwards in a way that suggests he should be unbalanced backwards, but is obviously moving in a way that he is falling backwards because the choreography demands it. In some demontrations of this kata, you will see the uke standing on his toes as he goes backwards. To me this is an indication that IS was present at one point in judo, or its precusor arts, because you would have to utilize it to knock someone back in such a manner with no wind up, such that they can not regain their balance. Plus popping up on one's toes is another indicator. I could go into a bunch of other stuff in that video in terms of what it appears they should be demonstrating, but I would repeating stuff we all went over a few years back. I will note that various hachidan level judoka say, its achieved by moving the thumb and forefinger to knock the guy backwards, but in videos with that level of judoka, it still looks like this video.

Now I don't want to say that the only indicator of there being IS, is this unbalancing phenomena, but to me it appears to be a key constituent component of aiki.

On a side note, Dan John's videos are pretty sweet. What he is teaching isn't IS, but a component of what is needed to make it work, namely how to access the kua. You can have a look at one here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbPo-EX_5o&feature=gv&hl=en#!)

[ChrisHein]

Well you do have a point, if athletes can do this kind of stuff (my claim) then why would professional athletes who attend these seminars not be able to understand/do it.

It's a good point.

And the point I'm always asking about in return, which would be, if these "IP" guys have such amazing power why aren't they out there winning gold metals at every Olympic event.

I think I hit on this earlier, and it answers both of these questions. All practices/sports have specifics, that must be learned in order to do the practice/sport. For example, a world class Tennis player is likely not going to be a great football player, unless they trained in that sport. So even though both the football player and the tennis player are athletes, the football player might have a crummy backhand, and marvel at the tennis player, and the tennis player might not be able to catch anything at all and be amazed at the football player.

So then we get down to the specifics of the demonstrations of "IP". Those are also specific skills that take some practice to get the hang of.

But there is an interesting question here, why don't the "IP" guys dominate in the fields where the should understand the specifics of the sport/practice. For example why aren't "IP" guys winning MMA matches?

Again, we might get into specifics of the practice. But if we look at a guy like Ark, he was a serious Kickboxer, I'm not sure if he was a professional kickboxer or not, but I know he was very serious. If "IP" offers a great physical advantage to it's practitioners, and it's practitioners know the specifics of a practice/sport, then why wouldn't that "IP" expert become a world champion at the sport he competes in?

So I would say specifics of a practice are the difference, they might be athletes all, but the different disciplines make it difficult to cross lines. However if an "IP" expert does have a serious physical advantage, and does train in a sport, he should be the best, or at least at the top of his field in that sport. Correct?

[ChrisMoses]

You really sound like you're still trying to reason yourself out of the need for a different training paradigm rather than getting out and just feeling it. That's like having a discussion about whether the stove is hot or not, just go feel it and see. :D

Traditional muscular strength can certainly make you very powerful.

IP doesn't make you invincible or guaranteed to be awesome at anything you try. An amazing tennis player probably has tens of thousands of hours developing their game. If you replaced those hours with a similar amount of time developing internal power, they wouldn't be as good of a tennis player.

One could just as easily make the argument that if you wanted to be a good fighter, you'd be better off training in a boxing or MMA gym than you would doing Aikido. You'll develop much better fighting skills much faster and have something that is more "streetable" in short order.

But you won't have aiki... :cool: That's what we're getting at with the training paradigms many of us are persuing. We don't want to just be a better fighter (although that's certainly part of the process) we would like to approach the skills that we have read about that enchanted us in the first place. *In my own view* the training paradigm that most people follow is very much like going to the gym and doing circuit training to develop aiki. The training model hasn't worked. Rather than develop internal skills that lead to real aiki (the stuff Sagawa and Ueshiba talked about) it has developed traditional muscular skills which is why it has always seem lacking when compared to what we read about the founder and his early generation.

When I first felt Rob John or Ark, my brain freaked out. They just didn't *feel* like other people. At the time, I probably had close to 40 lbs on Rob and had trained in the martial arts for a longer period of time, but I couldn't even push him backwards. He *felt* more solid and less affected by my movements than Hiroshi Ikeda did (just to put an example out there). No, I'm not saying Rob is a better aikidoka than Ikeda sensei, but he *felt* different. When one of our guys first felt Dan, his immediate response was, "You're f****ing weird man!" This was from a very skilled, very big, very well trained guy! Asked later what he meant, he just said, "That guy just feels fricking weird!"

One of the reasons I don't post much anymore is I just don't generally feel the need to constantly be justifying my training decisions. They're my own to make, just as yours are your own to make. Train however you want. But I don't have an obligation to convince anyone that my training paradigm is the one worth following. People will get out and feel it and decide for themselves, but no amount of written copy will ever convince everyone of the value I feel there is there. You make the effort and get out and feel it or you don't. :)

[Cliff Judge]

My personal opinion is that its two things joining to create a new hole, in a martial context,

So, I'd say that's a clash.

[ChrisMoses]

So, I'd say that's a clash.

If a fly hits your windshield while you drive down the road at 70 mph it probably felt a clash.

Your car did not. :p

[HL1978]

So, I'd say that's a clash.

Depends on how you define the word. As I set forth with my reference to a Newton's cradle, I tend to think of a clash as two objects moving towards one another. Much like two cymbals coming together. Definition 2 from dictionary.com states: to come together or collide, especially noisily: The cymbals clashed. Likewise the same source indicates that the word originated in the late 1400's from clap and dash.

Now if we are talking about two objects, both in motion, or in this case relying on motion as a primary means of generating in power you have a clash. Is there a combination of energy, absolutely. It is undeniable. However, the larger person, or person with better technique will win.

What I am referring to is more like one object impacting another object resulting in a deformation of the first object (an unbalancing effect) due to compression of the second object transferring forces into the ground. In this case, the energy of the first object, was combined with the weight/mass of the second, rebounded off the ground and moved the first object rather than both. To me this tends to be the stereotypical definition of aiki, yet this kind of power tends not to be what is practiced.

I don't believe its because you inherently need to be stationary to generate it, just that the larger component of the generated "aiki" is from transfer into/out off the ground, rather than rotation, explosive movement, weight shift, momentum, big circles (essentially what powers technique). This is more or less what the ki society tests are supposed to show, but I won't comment on whether or not they are practiced properly or not.

This is also a differentiator, in that if it is simply the result of two bodies moving together, outside of waza, then the person who can generate more musclar effort or has larger mass will win. Aiki does not require this, and thus a 90lbs woman, can hold off a 200lbs man as the 200lbs man can not access the ground. Anyone who has been to one of the Aunkai seminars and has had hands on with one of Akuzawa sensei's female students can attest to this.

[HL1978]

Well you do have a point, if athletes can do this kind of stuff (my claim) then why would professional athletes who attend these seminars not be able to understand/do it.

It's a good point.

And the point I'm always asking about in return, which would be, if these "IP" guys have such amazing power why aren't they out there winning gold metals at every Olympic event.

I think I hit on this earlier, and it answers both of these questions. All practices/sports have specifics, that must be learned in order to do the practice/sport. For example, a world class Tennis player is likely not going to be a great football player, unless they trained in that sport. So even though both the football player and the tennis player are athletes, the football player might have a crummy backhand, and marvel at the tennis player, and the tennis player might not be able to catch anything at all and be amazed at the football player.

So then we get down to the specifics of the demonstrations of "IP". Those are also specific skills that take some practice to get the hang of.

But there is an interesting question here, why don't the "IP" guys dominate in the fields where the should understand the specifics of the sport/practice. For example why aren't "IP" guys winning MMA matches?

Again, we might get into specifics of the practice. But if we look at a guy like Ark, he was a serious Kickboxer, I'm not sure if he was a professional kickboxer or not, but I know he was very serious. If "IP" offers a great physical advantage to it's practitioners, and it's practitioners know the specifics of a practice/sport, then why wouldn't that "IP" expert become a world champion at the sport he competes in?

So I would say specifics of a practice are the difference, they might be athletes all, but the different disciplines make it difficult to cross lines. However if an "IP" expert does have a serious physical advantage, and does train in a sport, he should be the best, or at least at the top of his field in that sport. Correct?

IP is like having really good cardio. It can be an element of a great athlete, but it isn't the only thing. I think any IP proponent will tell you there are differences between IP and fighting, and that like good cardio it can make you a better fighter. This is kind of like how a gymnast or dancer, could, if so inclined, pick up judo fairly quickly due to a developed sense of balance and cardio.

Given that the pool of people with this stuff was pretty small, and that it was rather secretive, asian arts still aren't all that open about giving away this stuff. Its counter intuitive, but its a lingering cultural artifact. I figure if anyone, a westerner with exposure will do it, eventually.

Now as for dominating MMA (and other sports) there are a number of reasons, not necesscarily related to IS/IP. You can't just walk into the UFC, unless Dana White gives you a chance. You would have to work your way up of course, but it helps if your particular gym has connections to a particular promoter. I think what you are more likely to see are various guys doing very well on the amateur level. I know the aunkai guys regularly enter K2 matches.

There is another issue to. Once your body starts getting wired this way, if you step into a dojo, you will get flack for not moving "the right way". I know some amateur kick boxers who have this issue, and I've experienced it with nanadan/hachidans in kendo and iaido (and burned some bridges as a result).

Now I have seen Ark do some pretty interesting things. I have video of his first trap session where he sat in horse stance and hit 80% of the clay pigeons. A shotgun shooting stance looks nothing like that. Likewise he has shot pistol and rifle for the first time and done exceedingly well. I also have video of him hitting over 300 yards with a 3 wood shot after shot, despite not picking up a club in 10 years. He did remark after that he should be giving Golf Seminars rather than IS ones.

In this case, Ark has a really good base to develop off of, in that he can integrate the golf club or firearm into his body and thus due to his stability, is less effected by recoil, has less movement in the firearm and a better sight picture. In golf, he can better transfer his weight and effort into the ball. Either one would take considerable effort to get to an elite level, but perhaps less than someone starting from nothing.

[ChrisHein]

So Ark is an awesome athlete, did kickboxing, knows internal, likes competing, yet is not, was not, a world champion kickboxer, or MMA title holder? That sounds super strange to me. Especially if his only competition is normal athletes who are not trained in "IP", and "IP" is a superior way of training.

I'm not saying that the guy isn't super skilled, and very powerful, he seems like a neat guy to me. But if "IP" gave one a huge advantage, and Ark has it, and he likes competing, why wouldn't he be a world champion?

You are right about the UFC, you can't just walk in. However they draw from the amateur fighters. If "IP" offers a huge advantage, actually any good advantage at all, I'm sure an "IP" expert would come through the ranks in very short order. Especially if they did something unique looking, seeming.

K2 is not a small event, it's a pretty serious event. I think it's great he's got guys competing in it! However if what they learned from Ark gives an advantage, and they are otherwise skilled kick boxers, why aren't they always winning K2 matches and becoming world champions? When a great coach comes around, everyone clammers to train with them. Why doesn't Ark have a huge stable of champion kick boxers?

See, I'm not saying that you can't learn anything from "IP". As I said earlier, learning from the internal model or learning from a modern sport model are not mutually exclusive. You can get lot's of great things from studying internal. However those things aren't any different then the things good athletes teaches. Athletes aren't just a bunch of stupid guys who force everything with their big muscles. They are guys who care about using their body as efficiently as possible. They study, and test, and experiment, all the time. They also have huge muscles, because muscles are useful.

So I'm not saying internal is useless, I'm saying it's not the only game in town. In my opinion it's not the best game in town. A way to show the difference I feel, is that "IP" experts aren't excelling beyond what any modern athlete can achieve in any sports or competitions, that I've heard about.

[HL1978]

Depends on what you want and if you have the circumstances to fully commit to competition. I'm not in a position to comment on the aunkai and their members situation or competition results, but will say if you see the videos, they're pretty hilariously one sided against their opponents.

There have been a parade of MMA people who have felt IP practitioners and a lot of them have the same problem. You basically will have to quit what you are doing, more or less completely, and take up IP because it fundamentally changes how you work your body at all times. Its not something you can just plug in. Once you figure it out, then you can go back to what you are doing while continuing that sort of conditioning and skill development.

That's a pretty huge gamble for a competitor to take. Do I stick with what I know, or do I put competition on hiatus for a few years while I pick up this new skill? Part of this is because to make this stuff work, you have to give up all your strength and chase after things that make you feel unbalanced and weak. Its a rather counter intuitive process to basically give up what you have, in addition to realizing that waza more or less doesn't work on these guys. Now I'm not knocking anyone in particular, but there is an intelligence component too, in that you have to think about this stuff considerably in addition to putting in the training time.

Of course, if you get someone with skill in IP and he does well, you would expect tons of others to jump on the bandwagon.

[ChrisHein]

I know as well as anyone, that competing is more then just being good at something. I personally have felt the strain and stress of keeping up a competitive lifestyle. So I really don't expect every "IP" expert to be an MMA title holder, even if they have an advantage.

What I do find strange, is that in competitive sports, where people are looking for every single advantage available, including every little gimmick that comes down the road (trust me I've had some silly conversations about some crazy stuff with competitors), none of them switched to "IP" and then dominated their field.

If "IP" offers a strange and powerful advantage, even if it took awhile to get (which incidentally should be offset by the supposed fact that "IP" people can remain "powerful" late into life), that serious competitive athletes wouldn't be doing it, and showing results.

What about washed up athletes? Those who have grown to old to be competitive anymore because they don't have the muscle to do it any more. Many of them are very pissed off that they had to stop competing, why have they not found "IP" and been able to "get back in the game"?

If it's so different, and doesn't require what modern athletics are using, why aren't older athletes doing it, and staying competitive late into life?

[ChrisMoses]

Chris, along your same line of reasoning, since there are no great aikidoka who dominate the mma arena, it's not really worth putting any effort into either. You've clearly made up your mind, move on and enjoy your training.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Christian,

That's not true for a number of reasons. Aikido, as a system was not built for the MMA ring. It doesn't work properly, I know from personal experience. Aikido is not a method to develop power, it's a system. "IP" doesn't sound like a martial arts system to me, it sounds like a way to develop power. It also seems like the "IP" crowd is saying that with this unique method of developing power, you should be able to use this power for all kinds of physical activity. Specifically, you should be able to use this power martially.

Now I do agree, if you don't know about competing in MMA, even if you have more power, it's quite possible that the system you study won't work in that arena (MMA). However if you do know a sport method, say kickboxing, and you know IP, you should be able to dominate in that sport using the advantage "IP" affords, if "IP' does offer a unique physical advantage. Further, if "IP" doesn't require muscular ability as modern athletics does, you should be able to compete in physical activity using "IP" long after the normal athletes career would be over.

I offer the same to you, enjoy your training.

[HL1978]

Hey Christian,

That's not true for a number of reasons. Aikido, as a system was not built for the MMA ring. It doesn't work properly, I know from personal experience. Aikido is not a method to develop power, it's a system. "IP" doesn't sound like a martial arts system to me, it sounds like a way to develop power. It also seems like the "IP" crowd is saying that with this unique method of developing power, you should be able to use this power for all kinds of physical activity. Specifically, you should be able to use this power martially.

This depends. Some systems are still built up around it, where this sort of training is what your work on, but you still learn how to kick and punch. Other people have distilled the IS exercises and just work on that on their own . Other places expect that you already know how to kick/punch etc, and then give you this material to work on (sounds a bit more like aikido where a lot of people had other experience before joining Ueshiba's dojo).

I think some of what is needed to develop this sort of power is still in aikido, if done with IS. Though you would have to organize the class so that more time is spend on solo work (or doing suburi or spear/jo thrusts), then some portion of the class is spent on partner work, at least initially or for newer students.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Hunter,

I think a lot of what one finds in Chinese internal is also inherently built into Aikido training. When I went to study with a Chinese internal teacher, one of the first things he said to me was, "good, you already move about right." When I asked him what he meant, he said that my use of posture and organization of the body was already pretty decent. He also told me that a lot of Aikido guys seemed to be that way. Proper use of the body is universal, so it's no mystery that different groups all working with the same machine would come up with very similar answers.

Another question I wanted to ask, how does "IP" effect the ability to jump? Can learning "IP" improve jumping ability?

[HL1978]

Another question I wanted to ask, how does "IP" effect the ability to jump? Can learning "IP" improve jumping ability?

I quite honestly can't give you a "correct" answer, since by and large you don't want to push off the ground with IS and its not something I have trained in particular. That being said, you can slam the dantien off the ground to bounce your weight to power a strike, but I've never seen anyone use a "bounce" jin to dunk a basketball.

Likewise through breath training, you can figure out how to do leg presses via breath power as a conditioning exercise. I'm speculating that you could do some sort of breath powered jump, but given that I can only do maybe 50-60lbs via a breath powered leg press (I can only leg press 500lbs or so last time I tried without using IS), so I lack the skill/conditioning to power a jump without using the leg muscles.

Now I do know people on the IS seminar circuit who can do breath powered leg presses of a couple hundred kilograms, so I'm guessing they might be able to use that to jump. At the very least, I think it would help because your gain more sensitivity of the legs, hips, lower core and development of those muscles which could be used to power a jump , but I have no evidence to offer. Its not a demo I've seen online or at a seminar.

[ChrisHein]

How can you tell if it's a "breath powered leg press" or a non breath powered one? I mean for yourself you can tell, by feeling your body ( I would assume ) But if someone else were doing a breath powered leg press, how could you tell?

[HL1978]

How can you tell if it's a "breath powered leg press" or a non breath powered one? I mean for yourself you can tell, by feeling your body ( I would assume ) But if someone else were doing a breath powered leg press, how could you tell?

Well for yourself its pretty easy to tell, because you can tell when you push with your legs (as in load the leg muscles and extend by using the legs, I keep the legs totally relaxed as its hard not to continue pushing on out with them) and when you don't push with your legs, but the legs get extending out as a result of the breath. The breath portion has 2 components, one has to do with driving the dantien (Im not going to say more than this as its too difficult to try and explain online) and two has to do with conditioning via breath.

As for being able to tell, you could probably hook them up to a machine detecting electrical impulses and see the leg muscles are contracting or not. Its not going to be super visible unless they have a highly developed dantien.

Like I said in another thread, I think, one of Forrest's stupid jin tricks, is that you should be able to see a movable dantien: a ball of muscle under the skin that can move up/down/left/right. Now sitting here at my desk, and thinking about the angle of the legs on the leg press machine, i think it might be obscured when the legs are close into the body prior to beginning the lift.

[phitruong]

Likewise through breath training, you can figure out how to do leg presses via breath power as a conditioning exercise. I'm speculating that you could do some sort of breath powered jump, but given that I can only do maybe 50-60lbs via a breath powered leg press (I can only leg press 500lbs or so last time I tried without using IS), so I lack the skill/conditioning to power a jump without using the leg muscles.


you meant you haven't done the fighting beautiful women on top of bamboo yet? slacker! :)

[ChrisHein]

Like I said in another thread, I think, one of Forrest's stupid jin tricks, is that you should be able to see a movable dantien: a ball of muscle under the skin that can move up/down/left/right. Now sitting here at my desk, and thinking about the angle of the legs on the leg press machine, i think it might be obscured when the legs are close into the body prior to beginning the lift.

Hey Hunter,
You lost me on the moveable ball of muscle, I'm familiar with the concept of dantien, but not exactly with it being what you described here, I think I'm just not understanding what you mean. If there is a unique ball of muscle, that you can see under the skin, couldn't we just take a quick video of that ball? I really don't think I understand your description.

So, are you saying that the muscles don't contract at all during the leg press? That there is literally no muscle being used to do the work of pressing the leg out?

[HL1978]

Hey Hunter,
You lost me on the moveable ball of muscle, I'm familiar with the concept of dantien, but not exactly with it being what you described here, I think I'm just not understanding what you mean. If there is a unique ball of muscle, that you can see under the skin, couldn't we just take a quick video of that ball? I really don't think I understand your description.

So, are you saying that the muscles don't contract at all during the leg press? That there is literally no muscle being used to do the work of pressing the leg out?

So I think you said you once had access to Forrest Chang's SJT video. He demonstrated something that looks straight out of the movie alien. So in the movie alien, before the alien pops out of the persons chest, you can see its head moving below the skin. Someone with a developed enough dantien will have a ball of muscle that can move around like that. Its not the upper abs, as just about anyone should be able to pulls those around. If its not that conditioned, it won't be as visible.

If you go on kendo-world, you will find discussion ny some 7th dans (I think the guys account name is chidokan) saying they would place their hands on an 8th dan named Iwata (passed away a few years back), and that you would feel his tanden/dantien move around to drive the sword forward and back for cuts, so tanden driven movement is certainly more than just a broad reference to the hara in modern iaido/kendo, even if in my opinion, few if any of the high level kendo/iaido guys I have seen can actually use it.

So when you are at the gym, you can target certain muscles, the leg press is the same way, where one targets the muscles associated in the area of the dantien. I'm not going to be more specific than that per requests, but dantien specific conditioning is well known (conceptually at least) in chinese martial arts. The results of it should be dantien/tanden driven/initiated power.

I'm of the opinion that aiki-ken style suburi, which looks different than typical japanese swordsmanship type suburi was designed to be utilized for dantien driven movement. Much the same for Ueshiba's garden/farmwork and Sagawa's spear thrusts.

Now I do want to say that I don't think everyone who is studying IS is focused on dantien driven movement, and thus there are different levels of purity. Someone who can access a groundpath has a foot in the door into learning IS and arguably could be considered to have some (low level) understanding of it, but they don't have dantien driven movement.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Hunter. I have watched the "stupid jin tricks" video, I honestly don't remember him showing his abdomen. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't remember it. Now I really would like to see that video again.

So the "breath powered" leg press is done with muscles, just not the leg muscles, it's done with the "ball of muscle" that is believed to be called the dantien. Is that correct?

If the Dantien is a visible musculature, and that is the source of IP/IS, should we find some videos of this, or if it's not asking too much, couldn't one of the IP experts make a quick video for us now?

[ChrisHein]

I did find this video. I don't know if the guys is an "IP" expert or not, maybe someone else knows something about him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1mAf8_Cq4

Is this the ability to move the Dantien? if so, I would compare this to Rickson Gracie's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB_KRHXU1BA&t=3m39s

If these are comparable things, I don't think Rickson has "IP" (if he does I would love to hear about that). Rickson is very into his body, and using it as efficiently as possible, which includes good core use.

[ChrisHein]

Here is a video of a lady talking about Dantien rotation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9d7Lb57Wh0&feature=related

I would say her approach and explanation of what is happening is much closer to my understanding of dantien use. Dose this lady have "IP"?

[phitruong]

try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7I0M2fx1c

[chillzATL]

If the Dantien is a visible musculature, and that is the source of IP/IS, should we find some videos of this, or if it's not asking too much, couldn't one of the IP experts make a quick video for us now?

No offense Chris, but you say that you've trained extensively with a Chinese internals expert and that you know Chinese internals. I am no expert, but from what I've learned it seems that dantien is a pretty standard and key part of the internal arts. So I'm not sure why you are bothering to ask since you've stated that you know them and really aren't interested anyway.

[ChrisHein]

Jason,
I'm totally interested, that's why I keep coming back.
The "why would you ask if you already know the answer" is what keeps getting us in trouble. So that's why I'm asking. I would use the word dantien just like I would use the word core, if I were talking about, martial arts.

Hunter is describing something different then I would, so I'm asking. And trying to show video, that compares different things, to clarify. You know, discussion.

[ChrisHein]

Ikeda Shihan sounds like fun, I'm going to have to catch one of his seminars. Thanks for the video!

[Dave de Vos]

I just stumbled on this video by accident. I've never heard of this instructor and his english is not very good, but I think he does a good job explaining and demonstrating internal martial movement.
He also clearly shows differences between movement in "external" vs "internal" and correct vs incorrect movement from an internal point of view. I think his punch at 23:00 is a good internal type punch (from dantien):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvCgWjDhHH4

I could be mistaken, but to me it looks as if he knows what he's talking about. I think the whole video is worth viewing.

[HL1978]

Hey Hunter. I have watched the "stupid jin tricks" video, I honestly don't remember him showing his abdomen. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't remember it. Now I really would like to see that video again.

So the "breath powered" leg press is done with muscles, just not the leg muscles, it's done with the "ball of muscle" that is believed to be called the dantien. Is that correct?

If the Dantien is a visible musculature, and that is the source of IP/IS, should we find some videos of this, or if it's not asking too much, couldn't one of the IP experts make a quick video for us now?

My notes say its SJT 2. Forrest's video and that seminar was a really good intro. I'm not sure if he still does seminars, but I wish I had trained with him, when he lived out in my area, though some of his guys are still around.

Yes, the leg press, or pole shaking or anything else like that is driven by the dantien, and not the legs.

As discussed before on aikiweb, there are similaities between yoga and IS conditioning. That doesn't mean that people who do yoga have IS (and don't really work the dantien), but could probably could pick it up relatively quickly, because the stretches they do, apparently condition the suit (fascia?) in Mike Sigman's model.

When you see videos online for dantien movement, you want to make sure its not the upper abs moving around, and I don't recall it looking like someone sucking in their gut or sticking it out. Apparently one of the reasons you see the chinese guys wearing silk robes, loose clothes etc, is to hide this movement.

[ChrisHein]

Hunter,
Is what Rickson is doing related to what you would call Dantien movement, even if it's not- for lack of a better description, connected up like an IP person would be?

[ChrisHein]

I just stumbled on this video by accident. I've never heard of this instructor and his english is not very good, but I think he does a good job explaining and demonstrating internal martial movement.
He also clearly shows differences between movement in "external" vs "internal" and correct vs incorrect movement from an internal point of view. I think his punch at 23:00 is a good internal type punch (from dantien):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvCgWjDhHH4

I could be mistaken, but to me it looks as if he knows what he's talking about. I think the whole video is worth viewing.

Hey Dave,
I just finished the video. Very good. I would use similar descriptions myself. I also believe that this guy is saying that modern athletics is not ignorant of these ways of using the body. Even though in some cases they might organize a bit differently (as per his description of "boxing"). Would you say that he is making similar comments? Would you say he is doing anything outside of the realms of modern athletics? Does this fellow have "IP" (general question to all)?

Great video, I enjoyed watching it!

[Dave de Vos]

Hey Dave,
I just finished the video. Very good. I would use similar descriptions myself. I also believe that this guy is saying that modern athletics is not ignorant of these ways of using the body. Even though in some cases they might organize a bit differently (as per his description of "boxing"). Would you say that he is making similar comments? Would you say he is doing anything outside of the realms of modern athletics? Does this fellow have "IP" (general question to all)?

Great video, I enjoyed watching it!

Hi Chris,

I'm glad you liked it.

In the beginning I think he is saying that many martial arts and sports rely on explosive power. In the beginning he equates explosive power to fajin (which is literally explosive power, so its not incorrect). I think he does this to involve his audience, which seems to have little experience with internal training. But I also think that during this lesson he tries to make a case that in external arts it originates from a different source and different movement than in internal arts.

I can't really see how much IP he has. What he explains and demonstrates looks good to me, so I think he probably has some IP. But like I said, I could be wrong.

[chillzATL]

Jason,
I'm totally interested, that's why I keep coming back.
The "why would you ask if you already know the answer" is what keeps getting us in trouble. So that's why I'm asking. I would use the word dantien just like I would use the word core, if I were talking about, martial arts.

Hunter is describing something different then I would, so I'm asking. And trying to show video, that compares different things, to clarify. You know, discussion.

Well, I guess that's my point really. You've said that you know internals, yet your descriptions for most of this stuff differs from those of us who are also into this internal stuff, experts or not. It also seems to differ from what the chinese use themselves. They have a pretty broad vocabulary and they seem to draw a clear line between what is external and what is internal. They don't seem to use the same words for what a linebacker or wrestler would do to resist someones push vs.what CXW was doing in the video that was being discussed recently. I would think that alone would make you less hesitant to hang your hat on your definitions for these things and a little more curious about getting out and feeling what people are talking about. Back when we were both still on Sigman's forum I thought you got out and met some people, but being that you're essentially having the same discussion here, from the same angle, I assume not?

[stan baker]

There are many pieces to the puzzle regarding
internal and aiki. Putting it in terms of black or white
is not the best idea. In taiji there is a saying ten years
To get thru the first door.
Stan

[ChrisHein]

Hey Dave,
I think what he is saying, while he's talking about boxing, is that he believes that Taiji, offers a "heavy" punch, and that modern boxing offers a quicker punch. I believe he goes on to say that, the Taiji punch wouldn't be very good for boxing, because you couldn't punch quick enough using it. And in the boxing match you would just end up getting hit in the face. I could be wrong, of course, but I also think he was showing how the heel being up or down and the way you are connecting with the ground will effect that difference.

I also believe he is saying that dantien means- power zone, or core. And he pointed out what that area was. This is how I would describe it as well. He also talked quite a bit about structure, and how structure plays an important roll in making power.

If your understanding of this is different please share. I like having something that we can all view and talk about. Makes figuring things out much easier.

[ChrisHein]

Jason,
I'm very open to the idea that many different people who do the same thing, may have different ideas of what is going on. That's why I would like to talk about these things openly now, in order to find some common ground among the posters.

I think a lot of the vocabulary being used here are borrowed heavily from the writings of Sun Lu-T'ang. We could bring translations and hypothesis of what he and many other Chinese scholars meant when they said the word, into our conversation, but I believe that will just take us away from intended purpose.

We (or at least I) are trying to find out what each individual means by these words, then we can really start to understand what commonalities and differences we have. And start working together to figure this thing out.

[stan baker]

Doing that kind of taiji punch is mainly a trainning
Method. Delievery fast and power short power is one
Of the main differences that you should be looking at.
Stan

[HL1978]

Hunter,
Is what Rickson is doing related to what you would call Dantien movement, even if it's not- for lack of a better description, connected up like an IP person would be?

No, from what I have seen, it does not look from that.

I think Ricksons stuff in general is pretty good though. I think it has similarities to yoga and developing sensitivity to one's own body which can carry over well into IS training (and grappling of course).

[ChrisHein]

Hey Hunter.
First, would you say there is a great difference between the term "core" as used by someone like say, Joseph Pilates, and the term "Dantien"? What would you say the major differences or similarities are?

Second, what do you think is the major advantage of using a muscular structure (Dantien) located in the abdomen, over using localized muscles? For example the muscles of the legs when doing leg presses over the Dantien. Or do you simply believe that having a strong musculature in the core area of the body will help the functioning of all other muscle groups as a whole? This would be using the core muscles as a stabilizing influence on the body as a whole.

Thanks.

[HL1978]

Hey Hunter.
First, would you say there is a great difference between the term "core" as used by someone like say, Joseph Pilates, and the term "Dantien"? What would you say the major differences or similarities are?

Second, what do you think is the major advantage of using a muscular structure (Dantien) located in the abdomen, over using localized muscles? For example the muscles of the legs when doing leg presses over the Dantien. Or do you simply believe that having a strong musculature in the core area of the body will help the functioning of all other muscle groups as a whole? This would be using the core muscles as a stabilizing influence on the body as a whole.

Thanks.

Yes, there is a difference. Depending on what you are referring to as a dantien, I believe there are up to 7 dantiens, some of which correspond to chakra points like in kundalini yoga. From a martial perspective in terms of dantien usage, I'm not sure if all of these are applicable to the discussion.

I believe your question is centered more around the lower dantien. Now while pilates and internal strength both work the psoas, the psoas have more to do with the idea of the kua/dang. Thats not to negate their importance or usage, but think of the dantien as a control center in addition to typical muscle usage. Now from what I have been told, once you have control over it, the logic becomes clear and you really can move the arms with the dantien. I personally can only use mine to open and close the hips and tug on my arms a bit. Thats likely because the front side of my body is weak and my backside is strong (not shearing forces), so I will have to work on that more before i can get more access over it.

The lower dantien in this case is a kinda golfball sized area below the belly button. It is not the entirely of the abs, psoas, and pelvic floor. While I have never done pilates, I believe this is what is generally referred to as the core.

To answer your second question, think of it as a control point. That is movement in the entire body originates in that point. Pushing or pulling with this area is like squeezing a balloon animal, use it to apply pressure to stretch/comrpess one area, and it inflates another. With respect to the leg press, clearly the legs have the ability to take more weight than the dantien due to their size. You have several advantages with the dantien, you can push first with the dantien which causes the "suit" (think the balloon description above) to move and take up the load. Pushing with the dantien also causes the hip area to push as it forces them to open up then the legs etc, so as a result you have recruited more muscle.At least for me, if I try and do it with the abs, I can't get my abs to force my psoas to exert force; that's to say I have to work them separately.

Clearly having strong abs adds to stability, I think thats needed for either approach.

There are people here who have focused more on dantien centric movement than I have, hopefully they can chime in some.

[ChrisHein]

So what would western medical texts refer to the lower dantien? it is actually describing several muscular structures working together, correct? Or is it actually it's own unique "muscular ball"?

[HL1978]

So what would western medical texts refer to the lower dantien? it is actually describing several muscular structures working together, correct? Or is it actually it's own unique "muscular ball"?

I have an "anatomy for martial artists" type book at home, I will take a look and see if I can point it out.

The kua corresponds to the iliopsoas, which makes sense because kua in chinese means hip.

I certainly don't think whatever muscles make up the dantien are something unique created by the martial artists, but usage of them is non-intuitive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on guys, there are plenty of other people working on this material for the past few years, or have attended various seminars. You all should be able to chime in and talk about this subject. Presumably, your bodies have changed to some degree as well and you should be able to comment on it. Additionally, others should have some idea of the theory behind your own IS practices.

[Cady Goldfield]

My understanding of "kua" is that it encompasses not just the muscles and fascia (the two-muscle makeup of the iliopsoas, and the tensor fasciae latae) that run across the hip and immediate top of the thigh where it meets the hip, but also the head of the femur/femoral ball-and-socket joint itself which is subtly acted upon.

[phitruong]

Come on guys, there are plenty of other people working on this material for the past few years, or have attended various seminars. You all should be able to chime in and talk about this subject. Presumably, your bodies have changed to some degree as well and you should be able to comment on it. Additionally, others should have some idea of the theory behind your own IS practices.

but you are doing so well. we don't want to disrupt your progress. :)

i think i wrote about the dantien/hara somewhere on aikiweb. the training of hara/dantien movement required the breathing portion which Sigman mentioned. i see the hara/dantien as the initiator, accumulator and the controller of jin, manage by breath. so you have the three: jin, dantien/hara, and breath (kokyu). can't be internal without the three.

[jss]

First, would you say there is a great difference between the term "core" as used by someone like say, Joseph Pilates, and the term "Dantien"? What would you say the major differences or similarities are?
I know very little about Pilates, but I believe the point is to have strong core muscles (lower back, abdomen, etc.) as a power base for all other movements. The point of the dantien (or rather one important point of, but let's not go there now) is that it's the natural control center of what Mike Sigman calls the suit and what Hunter described as a balloon animal. Developing the suit means tying your body together in a very specific and very physical way. It means that when doing e.g. Chen silk reeling you do not move that way because of choreography, but because you feel that's the way your body wants to move.
So the main difference between the term core and the term dantien is that they come form very different views of how the body moves.

One possible similarity I see is that they share the idea that the pelvic region of the human body is very important for generating power. The big difference however is what they do with that region and how they develop it. So focussing on the similarity would make to me even less sense than focussing on the similarities in leg usage and development between sprinters and marathoners.

[Howard Prior]

My understanding of "kua" is that it encompasses not just the muscles and fascia (the two-muscle makeup of the iliopsoas, and the tensor fasciae latae) that run across the hip and immediate top of the thigh where it meets the hip, but also the head of the femur/femoral ball-and-socket joint itself which is subtly acted upon.

Diagrams of those muscles may be found here: http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Hip.html#anchor845056.

[ChrisHein]

From what I'm getting here. In your theory of "IP" you use the dantien in addition to localized muscle groups to create power. Kind of like the transmission in a car, you use weaker but centralized muscle of the core area of the body, specifically the iliopsoas, and the tensor fasciae latae (dantien) to help recruit more power and stability for localized muscle groups.

If I'm reading this right, there is also the theory that high level dantien guys can move their appendages with only the muscular contractions of the dantien. However, again if I'm reading this right, it's still most beneficial/powerful to recruit local muscular groups (muscles of the legs, arms etc) when attempting to do things as powerfully as possible. This would be kind of like chain linking the muscular groups together from the dantien out.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

Thanks

[Tengu859]

From what I'm getting here. In your theory of "IP" you use the dantien in addition to localized muscle groups to create power. Kind of like the transmission in a car, you use weaker but centralized muscle of the core area of the body, specifically the iliopsoas, and the tensor fasciae latae (dantien) to help recruit more power and stability for localized muscle groups.

If I'm reading this right, there is also the theory that high level dantien guys can move their appendages with only the muscular contractions of the dantien. However, again if I'm reading this right, it's still most beneficial/powerful to recruit local muscular groups (muscles of the legs, arms etc) when attempting to do things as powerfully as possible. This would be kind of like chain linking the muscular groups together from the dantien out.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

Thanks

Hello,

It's interesting to note that Sagawa Sensei in his later years was so feeble that he could not open a jar of food. But when he got out on the tatami, he would throw you around like a ragdoll. Did he need to recruit his local muscle groups to be powerful? If you believe the stories...then no. So there has to be a better way. Maybe to be truely powerful, you have to give up being powerful(not sure if i'm ready yet).

I'm going back to the tatami...training, training, training.

Take Care,

ChrisW

[Dave de Vos]

If I'm reading this right, there is also the theory that high level dantien guys can move their appendages with only the muscular contractions of the dantien. However, again if I'm reading this right, it's still most beneficial/powerful to recruit local muscular groups (muscles of the legs, arms etc) when attempting to do things as powerfully as possible. This would be kind of like chain linking the muscular groups together from the dantien out.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?



To me this "chain linking the muscular groups together from the dantien out" sounds right. But in my current understanding, recruiting local muscles may not be beneficial at all. It has a tendency to interfere with the chain linking.

[HL1978]

So what would western medical texts refer to the lower dantien? it is actually describing several muscular structures working together, correct? Or is it actually it's own unique "muscular ball"?

So my anatomy for martial artists spent much more time talking about pressure points and the nervous system than the musculature.

This post on rum soaked fist (http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9080&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p153674)is probably better than what I would have said in terms of muscles, however it does little to explain the ball of movement you can see in Forrest or others demo's, even if they discuss the ball like pressurization.

[ChrisHein]

I have yet to read the post on "rum soaked fist", but I will.

So if you are not "chain linking" muscles together, then that means all of the power must be coming only from the muscles of the core- or at least the muscles that make up what is called the "dantien". I can't see how those muscle groups alone can manage more power then the localized muscles. If you use them together, I can see how you might edge out a little more strength (by recruiting more power from the psoas iliopsoas etc.). But if we are talking about power from muscular contraction, I can't see how more can be developed in the core of the body alone, without recruiting the localized muscles.

Is there something that is going on beyond muscular contraction? If so, what is generating the power if not muscular contraction?

I'll read that thread, and be ready for the next posts. Thanks guys for a very non-personal, thought provoking thread, thus far!

[HL1978]

I have yet to read the post on "rum soaked fist", but I will.

So if you are not "chain linking" muscles together, then that means all of the power must be coming only from the muscles of the core- or at least the muscles that make up what is called the "dantien". I can't see how those muscle groups alone can manage more power then the localized muscles. If you use them together, I can see how you might edge out a little more strength (by recruiting more power from the psoas iliopsoas etc.). But if we are talking about power from muscular contraction, I can't see how more can be developed in the core of the body alone, without recruiting the localized muscles.

Is there something that is going on beyond muscular contraction? If so, what is generating the power if not muscular contraction?

I'll read that thread, and be ready for the next posts. Thanks guys for a very non-personal, thought provoking thread, thus far!

So with respect to the upper body at least, if i push on someone with my arm and shoulder, due to newtons third law, I get pushed back as well. It may not be as noticible with a person since they get moved around. This same pushback occurs when you push on a wall with your arms too, but since the wall isn't going to move, all that force goes back into me. If I lock my arm and push back with my legs, this effect isn't observed to the same degree. I'm not advocating pushing with the legs.

I assume why dantien driven power appears to be stronger than using these muscle groups is that you get the weight effect, since the muscles aren't holding up the limbs and disconnecting them from the body, plus the pushback effect is reduced.

[Dave de Vos]

So if you are not "chain linking" muscles together, then that means all of the power must be coming only from the muscles of the core

I'm not sure if you're paraphrasing me or Hunter, but I can't find where either of us is saying this.

I did say that local muscle has a tendency to interfere with the "chain linking". IMO this means you should try to recruit everything - including local muscle - in the "chain linking", instead of allowing it to interfere. This needs to be practised and I still have a long way to go.

[ChrisMoses]

I realize that to some, a degree of radio silence and repeated cries of IHTBF! may seem as if some elitist clique are simply avoiding answering direct questions, being disingenuous with their efforts or even being intentionally vague to drum up all that sweet sweet seminar cash.

Personally, I don't go into details much on public forums because 1) I've tried, and my comments are often misunderstood, 2) I think it's nearly impossible to discuss this stuff in detail without some degree of physical contact and 3) everyone thinks they do that too and tries to relate it to what they already know (which leads back to #1).

I really believe that there's NO point to going into details on open forums. They're great for drumming up interest and connecting with folks who want to play. That's it. Even with videos and all the detailed verbage we can muster, it's just going to end badly. This is why we can't have nice things... :cool:

Now, I can have some pretty meaningful conversations with folks who I have previously had physical contact with or who have even had contact with similar people. What Hunter has offered makes complete sense to me and I'm almost positive we could have some pretty detailed and fruitful conversations long distance. I've met him in person, but I don't remember if we've ever even done pushout together. Lorel and I have never met in person, but we've had some really good conversations and both offered some interesting lines of study to each other. Even then, sometimes we hit the, "I'd have to feel it..." point in the conversation. I'm so bummed I was super sick this summer when I went to Hawaii, because I really wanted to meet and feel Chris Li. Maybe next time...

In 2005(?) I commented on a video of Ark and Rob and said, "yeah, we do that too, looks totally familiar..." then I went and met them, and came back and said I was wrong. Sure, what they were doing LOOKED really similar. I know folks have watched some of the short videos Jeremy and I have thrown out there and said, "yeah, we do that, looks about the same" but you never REALLY know until you feel it. "But wait!" you cry, "all you elitist IP/IS snobs sure like to comment on OTHER people's videos and say you DON'T see IT!" Yes, fair enough. I would say that with a certain amount of understanding, you do become able to see *to an extent* what we're talking about in videos. Sorry, but that's the best I can do on that one. That probably seems really unfair.

Another piece that I think gets lost in the anatomical deconstructs/hypotheses is that a LOT of the training that folks are doing centers on various visualizations. It's fine to talk about the psoas and fascia chains, but it's another to actually start to propriocept and control various parts of the body that are in play. The body is a complex system and it's not helpful to simply isolate down to a particular muscle group. The body exists as a system and this is in many ways an exploration of treating the body as a system rather than an assembly of parts. I think this is one of the reasons that western style weight lifting is so counter productive to internal skill training. But most of us haven't felt the kind of coordination that we're talking about, so again, you have to feel it, then humbly go back to what you're doing and admit, you ain't doing much! :freaky: Then you shut up and get back to work. Actually, that's not entirely true, I usually just keep asking questions until Dan threatens to make me pay extra for hogging all the time. :p

[ChrisHein]

I don't think you guys said that, I was putting my own thoughts into it, trying for myself to make it a little more clear.

I should outline it more clearly.

Hypothesis 1- The muscles of the dantien (muscles in the hip/abdomen area of the body) are the only muscles moving the body.

Hypothesis 2- The muscles of the dantien (muscles in the hip/abdomen area of the body) are starting an action that makes a sequential contraction in muscles from the dantien area out towards the localized muscles, "chain linking" muscular power together.

Hypothesis 3- The muscles are not being used much at all, something else in generating force.

These three hypothesize are what I'm getting, from what I've read, so far. I would guess that Dave is more a fan of hypothesis 2, and Hunter is pointing more at hypothesis 1.

I could easily be wrong about that, and would like to hear your input. Also if there are any further hypothesis I would like to hear those.

I read the first main post on "rum soaked fist" and a few others. That post did a great job in discussing what muscles are recruited. But he didn't really talk about how that recruitment moves the appendages, other then creating a pressure inside of the abdomen area, and breathing into that area to increase the "pressure" from there out.

I did think the post by "lazyboxer" was interesting in talking about how confusing it can be to attempt to use Chinese words, from a philosophy that few martial artists really understand, can be.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Christian,
Thanks for the comments. I understand the idea that you can't experience something until you've experienced it. Like coffee, you don't know how it tastes until you taste it. I think that is a fair statement to make.

However we should be able to intellectually understand what is happening, even if we can't do it, or feel it. Something is happening, so their must be a way to describe it. That's all I'm curious about at this moment.

[jss]

Hypothesis 1- The muscles of the dantien (muscles in the hip/abdomen area of the body) are the only muscles moving the body.

Hypothesis 2- The muscles of the dantien (muscles in the hip/abdomen area of the body) are starting an action that makes a sequential contraction in muscles from the dantien area out towards the localized muscles, "chain linking" muscular power together.

Hypothesis 3- The muscles are not being used much at all, something else in generating force.

This probably isn't even worth two meagre cents, but the idea of dantien comes from a tradition that did not think of the body as a system of joints an muscles. So although I find myself agreeing the most with hypothesis 2, the mentioning of 'muscles' makes me nervous, because it makes no sense in the model of the human body the idea of 'dantien' is coming from and secondly because in my own practice I focus on relaxing all muscles as much as possible.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Joep,

If all muscles were completely relaxed what would move the body? I think this might be the formation of a better Hypothesis 3.

[HL1978]

Now, I can have some pretty meaningful conversations with folks who I have previously had physical contact with or who have even had contact with similar people. What Hunter has offered makes complete sense to me and I'm almost positive we could have some pretty detailed and fruitful conversations long distance. I've met him in person, but I don't remember if we've ever even done pushout together. Lorel and I have never met in person, but we've had some really good conversations and both offered some interesting lines of study to each other. Even then, sometimes we hit the, "I'd have to feel it..." point in the conversation. I'm so bummed I was super sick this summer when I went to Hawaii, because I really wanted to meet and feel Chris Li. Maybe next time...


I think we got to at least do agete together, and we did get to share a couple of meals. I will definitely be looking you and Jeremy up the next time I'm in town. I should feel different than last time, as I certainly wasn't doing the exercises correct at the time.

I was surprised at the number of people from aikiweb, I got to meet on that trip!

[Dave de Vos]

Hypothesis 2- The muscles of the dantien (muscles in the hip/abdomen area of the body) are starting an action that makes a sequential contraction in muscles from the dantien area out towards the localized muscles, "chain linking" muscular power together.

<snip> I would guess that Dave is more a fan of hypothesis 2


Yes I am.
I'd like to add that the sequential contraction can also be inwards towards dantien and I'd like to note that muscle contraction can flex or extend body parts.

So although I find myself agreeing the most with hypothesis 2, the mentioning of 'muscles' makes me nervous, because it makes no sense in the model of the human body the idea of 'dantien' is coming from and secondly because in my own practice I focus on relaxing all muscles as much as possible.


If all muscles were completely relaxed what would move the body?

I do think muscles are needed to move the body. But in my experience, opinions to the degree of this vary. Some might be tending more towards 3 or 1.

Anyway, I do think that local muscle flexing tends to interfere with "chain linking". So Joep makes perfect sense to me in the admonition to be as relaxed as possible to prevent this.

[ChrisHein]

Anyway, I do think that local muscle flexing tends to interfere with "chain linking". So Joep makes perfect sense to me in the admonition to be as relaxed as possible to prevent this.

I agree with this, and I think modern sports movement does as well. If you fire the muscles out of order, you actually interfere with power instead of creating more. For example if I fire a localized muscle out of order, let's say my shoulder, that interrupts all the progress I've made from earlier muscle groups. This is why muscular relaxation is just as important, if not, in someways more important than muscular contraction. I don't think you would find any serious modern athletic professionals disagreeing with you on that point. So, with hypothesis 2, I think we can start to find some really common ground with how modern athletics believes motion should be made and how some "IP" folks believe it should be made.

I would say one of the bigger differences, for me anyways, is that I would say the action (contraction of muscles) doesn't usually start in the hip/abdomen area, but instead starts in the legs (when standing). This is something Hunter said was not what he was suggesting was going on. I would like to know more about that.

As for Hypothesis 1 & 3, these are ideas that are further away from what modern athletics would describe. I would be interested in talking more with people about Hypothesis 1 & 3. If we are describing a major difference between the way modern athletics use's the body, and another way of using the body (maybe IP), this is where we may find our biggest difference.

Also if there is a way to move the body without muscles, what is that method? Are there any examples of this?

[jss]

If all muscles were completely relaxed what would move the body? I think this might be the formation of a better Hypothesis 3.
Well, if all muscles were completely relaxed, I wouldn't worry about moving, but about not falling on my face. :D
So I have to agree with Dave: muscles are needed to move the body. The problem with all this IP/IS stuff, though, is that it does not feel like the muscles are used to move the body. You feel more like your body is some elastic entity, with the dantien controlling the tensions in that entity to generate movement.

Or to put it more broadly, the problem with muscles w.r.t. IS/IP is that what the body does physiologically (Not that I know anyone that fully grasps the physiological side of IP/IS, btw.) is very different from what it feels like and from what it takes to get people to move in a IP/IS way.
Which is not that weird, I have heard a similar thing about the pose running technique: it requires you to lean forward from the ankles, but if you tell people to lean forward from the ankles, they will do all sorts of things, except lean forward from the ankles...
Which is the same points as ChrisMoses was making, I think. And sure, there's a way "to intellectually understand what is happening, even if we can't do it, or feel it", but then I would feel more comfortable talking about a balloon man than about muscles, which may not pass your standards of intellectual rigour.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Joep,

From what I just read, it sounds to me like you're saying the biggest difference between IP/IS movement and athletic movement, is not so different in the way you are using the body, but instead in the way you are thinking about and/or feeling your body.

Is this correct?

[gregstec]

The problem I see in these recent discussions about internal and external movement is that people are using external concepts and principles to try and explain internal stuff; and this includes some of the IP/IS folks as well - there are fundamental differences between the two - look at my tag line for a clue as to what I am talking about - and then go out and feel someone that has it and can explain it in person - then come back and dissect it from that experience perspective if you like. :)

Greg

[MM]

I realize that to some, a degree of radio silence and repeated cries of IHTBF! may seem as if some elitist clique are simply avoiding answering direct questions, being disingenuous with their efforts or even being intentionally vague to drum up all that sweet sweet seminar cash.

Personally, I don't go into details much on public forums because 1) I've tried, and my comments are often misunderstood, 2) I think it's nearly impossible to discuss this stuff in detail without some degree of physical contact and 3) everyone thinks they do that too and tries to relate it to what they already know (which leads back to #1).

I really believe that there's NO point to going into details on open forums. They're great for drumming up interest and connecting with folks who want to play. That's it. Even with videos and all the detailed verbage we can muster, it's just going to end badly. This is why we can't have nice things... :cool:

Now, I can have some pretty meaningful conversations with folks who I have previously had physical contact with or who have even had contact with similar people. What Hunter has offered makes complete sense to me and I'm almost positive we could have some pretty detailed and fruitful conversations long distance. I've met him in person, but I don't remember if we've ever even done pushout together. Lorel and I have never met in person, but we've had some really good conversations and both offered some interesting lines of study to each other. Even then, sometimes we hit the, "I'd have to feel it..." point in the conversation. I'm so bummed I was super sick this summer when I went to Hawaii, because I really wanted to meet and feel Chris Li. Maybe next time...

In 2005(?) I commented on a video of Ark and Rob and said, "yeah, we do that too, looks totally familiar..." then I went and met them, and came back and said I was wrong. Sure, what they were doing LOOKED really similar. I know folks have watched some of the short videos Jeremy and I have thrown out there and said, "yeah, we do that, looks about the same" but you never REALLY know until you feel it. "But wait!" you cry, "all you elitist IP/IS snobs sure like to comment on OTHER people's videos and say you DON'T see IT!" Yes, fair enough. I would say that with a certain amount of understanding, you do become able to see *to an extent* what we're talking about in videos. Sorry, but that's the best I can do on that one. That probably seems really unfair.

Another piece that I think gets lost in the anatomical deconstructs/hypotheses is that a LOT of the training that folks are doing centers on various visualizations. It's fine to talk about the psoas and fascia chains, but it's another to actually start to propriocept and control various parts of the body that are in play. The body is a complex system and it's not helpful to simply isolate down to a particular muscle group. The body exists as a system and this is in many ways an exploration of treating the body as a system rather than an assembly of parts. I think this is one of the reasons that western style weight lifting is so counter productive to internal skill training. But most of us haven't felt the kind of coordination that we're talking about, so again, you have to feel it, then humbly go back to what you're doing and admit, you ain't doing much! :freaky: Then you shut up and get back to work. Actually, that's not entirely true, I usually just keep asking questions until Dan threatens to make me pay extra for hogging all the time. :p

That's certainly worth reposting. Ditto for me.

[jss]

Hey Joep,

From what I just read, it sounds to me like you're saying the biggest difference between IP/IS movement and athletic movement, is not so different in the way you are using the body, but instead in the way you are thinking about and/or feeling your body.

Is this correct?
No, that's not what I am trying to say. It is this different way of thinking and feeling that leads to a fundamentally different usage of the body.

Now it may not be totally fundamentally different from a physiological perspective (because both forms of movement are done with a human body although very differently developed), but until physiology can explain both athletic and IP/IS movement, there's no way of knowing.

[ChrisHein]

but until physiology can explain both athletic and IP/IS movement, there's no way of knowing.

I don't think we should assume it can't explain both. If we talk about it more I'm sure we can explain what is happening.

If we look at the IHTBF argument, we can see the validity of that argument in the need for experience. But once everyone has had the experience, we still need to understand what gave us that experience. This understanding/explanation can help not only those who have "felt it" but also those who have not had a chance to. It will also enable us to understand if we have "felt it" or if we are talking about something else. I'm a good case in point. I've already taken measures to "feel" what you guys are talking about. But I have also trained for some time with a known internal expert. I would guess I have already "felt it", so I am curious, and want to talk to others about what this "it is". Now after I see one of these fellows in 2013 I'll know for sure, but until then, I'd like to ask questions. I know how I would describe what I call internal, and compare that to what you guys call "IP/IT/IS".

[Chris Knight]

Hi chris

Is it possible for you to define what tim felt like outside of waza. And what solo exerciese you were given to develop the connected body? This might help decipher if we're discussing the same thing

Cheers

Chris

[jss]

I don't think we should assume it can't explain both. If we talk about it more I'm sure we can explain what is happening.
It's not an assumption. If anyone knows of a good physiology study investigating IP/IS, please post it, because I don't know of any! :D
As for working it out between the two of us: I'm not knowledgeable in either physiology or IP/IS to believe that would succeed.

[ChrisHein]

Hi chris

Is it possible for you to define what tim felt like outside of waza. And what solo exerciese you were given to develop the connected body? This might help decipher if we're discussing the same thing

Cheers

Chris

Tim feels heavy. Way heavier then you would suspect a 150 lbs man to be. I've wrestled with a 350lbs guy who felt lighter then Tim. He also feels relaxed and very moveable, but when you move him you tend to become unbalanced, or fall into a trap of some sort. I'm sure that I've spent well over a hundred hours rolling, wrestling and boxing with Tim. He feels surprisingly powerful, yet in a very fluid and nonresistant way. If Tim lays on you, you often want to tap out from the pressure alone, yet it never feels like he is resisting you, other then being really heavy.

We did lot's of connection exercises. These helped learn how to connect the hands and the center, while grounding or delivering force from the gorund. The idea of movement is whole body power. So if your leg moves, that power comes out your hand. Every class (be that BJJ, Xing yi or Shen wu) started with physical and connection exercises, followed by technique, and then some kind of sparring or free play practice. I also studied the Zhao bao Taiji exercises with Tim. Those develop unbelievable leg strength and flexibility, which makes the power you issue feel kind of strange and shocking.

[asiawide]

Tim feels heavy. Way heavier then you would suspect a 150 lbs man to be. I've wrestled with a 350lbs guy who felt lighter then Tim. He also feels relaxed and very moveable, but when you move him you tend to become unbalanced, or fall into a trap of some sort. I'm sure that I've spent well over a hundred hours rolling, wrestling and boxing with Tim. He feels surprisingly powerful, yet in a very fluid and nonresistant way. If Tim lays on you, you often want to tap out from the pressure alone, yet it never feels like he is resisting you, other then being really heavy.

Interesting experience. Would you describe how he becomes heavy to you? Why do you lose your balance when you try to move him? Is there any training method or skill for that? Thanks in advance!

Jaemin

[ChrisHein]

Tim knows how to fully put his weight down, into whatever spot he wants. He's not holding any undue tension, so all of his weight can go where he wants to direct it. If that's down, he feels super heavy, if it's out he hit's or throws you super hard.

You lose your balance for any number of reasons: You were stuck to him and moving him unbalances you. You use more pressure then needed to try and move him, you over extend. He puts something (leg, foot, hip, etc) in your way when he moved so you fall over it. He directs your movement when he moves so you're in an awkward position after he moves, you fall down with no effort on his part.

There are lot's of ways to train it. Some of it comes from organizational exercises (ways to use your body) some of it comes from hours and hours of sparring, and understanding how certain things will play out.

[Chris Knight]

Thanks for the info!

Im hopefully going to take my aiki work into sparring after a few years of solo training. Unfortunately I'm not a fighter and need to learn everything from scratch, but I'm a firm believer in pressure testing this stuff to progress exponentially.

In your description, you make no mention of intent work, spiral conditioning, or cross body conditioning, - is this of interest to you. Maybe this is where some people differ?

Just throwing ideas around really

Cheers

Chris

[Howard Popkin]

You lose your balance for any number of reasons: You were stuck to him and moving him unbalances you.

How did he stick you to him ?

Thanks,

Howard

[DH]

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior who might enter you have management within and movement to deflect.
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move. Moving away from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in yo-you now have a supported tangent that is created in a balanced state, that created a disruption that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on.

In/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devestatingly effective.
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba; who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.
Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge AIkido should be known for. Harnessing power, and being able to deliver it is the foundation for spiritual growth in witholding and controlling it. His was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force. His constant admonitions were of possessing power killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and practice that.
I had a recent encounter with a 90 years old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to one again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go someone place else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. You could actually decimate their teacher right in front of them it wouldn't matter at all. Westerners prefer Asian arts. What we are going to be forced to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. It is my opinion that most of the Shihan are simply no capable of it. Of those who are, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki the Ueshiba way, and than those who can't handle them. I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. It is going to be a whole different landscape.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

How did he stick you to him ?

Thanks,

Howard

In some cases I would say that I'm just not sure. But many times, it was because I was subconsciously using him for support. I didn't know that I was using him for stability (double weighting) and when I moved him I moved my support. This makes you feel like you're stuck (because you're using him for support) and when he moves you fly.

From the students perspective many of these things seem otherworldly, but when you talk to Tim about them, he's quick to demystify what is happening, usually he'll be quick to put it in terms that you can understand, and explain why something felt so amazing.

[ChrisHein]

Hey Dan,

What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing.

While I would agree, in my training, that achieving a true neutral inside yourself is very important. That neutral being your ability to relax your physical structure so that you have nothing unnecessary (unnecessary tension in the legs, shoulders hips etc) working to support your structure. I wouldn't describe that in the way you do. Can you explain how the duel opposing spirals are used, and what they are made up of?

I would also say the the balancing of forces (in/yo) has mostly to do with you balancing any force that is trying to act upon you, by giving to it. Once you give to the force you may, in some case's flank that force, or redirect that force, or merge with that force. Is this something like what you are talking about?

When I read what you are talking about it comes off like you mean to say that you oppose the force that is coming in. When I personally would say you accept the force that is coming in, while keeping your own structure, then flank, redirect, or merge with that force.

[DH]

Edit: Dual post! My apologies, the other was from my phone and I was too busy to write.

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces.

Management of force
Deflection, projection, absorption
Deflection
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move naturally. Moving *away* from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. So, in/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.

Projection
Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective. Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. This can expand outward or contract inward. It may expand outward in 360 degrees. it may be focused to a point, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point supressing or dampening all vectored resistance. This gives the person a feeling of being smothered, and also of you supposedly "reading" their responses and being "ahead of them" even though you really haven't dedicated any energy or focus to that model. This can also be a non static ever fluid state.

Absorption
This is the above in an opposite tract. It requires somewhat of a leading aspect toward you that is deflected off as well.

All of the above has many aspects of additional movement in opening and closing the body, spiral movement through dantian that brings the overall effect *off the charts* in trying to track the many different "aiki's" that are possible in using the body in a myriad of ways to manage force. This is too complicated to cover in written form.

Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me
Aiki and yin/yang. Where is yin and yang?
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba; who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.
Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge Aikido should be known for. Harnessing power, and being able to deliver it is the foundation for spiritual growth in withholding and controlling that power. This is yet another aspect of Aikido that i greatly...greatly...admire. I now have met so many capable men and women who were drawing to the art for this reason as well. It gives us a lifetime to experience that forging of spirit/mind/body.

I had a recent encounter with a 90 year old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to once again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again.
That said, it was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force. His constant admonitions were of possessing power as a killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and that practice and hone that control. An old saying goes "If I raise my hand. I withdraw my temper. If i raise my temper, I withdraw my hand."
There is a conundrum to Aikido and really many high level arts, that can feed us for the rest of our lives.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go somewhere else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. What we are going to force teachers to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. As the recent Daito ryu shihan stated in his Aikido Journal article "most of the Shihan in the arts are simply not capable of aiki." Of those who are out teaching publicly, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki, the Ueshiba way, and those who can't handle them.
I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. I believe we are about to create a whole different landscape.
Dan

[DH]

Hey Dan,

What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing.

While I would agree, in my training, that achieving a true neutral inside yourself is very important. That neutral being your ability to relax your physical structure so that you have nothing unnecessary (unnecessary tension in the legs, shoulders hips etc) working to support your structure. I wouldn't describe that in the way you do. Can you explain how the duel opposing spirals are used, and what they are made up of?

I would also say the the balancing of forces (in/yo) has mostly to do with you balancing any force that is trying to act upon you, by giving to it. Once you give to the force you may, in some case's flank that force, or redirect that force, or merge with that force. Is this something like what you are talking about?

When I read what you are talking about it comes off like you mean to say that you oppose the force that is coming in. When I personally would say you accept the force that is coming in, while keeping your own structure, then flank, redirect, or merge with that force.
Hi Chris
Were you to have actually studied internal training -instead of studying the internal arts- you would be abe to answer those questions. Anyone who has...could.
Sadly ten, or even twenty years of training in...the internal arts in China...is about equal to training aikido in Japan for twenty years and thinking you are an expert in.....aiki. There simply is no promise that attendance meant expertise. In both cases you're pretty much going to end up just learning ...jujutsu. Sort of like..."an athlete." Which is why some people think athletes have internal power.
It is worth considering one Chinese grandmaster admitting that...
"There are only Chinese Grandmasters."
Who are they teaching...what?
I watched a Japanese teacher specifically and in detail NOT teach entire rooms what he taught others in private.
Anyway...
"relaxing your physical structure so that you have nothing unnecessary (unnecessary tension in the legs, shoulders hips etc) working to support your structure.".....is a bogus admonition offered by so many teachers it has become a standard. It is as useless for gaining a bujutsu body as teachers telling us to "cut from center," or "move your insides." All of which is non-descriptive, unsupported and has no specific value to what relaxing is. You might as well just go to sleep. That's relaxing as well.

"I wouldn't describe that in the way you do. Can you explain how the duel opposing spirals are used, and what"
I have many times. I have also been told I was full of crap, a snakeoil salesman, a fraud, a con man, marketing expert, and any manner of insult you can possibly think of for trying to show and tell everyone what the old man was really doing. Including jokes thrown my way of
"How do you drive a car..."
"Dual opposing spirals creating shear"...blah blah blah...hah hah hah. :rolleyes:
Then....
Chris Li discovers Ueshiba's previously untranslated statement all but quoting me 50 years ago stating that "The mysteries of aiki are revealed in dual opposing spirals....." detail left out
How in the Fecking world...did that happen________________?
Because it is an actual teaching model he was taught and I was taught- that's how.
My response I guess is
"Why am I taking heat...for a teaching that was known..when you guys are the aikido experts?
Why the hell don't you guys know this already?
And why
Why
Do you continually fail when touching someone who uses Ueshiba's detailed models?
Why?
There is no answer I have yet to receive on the internet. So...I think I will leave the debates for one-on-one encounters. It tends to unstop peoples ears, we become friends, and explore Ueshiba's genius and the material that predated him that he continualy quoted and pointed to...together....and with joy.
In fact I am doing that tomorrow with Aikido Shihans, Daito ryu Kyoju Dairi's, 4th, 5th and sixth dans and and many mixed artists, all in one room laughing and filled with joy...with no one teling me I am full of crap and selling them a bill of goods or being a con man!!
Well, mostly......:D ;)

Dan

[ChrisHein]

Hi Chris
Were you to have actually studied internal training -instead of studying the internal arts- you would be abe to answer those questions. Anyone who has...could.


The problem here is, this isn't a true statement. While you are correct that anyone who hasn't done what you call internal training, should know your answers. People who haven't done what you do wouldn't know your answers for those questions.

In order to talk about something we must find common ground. That's what I'm seeking to do. If you're not interested in finding common ground, that's fine, but then we don't need to say anything further to each other.



Sadly ten, or even twenty years of training in...the internal arts in China...is about equal to training aikido in Japan for twenty years and thinking you are an expert in.....aiki. There simply is no promise that attendance meant expertise. In both cases you're pretty much going to end up just learning ...jujutsu. Sort of like..."an athlete." Which is why some people think athletes have internal power.
It is worth considering one Chinese grandmaster admitting that...
"There are only Chinese Grandmasters."
Who are they teaching...what?
I watched a Japanese teacher specifically and in detail NOT teach entire rooms what he taught others in private.
Anyway...



There is a kind of cultural hang up here that I'm not comfortable discussing.


"relaxing your physical structure so that you have nothing unnecessary (unnecessary tension in the legs, shoulders hips etc) working to support your structure.".....is a bogus admonition offered by so many teachers it has become a standard. It is as useless for gaining a bujutsu body as teachers telling us to "cut from center," or "move your insides." All of which is non-descriptive, unsupported and has no specific value to what relaxing is. You might as well just go to sleep. That's relaxing as well.


I disagree. When standing, only a few muscles need to be working in order to hold the body up. When we get stressed out, we tend to contract unnecessary muscle groups. For example, when someone clinches their fists when they get worried. This is an example of unnecessary tension in the body. When you are flexing your quads when they can relax, or your deltoids when standing upright has nothing to do with these muscle groups. Any time there is unnecessary tension in the body it leads to the body being "out of balance". I think that description is a good one, but I'd be willing to entertain other ones as well.


"I wouldn't describe that in the way you do. Can you explain how the duel opposing spirals are used, and what"
I have many times. I have also been told I was full of crap, a snakeoil salesman, a fraud, a con man, marketing expert, and any manner of insult you can possibly think of for trying to show and tell everyone what the old man was really doing. Including jokes thrown my way of
"How do you drive a car..."
"Dual opposing spirals creating shear"...blah blah blah...hah hah hah. :rolleyes:
Then....
Chris Li discovers Ueshiba's previously untranslated statement all but quoting me 50 years ago stating that "The mysteries of aiki are revealed in dual opposing spirals....." detail left out
How in the Fecking world...did that happen________________?
Because it is an actual teaching model he was taught and I was taught- that's how.
My response I guess is
"Why am I taking heat...for a teaching that was known..when you guys are the aikido experts?
Why the hell don't you guys know this already?
And why
Why
Do you continually fail when touching someone who uses Ueshiba's detailed models?
Why?


Dan, to use a recent quote "All of which is non-descriptive, unsupported and has no specific value." If you don't want to answer the question that's fine.

I think I will leave the debates for one-on-one encounters.

Oh, sorry, that's all you had to say. But then why post on Aikiweb in threads where people are discussing things?

[phitruong]

Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times.
Dan

that is cool. since i am an asian (last i checked this morning .... in the shower), i got a head start on you guys. this means i don't have to work hard at it and still look good. ya, don't hate me because i am natural and beautiful! :D

[Chris Li]

that is cool. since i am an asian (last i checked this morning .... in the shower), i got a head start on you guys. this means i don't have to work hard at it and still look good. ya, don't hate me because i am natural and beautiful! :D

"Soke Phi", has kind of a ring to it... :D

Best,

Chris

[Patrick Hutchinson]

Given his predilection for good living, and living well, that would make him a Rum-Soke-d Phi-St.

[DH]

The problem here is, this isn't a true statement. While you are correct that anyone who hasn't done what you call internal training, should know your answers. People who haven't done what you do wouldn't know your answers for those questions.
Chris
That leaves you out of answering the question.
Why...don't you know the answers?

In order to talk about something we must find common ground. That's what I'm seeking to do. If you're not interested in finding common ground, that's fine, but then we don't need to say anything further to each other.
I have common ground with other people who have trained in ICMA in China. In detail. All of whom can answer those qestions. Why...since you claim to have learned internals in a year from an expert...do you not have answers?

There is a kind of cultural hang up here that I'm not comfortable discussing.
The cultural hang up is not of our making and it is actually understandable considering these things are part of their cultural heritage and their teaching model is throughout their culture.

I disagree. When standing, only a few muscles need to be working in order to hold the body up. When we get stressed out, we tend to contract unnecessary muscle groups. For example, when someone clinches their fists when they get worried. This is an example of unnecessary tension in thei body. When you are flexing your quads when they can relax, or your deltoids when standing upright has nothing to do with these muscle groups. Any time there is unnecessary tension in the body it leads to the body being "out of balance". I think that description is a good one, but I'd be willing to entertain other ones as well.
I have met thousand of people who relax or... flex... as they are toppled. It has not one thing to do with connecting the body, where, how, and what-to-what. It just isn't anything I recognize as *supported* internal power. Now, there is a way and means to relax tha is not the same as *relaxing* that makes power on contact. This power is soft, neutral and manipulated to make kuzushi, or aiki on contact.

Dan, to use a recent quote "All of which is non-descriptive, unsupported and has no specific value." If you don't want to answer the question that's fine.
Chris, I did answer

Oh, sorry, that's all you had to say. But then why post on Aikiweb in threads where people are discussing things?
Well actually I have written more *useful* things pointing in the right direction than most anyone here. And Chris...I am travelling and putting my reputation on the line in so many open rooms against seriously capable people that i loss count, all in trying to help and putting my money where my mouth is. ;)
On any other topic I have tremendous respect for your search and what you are trying to do.
Dan

[woudew]

Edit: Dual post! My apologies, the other was from my phone and I was too busy to write.

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces.

Management of force
Deflection, projection, absorption
Deflection
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move naturally. Moving *away* from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. So, in/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.

Projection
Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective. Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. This can expand outward or contract inward. It may expand outward in 360 degrees. it may be focused to a point, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point supressing or dampening all vectored resistance. This gives the person a feeling of being smothered, and also of you supposedly "reading" their responses and being "ahead of them" even though you really haven't dedicated any energy or focus to that model. This can also be a non static ever fluid state.

Absorption
This is the above in an opposite tract. It requires somewhat of a leading aspect toward you that is deflected off as well.

All of the above has many aspects of additional movement in opening and closing the body, spiral movement through dantian that brings the overall effect *off the charts* in trying to track the many different "aiki's" that are possible in using the body in a myriad of ways to manage force. This is too complicated to cover in written form.

Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me
Aiki and yin/yang. Where is yin and yang?
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba; who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.
Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge Aikido should be known for. Harnessing power, and being able to deliver it is the foundation for spiritual growth in withholding and controlling that power. This is yet another aspect of Aikido that i greatly...greatly...admire. I now have met so many capable men and women who were drawing to the art for this reason as well. It gives us a lifetime to experience that forging of spirit/mind/body.

I had a recent encounter with a 90 year old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to once again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again.
That said, it was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force. His constant admonitions were of possessing power as a killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and that practice and hone that control. An old saying goes "If I raise my hand. I withdraw my temper. If i raise my temper, I withdraw my hand."
There is a conundrum to Aikido and really many high level arts, that can feed us for the rest of our lives.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go somewhere else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. What we are going to force teachers to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. As the recent Daito ryu shihan stated in his Aikido Journal article "most of the Shihan in the arts are simply not capable of aiki." Of those who are out teaching publicly, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki, the Ueshiba way, and those who can't handle them.
I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. I believe we are about to create a whole different landscape.
Dan

Great writing, Dan.

Thanks.

[gregstec]

Great writing, Dan.

Thanks.

Yes, I agree - one of the best pieces of his writing that really bring together in one place the core of what we are doing; you really cannot explain anymore without a hands on exchange - he even did a good job with his spelling, for change :D

Greg

[Mary Eastland]

Aiki may be a clash of forces but Aikido as I practice it is not. Aikido (and this thread is up in the Aikido section not down in the other arts)...is blend, blending blending. No opposition. Especially irimi is blending...that is where the real thing happens when addressed by uke with a strong attack and commited following.
Aikido is never a clash when done correctly...if a clash happens timing is wong, nage is using their head instead of center and more training is needed as always.

[DH]

Aiki may be a clash of forces but Aikido as I practice it is not. Aikido (and this thread is up in the Aikido section not down in the other arts)...is blend, blending blending. No opposition. Especially irimi is blending...that is where the real thing happens when addressed by uke with a strong attack and commited following.
Aikido is never a clash when done correctly...if a clash happens timing is wong, nage is using their head instead of center and more training is needed as always.

Well you are simply wrong Mary. You don't understand what Ueshiba was talking about and his correct use of an older model.
1. What we are talking about-the use of power- is ...to blend and be soft.
2. How he blended required support in the body in order to make in/yo.
and?
He stated that..over and over and over and over.

Interesting enough I spent -yet another weekend- with someone who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba. What did he talk about?
Their power !!
What have others who actually trained with Ueshiba I have met talked about?
His power!!

The fact that most people don't get it in Aikido and they think we are talking about muscle and athletic muscle power is quite evident in the modern Shihans and the way they move. It doesn't mean however that they are right. And that...is why everybody keeps failing when they meet someone who does get what ueshiba was talking about.
It is all about blending, Mary. Not just the way most do it. They simply do not understand in/yo.
Oops...he said that as well.
Dan

[Mary Eastland]

It seems like even though you say I am simply wrong you agree with all that I say.
I hope you had a nice, peaceful Thanksgiving.

[DH]

It seems like even though you say I am simply wrong you agree with all that I say.
I hope you had a nice, peaceful Thanksgiving.

That's because over and over you argue against ...the use of power....to make aiki. You're a Tohei lineage student, and his model begins with the development of power, just like Ueshiba.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

Hey Dan,
I've read your posts twice now. I still haven't seen an answer to my question.

"What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing."

Are you not interested in answering this question? If not that's fine, but I feel like you keep responding to it, but not actually answering it.

I'm still not sure what the "duel opposing spirals are". Are they an alignment? Is it an energy? You have to understand the words you're using aren't the thing that they describe, they are simply words. You have your own vocabulary for what you do, if you want anyone to understand what it is you are doing, you'll have to explain what it is that you mean by the words you use.

Balancing in/yo inside of yourself, doesn't mean anything to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated into your way of talking. So could you please explain what it is that you mean by this? If you don't want to talk to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated, then why do you post these things publicly- no one else knows what you are talking about.

[Mary Eastland]

That's because over and over you argue against ...the use of power....to make aiki. You're a Tohei lineage student, and his model begins with the development of power, just like Ueshiba.
Dan

I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. I am not interested in power over...I am interested in power to lead, blend, and connect. One needs to have power to do this effectively.
Mary

[stan baker]

Hi Chris
I guess you have not look into the basic theory of internal.
Balance of yin and yang is what they talk about in taiji and aiki
Dan did not make it up. It is like I say alot these days,you need to
get out more.

stan

[ChrisHein]

I'm asking Dan to state what he means by this. What I mean/understand/know is not of consequence.

This seems to be a problem I see again and again. If you want someone to understand what you are talking about, you should attempt to clarify for them what you mean. It's a very bad practice, in discussion, to assume someone knows something that might be complex, specialized or specific. It is an even worse practice, when asked to clarify, to simply state "you should already know".

How would we ever communicate with each other if we always approached communication in this way? People use words many different ways. The word is not the phenomenon, it only describes the phenomenon, I'm asking for clarification on how Dan is using his words.

If he doesn't what to answer, just say so. But again, why post publicly about it if you don't actually want to talk about it? I see these same words/phrases over and over, but no one is saying what they are suppose to mean.

"Duel opposing spirals", what does that mean?

What forces are in opposition?

What makes this force?

What are these forces spiraling in/on/around?

How does this phenomenon (duel opposing spirals) make you... Actually I'm not ever sure what they are suppose to make you, stronger, faster, more stable, I'm not sure other then "more powerful" somehow. What do you mean by "powerful"

This is really open to interpretation, how can we talk about something with this level of vagueness and ambiguity? It seems no one wants to explain, just keep stating the same words and phrases over and over. It's very curious.

[Tengu859]

"You must realize this!
Aiki cannot be captured with the brush
Nor can it be expressed with the mouth
And so it is that one must proceed
to realization"
Ueshiba Sensei

Enjoy and Take Care,

ChrisW

PS Always train in a vibrant and joyful manner...!!! :0)

[Lorel Latorilla]

It is simple.

If you feel you have the answers, ignore everyone else and train and do your own thing.

If you feel like there is a nagging thing that wants to make you pursue the truth and that what you are doing is true training, stop debating on the internet, and meet people. If you are not impressed or feel that you didn't encounter anything special, move on and resume the training that you were doing. If you felt there was something more superior and special, take on the new training.

Is it really that hard?

[Mary Eastland]

Good question, Lorel. Is yours the only answer?

Here is another question: Can we talk about our own path without being told we are simply wrong by someone who has never met us?

AikiWeb to me seems to be about discussion. I like to discuss. I would not say you are wrong and I am right. I like to hear about other peoples experiences. Can that be okay too?

[Chris Li]

Good question, Lorel. Is yours the only answer?

Here is another question: Can we talk about our own path without being told we are simply wrong by someone who has never met us?

AikiWeb to me seems to be about discussion. I like to discuss. I would not say you are wrong and I am right. I like to hear about other peoples experiences. Can that be okay too?

You can, and that's a good venue for a blog, which isn't interactive.

Participating in a discussion opens yourself to the possibility that people will disagree with whatever you happen to be saying - otherwise it's just a mutual agreement party where people secretly disagree behind your back. I prefer the open disagreements.

Best,

Chris

[Lorel Latorilla]

Good question, Lorel. Is yours the only answer?

Here is another question: Can we talk about our own path without being told we are simply wrong by someone who has never met us?

AikiWeb to me seems to be about discussion. I like to discuss. I would not say you are wrong and I am right. I like to hear about other peoples experiences. Can that be okay too?

Mary, if we were to be honest, everyone would admit that their worldview is the correct one. This is a default for all human beings. Nobody lives in this world thinking that they have the wrong believes. I would love to meet that person that does.

It takes a much different kind of character though to be open to the fact that their worldview might be wrong even if all humans by nature believe what they believe is true. This kind of person is a "seeker", and tests the beliefs against the backdrop of an indiscriminate, sometimes brutal, but always truthful reality. To some people, reality is a menacing threat, a curmudgeon that wants to destroy the beliefs that people have cherished and have depended on for their own sense of comfort, their purpose in life, their very identity. But to others, reality is a brutally honest friend that rewards seekers with truth. I'm convinced that reality is the latter, and it is absolutely thrilling and freeing to embrace reality in that way...cause either way, even if your beliefs burn or stand, the truth will stand.

Why does it bother you that some noone is telling you that what you have been doing is wrong? If you honestly truly believe that what you are doing is true and truly convinced that what you are doing is true, then what others have to say should not bother you at all or it ought not to bother you. But if there is something nagging at you--why do you choose to ignore it? What is there to lose by running head first into reality? If what you believe is true, then encountering reality will be a joyful discovery where you see that what you did was correct all along. If you what you don't believe is true, then encountering reality in that state will also be joyful, for the reason that your delusions are getting burned and you will no longer be trapped by them. Seriously, what do you have to lose?

If you are not interested in truth, then what is the point of discussion besides having a feel good, circle jerk?

[Gary David]

Good question, Lorel. Is yours the only answer?

Here is another question: Can we talk about our own path without being told we are simply wrong by someone who has never met us?

AikiWeb to me seems to be about discussion. I like to discuss. I would not say you are wrong and I am right. I like to hear about other peoples experiences. Can that be okay too?

Mary
If someone (anyone) tells you that you are wrong (on any subject, any experience, any happening) how do you handle that? Do you check to see if there is any validity in what was said or do you just throw it out like bath water? Even comments from sources I don't like I evaluate to see if there is any merit in what was said.

You can, and that's a good venue for a blog, which isn't interactive.

Participating in a discussion opens yourself to the possibility that people will disagree with whatever you happen to be saying - otherwise it's just a mutual agreement party where people secretly disagree behind your back. I prefer the open disagreements.

Best,

Chris

I think that this is so true.

Gary

[ChrisHein]

Private discussion is great, so is public discussion. If we are going to have a public discussion we must actually state what it is we are talking about. Then open up to the idea that we could be wrong. Otherwise it's all just a big "infomercial".

I also seem to hit the- "if that's not what you want to do, then just stop talking about it" argument. The problem is we don't stop talking about it, "IP/IT/IS" is here just about everyday on Aikiweb. So there must be interest in it, because we don't stop talking about it. So as a member of Aikiweb, I would like to be involved in these discussions.

So let's talk about it.

What exactly are these duel opposing spirals, that I keep hearing about?

What are they made of?

How do you use them "inside of yourself"?

[DH]

Chris
You learned all this internal stuff in a year, from a guy who became an expert in twelve.
Why are you asking any questions at all?
Then again, since you claim every top shelf athlete knows internal power, why did the famous pro football guy I know topple like everyone else?
Then again, why do all of the Aikido teachers I meet keep failing when we touch hands if you are *experts* in internal power and aiki?

I know the answer. It's stunningly obvious....when there is no keyboard around, but the internet is after all, a great place to be an expert in anything.


So let's talk about it.
What exactly are these duel opposing spirals, that I keep hearing about?
What are they made of?
How do you use them "inside of yourself"?
You already claim to know this.
This is in Taiji and Bagua. You keep telling us you learned *internals* from an expert. I had a physical discussion with three experts in their field who knew this. And FWIW, your teacher's teacher (his expert) bounced his own self off of me in an open room in front of his students when he tried to throw me using waza-I felt no internal power.

Ueshiba made the same comment about the mysteries of aiki being revealed in Dual opposing spirals and he moved using them. So did any number of DR people.
So.....tell us what it is Chris. Why are you asking questions? Why do you need it spelled out for a discussion?

You have stated openly that you think it is alI athletics. That thousands of years of warriors and IMA were wrong. So go be an athlete.

Dan

[Mary Eastland]

How can you possibly know if I am wrong? I don't care about being right, Lorel. But I don't understand how anyone can possible know what I know having never met me.

I am not sure what a circle jerk is but I know that I do like to discuss things about the Aikido I train in with other people. If that seems wrong to you you could stay off those threads.

A discussion is different from an argument.

[DH]

How can you possibly know if I am wrong? I don't care about being right, Lorel. But I don't understand how anyone can possible know what I know having never met me.

I am not sure what a circle jerk is but I know that I do like to discuss things about the Aikido I train in with other people. If that seems wrong to you you could stay off those threads.

A discussion is different from an argument.
Those are good points, Mary.
And they work both ways.
Sometimes there is no right or wrong, just different ways to do things.-Like with aikido.
Sometimes there is right or wrong-like with aiki. Some things are just superior.

I think all of us need to avoid frustrating each other, to the point that regardless of right or wrong, or just being different, we get so turned off that we just don't care. I know one fellow, who whether or not he was the best MA guy in the world I would NEVER train with him. And sadly some of us feel that way about each other now. That just sucks and it's our own loss.
Isn't it more important to respect each other and to make friends than to argue over work that only a very small fraction of the human population even cares exists?

Budo is interesting in that most people who stick with it have to be of a certain type. Most people I have met in person are very nice well balanced individuals with great reserves of tenacity against perpetual testing and failure as we all learn. Luckily, I haven't met anyone in person with great flaming ego's, just those eager to be open and to research. That said, I sometimes cringe at the tone of the posting. Right or wrong, different or not, accepting the possibilities and communicating with openness is a *state of mind* that is more than just words.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

Dan,
Why can't you just answer the question? You seem to be obsessed with me and what I know. Many have asked me about my training, and I have answered as as fully as I can, why can't you do the same?

I'm simply asking you about your stuff. It might be the same as what I know, but if it is, you're talking about it differently, so I'd like to better understand what you mean by your words.

If you are talking about something different then I have done, I would like to better understand what it is you are trying to do.

I'm just asking questions, if you can't or won't answer them, that's fine. But then why does this keep coming up publicly? If you're only interested in working with people at your seminars, then why talk about it openly in a public forum? Do you simply look at Aikiweb as a way to advertise? Or do you really want to share what it is you are doing??

Also my offer to come to one of your California seminars is still open, if you would like me to come.

[Gary David]

Dan,
Why can't you just answer the question? You seem to be obsessed with me and what I know. Many have asked me about my training, and I have answered as as fully as I can, why can't you do the same?

I'm simply asking you about your stuff. It might be the same as what I know, but if it is, you're talking about it differently, so I'd like to better understand what you mean by your words.

If you are talking about something different then I have done, I would like to better understand what it is you are trying to do.

I'm just asking questions, if you can't or won't answer them, that's fine. But then why does this keep coming up publicly? If you're only interested in working with people at your seminars, then why talk about it openly in a public forum? Do you simply look at Aikiweb as a way to advertise? Or do you really want to share what it is you are doing??

Also my offer to come to one of your California seminars is still open, if you would like me to come.

Chris
This is an endless loop....going no where. The questions you keep asking can be answered in the way you are expecting only through direct transmission....and I think you understand this. Discussion here is like picking up a set of Cliff Notes and starting from there. Besides the 'Cliff Notes' have already been provided by Dan through the number of responses and answers he has already provided....some in response to your comments.....and with a number of inputs from other folks here....including Chris Li.

Figure out a way, whatever it takes, to get with Dan and I think it will clear up for you.

Gary

[Keith Larman]

Years ago when I first started learning to polish swords I had a guy teaching me who had me doing all sorts of stuff I didn't understand. One day I had a sword in front of me, a chinese made Japanese style sword, and I was going to reshape the entire thing. I was puzzled about one thing, however. The kissaki (tip) was poorly formed and I knew I was going to need to reshape it. I asked him "where should I place the yokote (dividing line between tip and blade itself) on this sword? I'm not sure where to put it given how poorly shaped most of it is."

His response was that I needed to simply do it to understand where it went. But I pushed -- I mean, really, how hard is it just to tell me where it should go? You know, "put it right *there*" and draw a little arrow on the scan I sent him. He replied that it wasn't really that simple or really that straight forward as many things go in to determining where that particular thing should form. I was frustrated, of course, because i wanted to do a good job on the thing and I didn't understand why he couldn't just answer the question. Finally he told me that I didn't know enough to understand the answer, even if the answer appears to be a very simple "right there" kind of thing. That frustrated me beyond belief.

Fast forward many years and I had a guy e-mailing me questions all the time about polishing. One day he asks me essentially the same question I had asked years ago. I looked at his picture and smiled because for the first time in a long while I thought back to our original discussion and how frustrated I was. And as I looked at the image this guy sent me asking me the same question, I realized that I couldn't really answer his question and do it any justice. And even if I *did* say "it goes right here" and put in an arrow very likely it wouldn't end up right in the end even if he put it there. Because there are so many factors in this topic. Because it is only one part of a vastly larger whole that requires holding the blade in hand, rolling it around in space, looking and understanding the blade. then putting it to stone. Then seeing how it was shaping out. Then refining the all the surfaces that would be "around" that point until the yokote (the dividing line) would form itself automatically as a result of a 1000 other things.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Words are imperfect representations of thoughts and experiences. And in the case of certain things there are dramatic limits to the value of verbal or written communications until a certain baseline of commonality is found. Thus far you have been quite strident in your questions, but you've also managed to frustrate most everyone who has tried to answer them. You say you understand what they're telling you but virtually all of them say "no, you're misinterpreting and not understanding what we're saying".

It is a testament to your tenacity and likely your sincerity that people have continued to answer your questions as much as they have. Maybe you should return the favor by letting it rest for a bit, at least until you get out on the mat with the people you're talking to. Then maybe you can roll that thing around in space together, look at it, see it together, and find out what might ideas might form automagically by simply experiencing something directly.

Then you can wave it all away or explain it however you see fit. But until then... I think you've hit the limits of the discussion.

Best of luck with it. Does it really need answering on-line before you get on the mat? Maybe you should consider just how very much you'll convince yourself of some model of what's really happening and make yourself even more skeptical and unable to experience whatever it is that these folk are doing...

To me it's like discussing how a long, complex recipe with complicated preparation will taste on-line. That's all fine and good, but you might want to reconsider criticism and over analysis until you actually get a chance to taste it first... Then by all means...

[ChrisHein]

I can understand that learning to do something can't be achieved by talking about it. This is why I am such a fan of having a sparring practice in my Aikido. You can never learn to use the techniques of Aikido without actually practicing them when someone is trying to overtake you.

I'm not talking about learning how to do what any "IP" person is doing by simply talking about it. I'm asking to be able to describe what you are doing in order to organize and understand it. Even if you can do something amazing, if you can't explain it, how can you teach others to do it?

For example, if I were a scientist speaking with another scientist about an experiment I just did. I could not give the experience I have from doing the experiment to the other scientist, by talking about it to him. however I could describe the phenomenon to him, because thorough our practice of science we have a common vocabulary. The other scientist still has to do the experiment himself for the experience, but a description is still possible. This description allows him to set up his experiment or know if he had indeed experimented with this himself.

Now we all have different backgrounds, but if we take a small bit of our time, we can create a common vocabulary. With this common vocabulary we can describe what we are doing. That is all I'm asking for. Let's create a common vocabulary.

The reason we keep going in a loop is because no one who is claiming a positive (the there is something different in IP than can be found in athletics) is willing to explain their point of view. Instead you see over and over things like "you should already know" or "it has to be felt" or "Ueshiba said". Those are not explanations, they are statements. Statements begin discussion but what follows must be questions and explanations. I feel the IP community isn't doing that, they are simply making statements over and over.

I'm trying to come up with different ways to ask questions to clarify, but I keep getting statements in return.

[Cady Goldfield]

There are existing vocabularies for describing "dual opposing spirals," etc. However, different arts may use the same terms to describe processes that aren't quite the same. Some may not be "internal" at all. Confusion ensues.

Even within the category of authetic internal training systems, terminology can be confusing if you try to cross-reference it to the different systems. I am familiar with at least two discrete, genuine internal training methodologies that utilize the same essential body processes for power and "aiki" but which use different training methods to inculcate them and different terminologies to describe them... and some of the terms within each system overlap into the other, but mean somewhat different things to and in those different systems. Again, confusion ensues.

That's one reason why it doesn't pay to talk too much about concepts here. As so many others have said, anyone who wants to understand what the "IP/Aiki" crowd is talking about, should bite the bullet, go out and get his or her hands on one of the known people who trains and teaches those skills. It doesn't matter which methodology you latch onto if it leads to the same summit.

[DH]

Dan,
Why can't you just answer the question? You seem to be obsessed with me and what I know. Many have asked me about my training, and I have answered as as fully as I can, why can't you do the same?
I'm simply asking you about your stuff. It might be the same as what I know, but if it is, you're talking about it differently, so I'd like to better understand what you mean by your words.
I answered -on topic- in a lengthy post a ways back with no response but more questions and now personal junk thrown in. What does that say?
I...am not intrested in what you know. I have seen you move and generate power. Thank you very much. I am just asking why you...don't recognize or can answer your own questions?
If you are talking about something different then I have done, I would like to better understand what it is you are trying to do.
Your questioning me-after insisting you mastered what I do in a year- is like insisting you are a 5th dan in Aikido and then asking me how to stand in hanmi and do Ikkyo.
Why would you claim to be an internal practioner and then be asking other internal practioners these things, as if they are unrecognizable concepts AND terminology to you?
I'm just asking questions, if you can't or won't answer them, that's fine. But then why does this keep coming up publicly? If you're only interested in working with people at your seminars, then why talk about it openly in a public forum? Do you simply look at Aikiweb as a way to advertise? Or do you really want to share what it is you are doing??
I do share what I am doing, Chris.
After pages and pages of descriptions and discussion, including history, translations, concepts and models...and a few posts back, some layout of my approach....and after travelling and being tested the world over, and after producing students with power you say......I'm only advertizing? Thats like others here stating the people who train with me are gullible, and stupid and all of my efforts are disingenuous.
I think you can do better than to communicate with me this way, Chris.
Also my offer to come to one of your California seminars is still open, if you would like me to come.
Really? This is quite a change from you repeatedly inferring I was full of S#*T and stating you hate me, on other boards. It certainly raised many peoples attention regarding the *sincerity* of your request to meet me.
A remarkable turn around. It might help me to know what changed?
Dan

[Keith Larman]

Fortunately, Chris, you being convinced to your satisfaction via discussion in an on-line forum is not a requirement for something to be the case. I've seen a tremendous amount of explanation here in this thread and in others, but since it's apparently not enough for *your* satisfaction, well, I suppose you're destined to be frustrated.

So here's to wishing you the best of luck until you finally find a way to actually experience it. Since obviously none of us are up to the task of explaining it to your satisfaction. You rather obviously already have some serious opinions about what it's all about based on your other experiences. Must be nice to have such clarity -- I've been trying to find it myself for quite some time now. Unfortunately I've been the idiot who has taken the time to get on the mat with guys who challenged my understanding. I guess that's the secret -- stay behind a computer and demand explanation from those who've actually taken the time to find out for themselves. Then discount their prior experience, knowledge and direct hands-on experience through your filters of experiences (some probably quite good) and lack thereof of experience (of the actual people under discussion). That certainly makes life easier...

[Lorel Latorilla]

How can you possibly know if I am wrong? I don't care about being right, Lorel. But I don't understand how anyone can possible know what I know having never met me.

I am not sure what a circle jerk is but I know that I do like to discuss things about the Aikido I train in with other people. If that seems wrong to you you could stay off those threads.

A discussion is different from an argument.
I don't have 100 percent certainty that what you know is wrong. Besides, like I said, if you are satisfied with your training and your beliefs, go ahead and do it. But when people are suggesting to you that what you are doing is not Ueshiba's aikido (and there was a particular way that he did aikido), then it becomes an issue of truth, of right and wrong. But since you are not interested in "being right" (and this is not even about proving to others that you are right, but more about the pursuit of truth), then you should not care--as much as you dont care about being right--about being wrong or being told that you are wrong.

"If that seems wrong to you you could stay off those threads."

I do stay off those threads. I never commented once on threads where people discuss how they train. I dont even do aikido.

My suggestion will always be:

"It is simple.

If you feel you have the answers, ignore everyone else and train and do your own thing.

If you feel like there is a nagging thing that wants to make you pursue the truth and that what you are doing is true training, stop debating on the internet, and meet people. If you are not impressed or feel that you didn't encounter anything special, move on and resume the training that you were doing. If you felt there was something more superior and special, take on the new training.

Is it really that hard?"

I suggest you ignore other people if you feel they are burdening you with the feel to be right. Train and do your own thing and stop stressing yourself out over this, Mary. Like Dan says "its just budo!!!"

[ChrisHein]

I answered -on topic- in a lengthy post a ways back with no response


Dan,
I keep going through that post, but I can't find any answers, just statements. If you would, could you quote where the answer to:

"What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing"

In your post #94 you make more statements about how important duel opposing spirals are, but you don't say what they are, or what forces you are balancing. You say you've explained it before, but you don't explain.

Could you show me the quote where you answer the question? If you don't want to do that could you quickly tell us what a duel opposing spiral is, now?

You do state at length that I should know what you are talking about. But I don't. So I'm asking for clarification now. What do you mean by duel opposing spirals? What are they made up of? Is it an alignment or an energy? What forces are you balancing inside of yourself?

Further, I'm sorry if you feel I put any personal spin on my questions. I'm just trying to understand what it is that you are describing with the words you're using. Could you tell me?


Your questioning me-after insisting you mastered what I do in a year-


Dan I have no idea what it is you do, that's what I'm asking. I have done Chinese internal, so if you're doing that, I'm familiar with it, but you use words in ways that I'm not familiar with. So I'm not sure what it is you are doing. This is why I'm asking for clarification.


Why would you claim to be an internal practioner and then be asking other internal practioners these things, as if they are unrecognizable concepts AND terminology to you?


I claim to be an internal practitioner because I am. I've studied with a known lineage holder, author, translator and authority in Chinese internal martial arts. But you are correct I don't understand your terminology. You use words differently then I would, could you please explain what you mean by the words you use.


I do share what I am doing, Chris.


Great. Could you please explain what makes up the duel opposing spirals? Is it an energy, or an alignment or something else? What is it that you have to balance inside of yourself?

Dan, you do post a lot, but after searching through your posts I only find statements, but no explanations. I'm sorry if you feel I've slighted you, but if you'd like to share what it is you are doing, here is your opportunity-

[Carsten Möllering]

Aikido ... is blend, blending blending.
When you understand Aikido as blending: What is blended?
This is a basic exercise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VM-reduvM8k) in our aikidô. Do you see blendig the way you understand it in this exercise?

[gregstec]

There are existing vocabularies for describing "dual opposing spirals," etc. However, different arts may use the same terms to describe processes that aren't quite the same. Some may not be "internal" at all. Confusion ensues.

Even within the category of authetic internal training systems, terminology can be confusing if you try to cross-reference it to the different systems. I am familiar with at least two discrete, genuine internal training methodologies that utilize the same essential body processes for power and "aiki" but which use different training methods to inculcate them and different terminologies to describe them... and some of the terms within each system overlap into the other, but mean somewhat different things to and in those different systems. Again, confusion ensues.

That's one reason why it doesn't pay to talk too much about concepts here. As so many others have said, anyone who wants to understand what the "IP/Aiki" crowd is talking about, should bite the bullet, go out and get his or her hands on one of the known people who trains and teaches those skills. It doesn't matter which methodology you latch onto if it leads to the same summit.

All very true - a good example is the term "double weight" - if you do a little poking around the internet, you will come up with various explanations and some that are exactly opposite of each other - oh, and that opposite has nothing to do with those opposing spirals some are having a hard time understanding :)

Greg

[phitruong]

When you understand Aikido as blending: What is blended?
This is a basic exercise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VM-reduvM8k) in our aikidô. Do you see blendig the way you understand it in this exercise?

hey, i remembered those. did those with Endo sensei along with the pushing his head thingy too. one thing that impressed me about Endo sensei, besides his aikido which is excellent, he would take ukemi for everyone. didn't normally see a japanese shihan did that sort of thing.

[DH]

....but you use words in ways that I'm not familiar with. So I'm not sure what it is you are doing. This is why I'm asking for clarification. I claim to be an internal practitioner because I am. I've studied with a known lineage holder, author, translator and authority in Chinese internal martial arts. But you are correct I don't understand your terminology. You use words differently then I would, could you please explain what you mean by the words you use.
If you want to come to an international board and tell the world that you learned internal power, the *jewel* of the internal arts, in a year from a western guy-that's your choice. There are many, many Chinese internal *martial art* masters, who are good athletes Chris. Some (and if you did juuuust a little research you would find out) were widely known as fighters, who were also widely known for not having internal power. And...they became teachers of westerners Chris. And those westerners became? Fighters.
Many who went to China were taught internal martial arts. Very few -almost no one, were taught internals. I have trained with men who were ICMA practioners who spent many years in China; some were clueless abut what I was doing. others knew precisely what I was teaching from what I wrote on the internet before they met me. One a Grand master, not a lineage holder stated that openly at seminars after following my writing on E-budo and Aikiweb. But you, are at a loss.

I met a fellow once. A very famous AIkido Teacher under Ueshiba. He *learned* Aikido and Mastered it as a bone breaking abuser and I watched him dislocate the elbow of a friend of mine.
I met another Fellow who trained under Ueshiba, He *learned* Aikido and Mastered it. He was soft and flowing and I don't think he was able to break an elbow if his life depended on it.
But here they were. Lineage holders. Certified Masters.
Which of them *Mastered* Aikido, Chris?
More importantly which *knew* Aikido, Chris?
I'm sorry if you feel I've slighted you, but if you'd like to share what it is you are doing, here is your opportunity.
*This* is a set-up Chris. Not an opportunity. My opportunites to teach happen when I touch hands with people.
Your words and behavior toward me is spelled out in different forums. Your attitude toward all of us who practice this is known. So, what makes *telling you* what I do, an *opportunity* for me?
I made a lengthy post a ways back answering several questions in one long post. Figure that one out and in a few years you might be able to have a discussion of how to progress with it.

What is it that you have to balance inside of yourself?
It is the basis for all ICMA. It is the very beginning of Ueshiba's aikido. He said so. Without it there is no Aikido. There is no internal..... only techniques and principles....you know...like athletic movement.
Any internal guy knows this. Those who only learned the outer forms and never really learned internal power, learned waza and athletics. Thus, they end up thinking that good athletes then know internals too.
What is heaven/earth/man? Six direction training? What is Ueshiba's rowing exercise for? What did he mean by dual opposing spirals?

So here you are. You learned internal power in a year from an expert and now you're an Aikido teacher...and you don't know what Ueshiba was talking about either?
Peace and a safe journey, Chris
Dan

[DH]

Here again, Chris. Somewhat edited

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces.

Management of forces
Inside of you
Management first being inside yourself by standing. Learning to engage and manage opposing forces inside of yourself. Thus Ueshiba, when asked what is aiki getting down and drawing a circle and stating it was opposing forces inside a circle...inside of you. This goes from simple models to higher level models. All of which are hinged upon In/yo. Without a balance of forces you have athlectic frames and single force vectors; Jujutsu.

Outside effects
Deflection, projection, absorption

Deflection
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move naturally. Moving *away* from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. So, in/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.

Were one to understand Ueshiba's spiraling movement, one would then see the source of "elbow power" and why the forces from the hand are not the same as the forces from the elbow. This, in turn, also creates aiki and devastating punches-as one. Moreover, it creates aiki on any body surface that is touched without the practitioner changing his essential movement on contact. Of course he can change it at will, but it is important to realize that aiki is being created without his thought being attached to anyone or any force. There is no joining of center to center, or any time gap to make something happen by moving your insides as an after effect of joining. A process, is a process. After effect processes may be okay for dojo waza; they will get you nailed in a fight or killed with weapons. It is better to have a method of movement that is proactive all the time. When one thing moves, everything moves, and that "everything" is sophisticated, and automatic. This is why Ueshiba stated That with aiki, you exert your will on others and make them do what you want. It was never some course, bully boy pushing his weight around idea. It was a dominating, and then peaceful sort of *happening* to those who tried to put force into you. Sort of like being a benevelent 600 lb Gorilla in the room.

Projection
Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective. Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. It may expand outward in 360 degrees with thejoining of expanding tissue and the use of bows- corkscrewing or it may be focused to a point, in conjunction with the use of the dantian/mingmen and kua, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point suppressing or dampening all vectored resistance. This gives the person a feeling of being smothered, and also of you supposedly "reading" their responses and being "ahead of them" even though you really haven't dedicated any energy or focus to that model. This can also be a non static ever fluid state. Once again this movement is best when generated first automatically and then with focus.

Absorption
This is the above in an opposite tract. It requires somewhat of a leading aspect toward you that is then deflected off as well. I am not a fane of leading in as much as deflecting off. Absorbing is a neat trick to show someone in a dojo, not a good idea with a high level person.

All of the above has many aspects of additional movement in opening and closing the body, spiral movement through dantian that brings the overall effect *off the charts* in trying to track the many different "aiki's" that are possible in using the body in a myriad of ways to manage force. This is too complicated to cover in written form.

Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me
Aiki and yin/yang. Where is yin and yang?
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.
The balance of force cannot be just a circle. That can make you stable and strong, but it is -in a way- a lower aspect of high level work. Since it created power and deflection people can play with it for decades and stop there, and get the job done. But *one point* is really only a beginner step.
A fluid balance of force in spiral energy is far more sophisticated, damaging and deflecting at any point in the body. This is why Ueshiba said the mysteries of aiki are revealed in them.

Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?

Beyond the physical
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge Aikido should be known for. The agonizing amount of solo work involved "eating bitter before you can taste the sweet" becomes a familiar and intimate partner. The grueling crucible of harnessing power, and being able to deliver it, while choosing to hold back is the foundation for spiritual growth in withholding and controlling that power against an opponent.

So first we have mind/body in solo training discipline, then we have it in active involvement with others we can harm.
This is yet another aspect of Aikido that I greatly...greatly...admire. It is hard to withhold your hand from an adversary, but harder still from a junior or someone challenging your skill. Connect with someone you can easily dominate, but holding back while delivering governed force levels either with aiki or with power, to match their level. This requires strictly monitored self-control. That control, changes you.
I now have met so many capable men and women who were drawing to the art for this reason as well. It gives us a lifetime to experience that forging of spirit/mind/body.

Where is power...aiki?
I had a recent encounter with a 90 year old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to once again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again, commensurate with solo training, and using the *power* to make aiki. Power must exist as a support or everything else fails and you cannot manage a balance of force within, or sustained contact points without, in order to create aiki.

That said, it was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force that was Ueshiba's aiki. His constant admonitions were of possessing power as a killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and that practice and hone that control. An old saying goes "If I raise my hand. I withdraw my temper. If i raise my temper, I withdraw my hand."
There is a conundrum to Aikido and really many high level arts, that can feed us for the rest of our lives.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go somewhere else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. What we are going to force teachers to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. As the recent Daito ryu shihan stated in his Aikido Journal article "most of the Shihan in the arts are simply not capable of aiki." Of those who are out teaching publicly, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki, the Ueshiba way, and those who can't handle them.
I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. I believe we are about to create a whole different landscape.
Dan

[Tom Verhoeven]

When you understand Aikido as blending: What is blended?
This is a basic exercise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VM-reduvM8k) in our aikidô. Do you see blendig the way you understand it in this exercise?

Carsten,

Thank you for the link.

Beautiful example of musubi !

If you do not call this blending, than what do you call it?

Clashing?

Tom

[RonRagusa]

This is a basic exercise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VM-reduvM8k) in our aikidô. Do you see blendig the way you understand it in this exercise?

Yes.

Ron

[gregstec]

Here again, Chris. Somewhat edited

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces.

Management of forces
Inside of you
Management first being inside yourself by standing. Learning to engage and manage opposing forces inside of yourself. Thus Ueshiba, when asked what is aiki getting down and drawing a circle and stating it was opposing forces inside a circle...inside of you. This goes from simple models to higher level models. All of which are hinged upon In/yo. Without a balance of forces you have athlectic frames and single force vectors; Jujutsu.

Outside effects
Deflection, projection, absorption

Deflection
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move naturally. Moving *away* from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. So, in/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.

Were one to understand Ueshiba's spiraling movement, one would then see the source of "elbow power" and why the forces from the hand are not the same as the forces from the elbow. This, in turn, also creates aiki and devastating punches-as one. Moreover, it creates aiki on any body surface that is touched without the practitioner changing his essential movement on contact. Of course he can change it at will, but it is important to realize that aiki is being created without his thought being attached to anyone or any force. There is no joining of center to center, or any time gap to make something happen by moving your insides as an after effect of joining. A process, is a process. After effect processes may be okay for dojo waza; they will get you nailed in a fight or killed with weapons. It is better to have a method of movement that is proactive all the time. When one thing moves, everything moves, and that "everything" is sophisticated, and automatic. This is why Ueshiba stated That with aiki, you exert your will on others and make them do what you want. It was never some course, bully boy pushing his weight around idea. It was a dominating, and then peaceful sort of *happening* to those who tried to put force into you. Sort of like being a benevelent 600 lb Gorilla in the room.

Projection
Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective. Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. It may expand outward in 360 degrees with thejoining of expanding tissue and the use of bows- corkscrewing or it may be focused to a point, in conjunction with the use of the dantian/mingmen and kua, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point suppressing or dampening all vectored resistance. This gives the person a feeling of being smothered, and also of you supposedly "reading" their responses and being "ahead of them" even though you really haven't dedicated any energy or focus to that model. This can also be a non static ever fluid state. Once again this movement is best when generated first automatically and then with focus.

Absorption
This is the above in an opposite tract. It requires somewhat of a leading aspect toward you that is then deflected off as well. I am not a fane of leading in as much as deflecting off. Absorbing is a neat trick to show someone in a dojo, not a good idea with a high level person.

All of the above has many aspects of additional movement in opening and closing the body, spiral movement through dantian that brings the overall effect *off the charts* in trying to track the many different "aiki's" that are possible in using the body in a myriad of ways to manage force. This is too complicated to cover in written form.

Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me
Aiki and yin/yang. Where is yin and yang?
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.
The balance of force cannot be just a circle. That can make you stable and strong, but it is -in a way- a lower aspect of high level work. Since it created power and deflection people can play with it for decades and stop there, and get the job done. But *one point* is really only a beginner step.
A fluid balance of force in spiral energy is far more sophisticated, damaging and deflecting at any point in the body. This is why Ueshiba said the mysteries of aiki are revealed in them.

Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?

Beyond the physical
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge Aikido should be known for. The agonizing amount of solo work involved "eating bitter before you can taste the sweet" becomes a familiar and intimate partner. The grueling crucible of harnessing power, and being able to deliver it, while choosing to hold back is the foundation for spiritual growth in withholding and controlling that power against an opponent.

So first we have mind/body in solo training discipline, then we have it in active involvement with others we can harm.
This is yet another aspect of Aikido that I greatly...greatly...admire. It is hard to withhold your hand from an adversary, but harder still from a junior or someone challenging your skill. Connect with someone you can easily dominate, but holding back while delivering governed force levels either with aiki or with power, to match their level. This requires strictly monitored self-control. That control, changes you.
I now have met so many capable men and women who were drawing to the art for this reason as well. It gives us a lifetime to experience that forging of spirit/mind/body.

Where is power...aiki?
I had a recent encounter with a 90 year old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to once again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again, commensurate with solo training, and using the *power* to make aiki. Power must exist as a support or everything else fails and you cannot manage a balance of force within, or sustained contact points without, in order to create aiki.

That said, it was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force that was Ueshiba's aiki. His constant admonitions were of possessing power as a killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and that practice and hone that control. An old saying goes "If I raise my hand. I withdraw my temper. If i raise my temper, I withdraw my hand."
There is a conundrum to Aikido and really many high level arts, that can feed us for the rest of our lives.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go somewhere else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. What we are going to force teachers to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. As the recent Daito ryu shihan stated in his Aikido Journal article "most of the Shihan in the arts are simply not capable of aiki." Of those who are out teaching publicly, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki, the Ueshiba way, and those who can't handle them.
I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. I believe we are about to create a whole different landscape.
Dan

Absolutely great stuff that really lays out a good outline of what you are doing. Personally, I think this summary outline is more important to those already training this stuff because they are familiar with the terms you are using - however, I am afraid it will just lead to more questions from those without a true foot in the door with this stuff - but be that as it may, it should still serve as a good introduction for those that have a sincere interest in knowing more and motivating them to go out and get some hands on time for the answers to their questions.

Greg

[phitruong]

Here again, Chris. Somewhat edited

Dan

hey, dan can be taught! the copy-n-paste worked good, right? you got to move with the technology. now if i can figure out how to outsmart my smart phone, then it would be great! :)

[ChrisHein]

Personally, I think this post is going to be way to long, but I see no way around it.

Here is what you said Dan.

Here again, Chris. Somewhat edited

Aiki as a clash of forces
Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in.


Here we have an opening statement. from it we learn that you believe Ueshiba was focused on power. We also know that you believe it to be a "soft-not normal" power. We also know that you believe much of this power is derived from solo training and that this power is a "central pillar" to the "aiki" phenomenon. In order to access this power, you say there must be a "neutral".

This is the opening statement, so this is sort of the place for talk like this. However it begs us to ask these questions:

1. What kind of power is it that you believe Ueshiba was focused on? What is "soft-not normal" about this power.

2. What kind of "solo training" are you speaking of, and why is it important?

3. What is this "neutral that you're talking about?


The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces.


I'm not sure, but I believe you are finishing up your opening statement here. Here you tell us that you believe the more developed you are the more some kind of force cannot "enter in" because you change your "supported surface". You go on to say that change in your "supported surface" is done by generating power from your "dantian", this force comes in the form of "opposing forces".

This makes one ask:

1.What kind of force is going to "enter in", and where is the force "entering"?

2. What do you mean by supported surface, and what does "changing" that surface mean?

3. What do you mean when you use the word "dantian"?

4. What do you mean by "opposing forces"?


Management of forces
Inside of you
Management first being inside yourself by standing. Learning to engage and manage opposing forces inside of yourself. Thus Ueshiba, when asked what is aiki getting down and drawing a circle and stating it was opposing forces inside a circle...inside of you. This goes from simple models to higher level models. All of which are hinged upon In/yo. Without a balance of forces you have athlectic frames and single force vectors; Jujutsu.

Outside effects
Deflection, projection, absorption


Here is where the form of writing you choose suggests you are making an explanation. You state that you must "stand" and learn how to "manage opposing forces inside of yourself". Then you use Ueshiba's name, and say that he drew a circle and said that was opposing forces. Then you say that there are different models of this all relating to In/yo. With out balance of force you have athletics and "single force vectors" and "Jujutsu".

This is just another statement and still makes one ask the questions:

1. What are teh forces you are managing "inside yourself"?

2. What are these other models that you speak of, how do they relate to "In/yo"?

3. What "forces" are you "balancing" and why does lack of ability to "balance" them create athletics and Jujitsu?


Deflection
Deflection to create aiki is not done the way people try to move naturally. Moving *away* from a force vector is just jujutsu. Anyone can do it. Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. So, in/yo creates a state within you, that makes a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you. Thus your movements make "no force" possible. No internal management of in/yo inside of you, no aiki between you and someone else-just jujutsu movement.


Here you say that "deflection" can create "aiki", but cannot be done with natural movement. The un-natural movement you suggest is done by creating a "supported neural tangent point" that is supported by the "dantian". This creates a balanced state. You state that "in/yo" creates a state within you that makes a "continuous flow of tangents outside of you, that never allows force on you." Then you say without internal management of "in/yo" inside of you there is no "aiki".

This is just a very long an deceptive statement. I use the word deceptive because the allusion you are using with your chose of writing form suggests explanation, yet there is none. Simply more statements that leave us asking basically the same questions we've had since to opening statement.

We still don't-
1. Know what you mean by force.

2. Know what you mean by "dantian".

You've also given us some new questions to ask here:

1. What is "supported neural tangent point"?

2. What do you mean by, "continuous flow of tangents outside of you" and how does that, "never allows force on you." and what kind of "force" isn't it allowing?


Were one to understand Ueshiba's spiraling movement, one would then see the source of "elbow power" and why the forces from the hand are not the same as the forces from the elbow. This, in turn, also creates aiki and devastating punches-as one. Moreover, it creates aiki on any body surface that is touched without the practitioner changing his essential movement on contact. Of course he can change it at will, but it is important to realize that aiki is being created without his thought being attached to anyone or any force. There is no joining of center to center, or any time gap to make something happen by moving your insides as an after effect of joining. A process, is a process. After effect processes may be okay for dojo waza; they will get you nailed in a fight or killed with weapons. It is better to have a method of movement that is proactive all the time. When one thing moves, everything moves, and that "everything" is sophisticated, and automatic. This is why Ueshiba stated That with aiki, you exert your will on others and make them do what you want. It was never some course, bully boy pushing his weight around idea. It was a dominating, and then peaceful sort of *happening* to those who tried to put force into you. Sort of like being a benevelent 600 lb Gorilla in the room.


I'm not going to attempt a summery here, because this is simply one large statement. You are mostly expressing that you feel the kind of power you get from what you're doing is very "devastating" and that it makes you like a "benevolent 600 lb Gorilla".


Projection
Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective. Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. It may expand outward in 360 degrees with thejoining of expanding tissue and the use of bows- corkscrewing or it may be focused to a point, in conjunction with the use of the dantian/mingmen and kua, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point suppressing or dampening all vectored resistance. This gives the person a feeling of being smothered, and also of you supposedly "reading" their responses and being "ahead of them" even though you really haven't dedicated any energy or focus to that model. This can also be a non static ever fluid state. Once again this movement is best when generated first automatically and then with focus.


Here again, you make a several statements. Not answering any of our previous questions. You do use some new terms, making us wonder:

1. What do you mean when you say "expanding tissure"?

2. What do you mean when you use the words "dantian/mingmen", and "kua", applied in a "rotating tangent"?


Absorption
This is the above in an opposite tract. It requires somewhat of a leading aspect toward you that is then deflected off as well. I am not a fane of leading in as much as deflecting off. Absorbing is a neat trick to show someone in a dojo, not a good idea with a high level person.

All of the above has many aspects of additional movement in opening and closing the body, spiral movement through dantian that brings the overall effect *off the charts* in trying to track the many different "aiki's" that are possible in using the body in a myriad of ways to manage force. This is too complicated to cover in written form.


Again more statements.


Aiki in me before aiki between thee and me
Aiki and yin/yang. Where is yin and yang?
This missing requirement of in/yo inside of you first, was the source of the damning comment of a Taiji grandmaster who taught for 11 years in Japan (he taught two of Sagawas people) who stated...
"All this talk of aiki. Where is Yin? Where is Yang? How then is there ai-ki? You cannot pretend Dantian. You will be found out!"
Notice his critique was that you must first demonstrate yin and yang in you, and his instant correlation of that to the dantain. Where all is joined and balanced. Oddly, his admonition matches Ueshiba who continually answered question on aiki by first and foremost discussing a balance of forces within himself.


Here is what I assume is an unsighted quote. And some more statements.

We still don't know what the duel opposing spirals are. What they are made of. Where or what they are spiraling on/in/around. What forces it is that you are balancing "inside of yourself".


The balance of force cannot be just a circle. That can make you stable and strong, but it is -in a way- a lower aspect of high level work.

Since it created power and deflection people can play with it for decades and stop there, and get the job done. But *one point* is really only a beginner step.
A fluid balance of force in spiral energy is far more sophisticated, damaging and deflecting at any point in the body. This is why Ueshiba said the mysteries of aiki are revealed in them.


More statements, and more aggrandizement.


Aikiweb and Aikido practitioners never address that because they just don't get it, get him, get the history and pedagogy of what their own founder was discussing, all while claiming higher knowledge that is actually nothing more jujutsu principles. So, when you begin a discussion with someone and they have no understanding of what Ueshiba talked about; Six direction forces, aiki being opposing forces within yourself, heaven/earth/man, the mysteries of which are displayed in dual opposing spirals that give birth to Yin and yang, No idea of his exercises such as rowing, and twirling his stick in the air, and what they meant, no idea of what Dantian is, and how to develop it...where do you begin?


More statements, aggrandizement and more words used that we don't share common understanding of.



Beyond the physical
What is fascinating as well is how this work creates the very foundational spiritual challenge Aikido should be known for. The agonizing amount of solo work involved "eating bitter before you can taste the sweet" becomes a familiar and intimate partner. The grueling crucible of harnessing power, and being able to deliver it, while choosing to hold back is the foundation for spiritual growth in withholding and controlling that power against an opponent.


Aggrandizement.


So first we have mind/body in solo training discipline, then we have it in active involvement with others we can harm.
This is yet another aspect of Aikido that I greatly...greatly...admire. It is hard to withhold your hand from an adversary, but harder still from a junior or someone challenging your skill. Connect with someone you can easily dominate, but holding back while delivering governed force levels either with aiki or with power, to match their level. This requires strictly monitored self-control. That control, changes you.
I now have met so many capable men and women who were drawing to the art for this reason as well. It gives us a lifetime to experience that forging of spirit/mind/body.

Where is power...aiki?
I had a recent encounter with a 90 year old who trained with Tohei and Ueshiba who had strong opinions on aikido's founder having and displaying *POWER* repeatedly but the modern art being absent of it. He was delighted to once again feel Ueshiba's power being taught in the art once again, commensurate with solo training, and using the *power* to make aiki. Power must exist as a support or everything else fails and you cannot manage a balance of force within, or sustained contact points without, in order to create aiki.

That said, it was never the peacnick model of avoiding power and running away from force that was Ueshiba's aiki. His constant admonitions were of possessing power as a killing force and then having to forge ones soul to manage it's use and that practice and hone that control. An old saying goes "If I raise my hand. I withdraw my temper. If i raise my temper, I withdraw my hand."
There is a conundrum to Aikido and really many high level arts, that can feed us for the rest of our lives.

What is happening right now is an evolutionary step that is being forced on the Asian arts. The teachers are going to have to step up and demonstrate skills and then actually teach, or we are going to go somewhere else. No one is going to abandon the Asian teachers though. Just about every martial artist I know will pick an Asian face and established art, nine out of ten times. What we are going to force teachers to do is to start demonstrating a higher level of skill. As the recent Daito ryu shihan stated in his Aikido Journal article "most of the Shihan in the arts are simply not capable of aiki." Of those who are out teaching publicly, they are going to be facing a growing student base that they cannot handle so easily. Eventually the art is going to be known for people practicing with real power and aiki, the Ueshiba way, and those who can't handle them.
I would be happy to revisit that statement ten years from now. I believe we are about to create a whole different landscape.
Dan

I can't really break this one up very well. It's more statements and aggrandizement. There are also several allusions to a self-belief that you know what Ueshiba and other great martial artists were saying.

That took some time and space. But now I can be 100% certain that you haven't answered my original question:

"What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing?"

You did make lot's of statements, allusions, unsighted quotes and references, you also did lot's of aggrandizing for what you believe. But you didn't explain one thing. You most certainly didn't andwer my questions:

""What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing?"

[MM]

That took some time and space. But now I can be 100% certain that you haven't answered my original question:

"What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing?"

You did make lot's of statements, allusions, unsighted quotes and references, you also did lot's of aggrandizing for what you believe. But you didn't explain one thing. You most certainly didn't andwer my questions:

""What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing?"

You sound like you have a hidden agenda of trying to get information for someone else. Not sure if that's what is happening, but it certainly seems that way. I would want to know what your motives are for focusing in on in/yo and what the forces are. Of all things, you keep coming back to that, yet you don't understand a lot of the other stuff. You act like you don't know mingmen, dantien, forces, etc. when that's pretty much chinese internals. It's been said that in/yo are the Japanese terms for yin/yang, which, again, are pretty much all throughout Chinese internals. Yet you keep coming back to in/yo and forces. Why? Are you trying to get answers for someone else? If not, what relevence do they have to you over and above mingmen, dantien, etc which you ignore?

[gregstec]

My advise to you, Chris, is to go out and get lucky. Then come back here with that smile on your face and we can continue the conversation. Any other action on your part can only mean two things: 1) you really are so dense that you just cannot hear what people are saying to you, or; 2) you really are a sophisticated troll. If the former, get some therapy; if the the latter, well, the only thing that comes to mind is from W.C Fields:
"Go away kid, ya bother me" :)

Your choice - and good luck

Greg

After seeing where this thread is going, I think I have to rethink my previous post above:

I am now firmly convinced that there is a number 3 to what is stated above, and that is both 1 and 2 are true!

At this point I would like to exist here with a couple words from a truly wise character: "What a Maroon" - Bugs Bunny :)

Greg

[Carl Thompson]

Dear Chris

From what I see of your profile, you're an aikido teacher with good lineage. Since this kind of conversation permeates everything on these forums now, why don't you just go and check these guys out?

Regards

Carl

[ChrisHein]

You sound like you have a hidden agenda of trying to get information for someone else. Not sure if that's what is happening, but it certainly seems that way. I would want to know what your motives are for focusing in on in/yo and what the forces are. Of all things, you keep coming back to that, yet you don't understand a lot of the other stuff. You act like you don't know mingmen, dantien, forces, etc. when that's pretty much chinese internals. It's been said that in/yo are the Japanese terms for yin/yang, which, again, are pretty much all throughout Chinese internals. Yet you keep coming back to in/yo and forces. Why? Are you trying to get answers for someone else? If not, what relevence do they have to you over and above mingmen, dantien, etc which you ignore?

Hey Mark,

When trying to solve a problem it's good to get clarification on each point. I feel like most of what Dan is saying revolves around the duel opposing spirals, so that's the first point I would like to understand better. I'm not sure why it's so hard to answer that, or even make an attempt to answer. I would love to move on.

I know how I would use the words related to Chinese internal, I don't know how Dan is using them. If we are going to have a discussion, we'll have to have a common understanding of the phenomenon the words are describing.

If you'd like to know how I use a word, just ask. I bet I can answer in a paragraph or less. If you need further clarification I'll keep trying.

[ChrisHein]

Dear Chris

From what I see of your profile, you're an aikido teacher with good lineage. Since this kind of conversation permeates everything on these forums now, why don't you just go and check these guys out?

Regards

Carl

Hey Carl,

I'm on it. Besides asking Dan if I can come to one of his seminars, I've got other things planned for 2013, more on that to come.

[Mert Gambito]

I can understand how someone who has dedicated himself to studying aikido and ICMA for a long period of time can conclude that he understands the essentials of aiki / neigong, and raise a furrowed brow toward someone who's insisting there's something measurably profound outside of that understanding.

For what it's worth, I've lived in L.A. and Hawaii, where there are many flavors of ICMA being taught. Interestingly, I've met ICMA sifu who acknowledge that they: a) have wonderful form, balance and technique, but lack the IP/IS they've felt from a select few sifu who can adequately manifest and demonstrate it, and b) during part of the week discretely seek out those sifu with real IP/IS, within their art's lineage or outside of it, while continuing to teach -- as an ICMA expert -- the rest of the week, hoping in due time they'll grow into the reputations they've established. . . .

What makes this force? What is the in/yo made up of? Inside of yourself, what forces are you balancing?

Hopefully doom-sayers' interpretations of the Mayan calendar are wrong; and if so, good news! I'm pretty sure, because of the acquaintances you've developed here, and perhaps in the real world with folks who can manifest these things, or can introduce you to those who can, that you will inevitably get your answers. Acknowledging that too much gets lost in the black-and-white nature of internet discussions, when that day happens, I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised at the logical connection and significance between what you already understand and what you will experience. Until that day happens, it's just not worth trying to debate or intellectually dissect from a distance.

Is this water or vodka?

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ds-photo/getty/article/142/218/86539426_XS.jpg

No way to know without tasting it.

[Carsten Möllering]

... what do you call it?
Clashing?
It is called atari 当たり.

The word is connected to the verb ataru 当たる.
Which indeed can mean to hit, to meet, to collide, to touch, to clash.
Compare atemi 当て身.

You move the partner using "the point at which the ki collides". (see 0:40)

[Tom Verhoeven]

It is called atari Åö¤¿¤ê.

The word is connected to the verb ataru Åö¤¿¤ë.
Which indeed can mean to hit, to meet, to collide, to touch, to clash.
Compare atemi Åö¤Æ¿È.

You move the partner using "the point at which the ki collides". (see 0:40)

I understand the meaning of atari.

Just like I understand the meaning of musubi.

I am trying to figure out whether you think this is something specific for Aikido or for a specific style of Aikido or for Endo shihan, whether or not there is a difference for you between musubi and "blending". Your comment to Mary Eastland's post suggests that you have a different view on this, yet you do not explain the counterargument. The video itself does not help to clarify the counter argument. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

Tom

Tom

[Tom Verhoeven]

I can understand how someone who has dedicated himself to studying aikido and ICMA for a long period of time can conclude that he understands the essentials of aiki / neigong, and raise a furrowed brow toward someone who's insisting there's something measurably profound outside of that understanding.

For what it's worth, I've lived in L.A. and Hawaii, where there are many flavors of ICMA being taught. Interestingly, I've met ICMA sifu who acknowledge that they: a) have wonderful form, balance and technique, but lack the IP/IS they've felt from a select few sifu who can adequately manifest and demonstrate it, and b) during part of the week discretely seek out those sifu with real IP/IS, within their art's lineage or outside of it, while continuing to teach -- as an ICMA expert -- the rest of the week, hoping in due time they'll grow into the reputations they've established. . . .

Hopefully doom-sayers' interpretations of the Mayan calendar are wrong; and if so, good news! I'm pretty sure, because of the acquaintances you've developed here, and perhaps in the real world with folks who can manifest these things, or can introduce you to those who can, that you will inevitably get your answers. Acknowledging that too much gets lost in the black-and-white nature of internet discussions, when that day happens, I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised at the logical connection and significance between what you already understand and what you will experience. Until that day happens, it's just not worth trying to debate or intellectually dissect from a distance.

Is this water or vodka?

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ds-photo/getty/article/142/218/86539426_XS.jpg

No way to know without tasting it.

I do not mind tasting the water, but I would not taste the vodka. There must be other ways to find out if it is water or vodka. Smelling comes to mind. More to the point, there are scientific methods to establish whether or not it is water or vodka.
The question than is; is there a scientific way to describe IP/IS ?

Your example of the glas of water brings the famous painting of Magritte to mind; The painting shows a pipe, but it tells us at the same time that it is not a pipe.
So how would you prove that this is indeed a pipe or not? Through experience?

Tom

[Mary Eastland]

When you understand Aikido as blending: What is blended?
This is a basic exercise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VM-reduvM8k) in our aikidô. Do you see blendig the way you understand it in this exercise?

Yes...and thank you. That was beautiful.

[Mary Eastland]

It is called atari 当たり.

The word is connected to the verb ataru 当たる.
Which indeed can mean to hit, to meet, to collide, to touch, to clash.
Compare atemi 当て身.

You move the partner using "the point at which the ki collides". (see 0:40)

He may have said that but it is not what I saw. I saw no clashing only blending and redirection.

[Mary Eastland]

It is called atari 当たり.

The word is connected to the verb ataru 当たる.
Which indeed can mean to hit, to meet, to collide, to touch, to clash.
Compare atemi 当て身.

You move the partner using "the point at which the ki collides". (see 0:40)

I see blending and redirection. I would have to feel it to see if it indeed collides. It may just be another use of the word. I see no clash.

[asiawide]

I see blending and redirection. I would have to feel it to see if it indeed collides. It may just be another use of the word. I see no clash.

Well.. IMHO I see slow but tremendous power is moving directly toward uke. There is clash but Endo shihan is matching the incoming force from uke. Since the shihan is doing so, the uke can't enter and moving around. Then the shihan can take the balance of the uke easily by blending if he wants. I think there is another video Endo shihan is using a towel to explain about the connection between nage and uke. It's the same thing like that.

[Mary Eastland]

Well.. IMHO I see slow but tremendous power is moving directly toward uke. There is clash but Endo shihan is matching the incoming force from uke. Since the shihan is doing so, the uke can't enter and moving around. Then the shihan can take the balance of the uke easily by blending if he wants. I think there is another video Endo shihan is using a towel to explain about the connection between nage and uke. It's the same thing like that.

Just did it with Ron...no clash.

[Erick Mead]

More to the point, there are scientific methods to establish whether or not it is water or vodka.
The question than is; is there a scientific way to describe IP/IS ?
TomThat indeed is the question -- but I wonder why some seem not to want there to be...
Science is a process of testing factual correspondence of known actions to an unknown action being investigated:

Double-spiral, check
Opposed forces, check
No direct counteraction, check
Blending opposites without negation, check
Entering/turning in one concept, check

"Opposing forces inside a circle,"
= rotational moment, check

"When one thing moves, everything moves, "
= field action, check

" forces ... dealt with ... on the supported surface"
= boundary phenomenon, check

You would think that eight-factor correspondence might suggest something -- Shame we can't describe and fit that to something we know...
:)

[Cady Goldfield]

Taking a sledge hammer to pound an "unknown" to fit into some terminology or a model that is "known" to you, absolutely will not result in anything accurate or helpful to your understanding of what IP/IS is. It's kinda like saying that an elephant is a big, nekkid horse with a stretched out nose, because you know what a horse is and don't want to consider that an elephant might be something else.

When the human body/mind and its complex neuromuscular physiological activities are involved, it's not so cut and dried as basic physics (or whatever it is you're referring to), any more than saying that IP/IS is a product of the force of gravity. That model is not directly relevant. Terminology here serves only to obfuscate meaning when we're all using the same words to describe different things.

I don't know whether anyone is playing with the scientific lexicon to explain IP, and I'm pretty sure that it's not necessary for learning how to do, as generations of internal-power adepts have somehow muddled by without it, but the process certainly can be described in very specific physical, instructive terms. The point here is not that no one can explain it, but that no one cares to do so on a public Internet board, for reasons that are pretty obvious... to some folks, at least.

[Krystal Locke]

Taking a sledge hammer to pound an "unknown" to fit into some terminology or a model that is "known" to you, absolutely will not result in anything accurate or helpful to your understanding of what IP/IS is. It's kinda like saying that an elephant is a big, nekkid horse with a stretched out nose, because you know what a horse is and don't want to consider that an elephant might be something else.

When the human body/mind and its complex neuromuscular physiological activities are involved, it's not so cut and dried as basic physics (or whatever it is you're referring to), any more than saying that IP/IS is a product of the force of gravity. That model is not directly relevant. Terminology here serves only to obfuscate meaning when we're all using the same words to describe different things.

I don't know whether anyone is playing with the scientific lexicon to explain IP, and I'm pretty sure that it's not necessary for learning how to do, as generations of internal-power adepts have somehow muddled by without it, but the process certainly can be described in very specific physical, instructive terms. The point here is not that no one can explain it, but that no one cares to do so on a public Internet board, for reasons that are pretty obvious... to some folks, at least.

If something exists, it can be explained by physics. And sure, I do not need to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to own a car, but the engineering degree sure makes driving the car a more controlled and enjoyable experience, makes fixing or modifying the car MUCH MUCH easier, and makes educating someone else on how to operate, repair, maintain and customize their car much easier.

Complex neuromuscular physiology is basic physics, from the ion pumps that transmit nerve impulses to the force vectors inherent in a muscle contracting in order to move a bone or two. This IP stuff is SCREAMING for an ambitious bioengineering grad student at a liberal and well funded college, or a couple NSF grants. Hmmmmmm. IP or sustainable energy engineering? Hmmmmm.

I doubt anyone would consent to performing their stuff stuck full of EMG leads. Suckers hurt.....

[Krystal Locke]

That indeed is the question -- but I wonder why some seem not to want there to be...
Science is a process of testing factual correspondence of known actions to an unknown action being investigated:

Double-spiral, check
Opposed forces, check
No direct counteraction, check
Blending opposites without negation, check
Entering/turning in one concept, check

"Opposing forces inside a circle,"
= rotational moment, check

"When one thing moves, everything moves, "
= field action, check

" forces ... dealt with ... on the supported surface"
= boundary phenomenon, check

You would think that eight-factor correspondence might suggest something -- Shame we can't describe and fit that to something we know...
:)

You keep talking like that, I'll follow you home.

[Carsten Möllering]

I would have to feel it ...
Oh yes. It is very difficult to do (mean: to explain, to "understand", to exchange) this with only words ... :-)

To get a hint maybe:

Make a fist with your left hand in front of your breast, arm horizontally, knuckles pointing to the right. Touch this fist "at the front" with you right palm. (like tori does with uke in the video). Now gently but clearly push the fist over to the left. Fist should give some resistance.
The feeling in fist and the palm is "a little bit similar" to the feeling in the hands (only then hands!) of tori and uke during the exercise shown in the video: To "press/push" someone with one's palm and being "pressed/pushed".

This does not show, what or how the body feels and how you "steer" uke using this atari. But maybe you might get an idea about the "construction" oft this way of contact: Instead of combine/blend my ki with uke's and give the new stream of those two ki another direction, here tori's ki goes directly to uke, meets/colides with his ki and redirect uke's(!) ki. There is no merging of tori's and uke's, but tori kind of takes over uke / uke's ki and now tori directs uke's ki.

When I started aikidô I tried to get the timing and push a swing-door, when it was just opening, moving allready away from me. I added my push. I presume a lot of aikidô Beginners did things like this. But this feeling is clearly different from the feeling of atari like it was shown in the video.

[MM]

If something exists, it can be explained by physics.


I disagree. Far as I know, most physicists disagree, too. If you doubt that, then post the physics explaining how a human goes from a walk to a run cycle. I've asked Erick numerous times to do this and so far he has not produced the required answer, instead opting to just gloss over this major failure in his physics models. And if you can't describe with physics how such a simple, human function as going from walking to running, then how can you describe complex physical actions?

Part two. Please point to any animated film which uses physics to generate human movement. Or do they use motion capture? Why?

Part three. Please point to the robotics industry and detail out robotics programming using physics that comes from human functionality. Or do they use if-then statements (very basic analogy)? Why?

Now, if you can use physics to validate the walk-run cycle or use physics for animated human movement, or use physics in robotics, then you've just earned a nobel prize for doing something other physicists can't explain.


Complex neuromuscular physiology is basic physics


I disagree. Reference the above walk-run cycle above. There is no basic physics involved in that.

To complicate matters to the nth degree, IP/aiki is rewiring the body to function in a manner that is completely different than normal people. So, even if you could find the physics for normal functions of a person, it wouldn't be the same for those who have IP/aiki. :D

[phitruong]

I doubt anyone would consent to performing their stuff stuck full of EMG leads. Suckers hurt.....

there was an article on Kuroda sensei. it's in french. they hooked emg to Kuroda sensei upper body and measured his muscle activities during various cutting movements. they compared that to regular people muscle activities doing the same movements. Kuroda sensei muscle usage was completely different than normal folks. it was an interesting study.

http://budoshugyosha.over-blog.com/article-une-etude-du-mouvement-du-sabre-partie-1-65641305.html
http://budoshugyosha.over-blog.com/article-une-etude-du-mouvement-du-sabre-partie-2-65721885.html

i had a conversation with Ikeda sensei one time and he said he had never seen anyone move so fast like Kuroda sensei.

[Keith Larman]

Okay, hold on a second folks.

One problem is that the moment someone says "it's just athletics" or "it's just physics" doesn't necessarily mean that it's somehow common or easy. It can still be a rare thing, something that requires extensive, specialized training, and something that is quite unusual today (my personal point of view having been on the mat multiple times with multiple people). In some meaning of the words of course it is "just" physics or athletics. I personally don't believe in magic and I doubt anyone here does. So we're going off on a tangent about "science" that is simply not relevant, at least IMHO.

The deeper and more focused question in this area is whether the existing models used within those disciplines are sufficient to explain the things we're discussing. I would guess that most who are in favor of the IP/IS thing aren't satisfied with most explanations of what's going on with this stuff when we try to discuss it on a more scientific basis. Which implies that we need a better model, better vocabulary, or maybe even a specialized vocabulary that doesn't carry all the baggage of many commonly used terms that have been used for such various things.

The other side of this coin, of course, are those who are trying to make this stuff fit the current models. If the models are insufficient to explain the phenomena then the models need adjustment, expansion or change. It generally does *not* mean tossing everything away -- the existing science can be perfectly good for many things but fail when it comes to something else. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian, Quantum Mechanics didn't replace Relativity.

The understanding of human movement is necessarily a complex thing. Not only do we have an extremely complex "machine" involved, we have one that is really hard to rip apart and study in little pieces (painful to say the least). Then we add a conscious agent who has intentional control over aspects of that machine and possible there are even levels of control that could be conditioned and enhanced. So it is a complex issue.

But I don't think the problem here is in any way resolved by saying "physics explains everything" or "physics fails here". Maybe better to say "current physical models explain aspects of this as such and such and here is why" or "current physical models fail to explain this particular event because of this and that".

Personally I think the current models are limiting discussion of this. Which is why it's easy to either wave it away or to say IHTBF. But neither extreme position is proven by the apparent lack of rigorous explanation. Just like there were things that drove Einstein to formulate his theories on Brownian motion I think there is something driving the movement towards IS/IP training.

Back to your regularly scheduled program...

[HL1978]

there was an article on Kuroda sensei. it's in french. they hooked emg to Kuroda sensei upper body and measured his muscle activities during various cutting movements. they compared that to regular people muscle activities doing the same movements. Kuroda sensei muscle usage was completely different than normal folks. it was an interesting study.

http://budoshugyosha.over-blog.com/article-une-etude-du-mouvement-du-sabre-partie-1-65641305.html
http://budoshugyosha.over-blog.com/article-une-etude-du-mouvement-du-sabre-partie-2-65721885.html

i had a conversation with Ikeda sensei one time and he said he had never seen anyone move so fast like Kuroda sensei.

There was one on one of the Chen;s on aikiweb maybe 5-7 years ago too, by someone from Stanford, I think. I remember the authors being puzzled how the guy was generating forces 14x his body weight.

[lbb]

I disagree. Far as I know, most physicists disagree, too. If you doubt that, then post the physics explaining how a human goes from a walk to a run cycle. I've asked Erick numerous times to do this and so far he has not produced the required answer, instead opting to just gloss over this major failure in his physics models.

On the assumption that this is civil discourse, I think the word you want is "requested", not "required". The latter implies that he is somehow subject to your commands, and I'm sure that is not what you meant.

And if you can't describe with physics how such a simple, human function as going from walking to running, then how can you describe complex physical actions?

But the description is not the thing. For most of human history, there were no descriptions and no explanations of various phenomena in physics terms -- yet bumblebees still flew, and they didn't do so by magic. The fact that a comprehensive explanation isn't available (or, perhaps, just not accessible to a given audience, due to that audience's lack of prior/supporting knowledge) doesn't mean that things happen by magic, or "ki", or some other mystical "it's not physics" force.

[Chris Li]

But the description is not the thing. For most of human history, there were no descriptions and no explanations of various phenomena in physics terms -- yet bumblebees still flew, and they didn't do so by magic. The fact that a comprehensive explanation isn't available (or, perhaps, just not accessible to a given audience, due to that audience's lack of prior/supporting knowledge) doesn't mean that things happen by magic, or "ki", or some other mystical "it's not physics" force.

There's no way that Mark is saying that it's accomplished through a mystical force (IMO). I think that what he's saying is that it cannot be as simply described by physics as some people represent - or hope.

Anyway, if people hate mystical explanations than I wonder what they think of Ueshiba? :D

Best,

Chris

[yugen]

There's no way that Mark is saying that it's accomplished through a mystical force (IMO). I think that what he's saying is that it cannot be as simply described by physics as some people represent - or hope.

Anyway, if people hate mystical explanations than I wonder what they think of Ueshiba? :D

Best,

Chris

:) I follow all these posts with great interest. Thru the gamut of all the discussions regarding IP/IS, What did Ueshiba mean, Ueshiba retranslated, spirituality in Aikido, the philisophical split between East/West, etc...

I think Chris' last statement is bringing it full circle. You have a model in IP/IS that defies a simple written explanation, it defies simple mathematics, it defies breaking it down into smaller components/variables typically used in Western science...

So what was Ueshiba left with and what fit him personally? Spiritual terminology to convey a description and an idea of a feeling. Hence why everyone says IHSTBF. Then after practice, practice, practice (shugyo) you start to glimpse the feeling. Then you re-read what you once thought was spiritual mumbo jumbo and start to make sense of the message trying to be conveyed.

my 2 cents from an outsider. :D

Keep going, I just switch from tea to coffee to popcorn thru out the day!

[phitruong]

Keep going, I just switch from tea to coffee to popcorn thru out the day!

you need to practice something more spiritual like aikido, so you can introduce spirits into the tea and coffee mix. :D

[yugen]

you need to practice something more spiritual like aikido, so you can introduce spirits into the tea and coffee mix. :D

See! exactly my point! All your years of committed practice with spirits as taught me something I've been missing! :D

[lbb]

There's no way that Mark is saying that it's accomplished through a mystical force (IMO). I think that what he's saying is that it cannot be as simply described by physics as some people represent - or hope.

Sure, but that doesn't exactly make it an advanced topic, does it? The average person has no physics education whatsoever, and their understanding of physics is the worst of popular science. Why expect people to express themselves fluently in a language they've never been taught? And yet, not being fluent in physics doesn't preclude knowing enough about it to have a shrewd notion that that's where the answers lie to questions like "Wow, how does so-and-so do that amazing stuff?". You don't have to be able to design an internal combustion engine to drive a car, and you don't have to be able to explain internal combustion to say "It's got something to do with combustion" (and be perfectly correct) when someone asks you what makes a car go.

[Cady Goldfield]

If something exists, it can be explained by physics. And sure, I do not need to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to own a car, but the engineering degree sure makes driving the car a more controlled and enjoyable experience, makes fixing or modifying the car MUCH MUCH easier, and makes educating someone else on how to operate, repair, maintain and customize their car much easier.

Complex neuromuscular physiology is basic physics, from the ion pumps that transmit nerve impulses to the force vectors inherent in a muscle contracting in order to move a bone or two. This IP stuff is SCREAMING for an ambitious bioengineering grad student at a liberal and well funded college, or a couple NSF grants. Hmmmmmm. IP or sustainable energy engineering? Hmmmmm.

I doubt anyone would consent to performing their stuff stuck full of EMG leads. Suckers hurt.....

Well, of course any kind of movement, or even non-movement, can be broken down into pure physics, just as all life processes can be parsed out to the molecular (and atomic) level. My point is that such knowledge is close to (if not entirely) useless to the actual process of learning and doing, and is just so much more clutter that obstructs the path.

What possible good is discussing the minutiae of physics in movement, when it won't do an iota of good in teaching you how to actually fire your mind and move your body properly? General concepts and principles, such as tangent points, arches, spirals, and maintenance of spherical forces are useful, but only in the context of the actions we are training within our bodies. Without an experiential understanding of what is being done with the human mind, frame and tissues to create, manipulate and manage forces/energy within the body, people are left with only conjecture of the role of theoretical physics in the process.

This is one area where Western thought remains its own worst obstacle to learning "new" concepts. At some point, we need to silence the chatter in the brain and learn to feel and do first, then discuss. So, once again... go out and train with reputable IP/IS people. It will open up a huge door to fruitful discussions.

[Chris Li]

Sure, but that doesn't exactly make it an advanced topic, does it? The average person has no physics education whatsoever, and their understanding of physics is the worst of popular science. Why expect people to express themselves fluently in a language they've never been taught? And yet, not being fluent in physics doesn't preclude knowing enough about it to have a shrewd notion that that's where the answers lie to questions like "Wow, how does so-and-so do that amazing stuff?". You don't have to be able to design an internal combustion engine to drive a car, and you don't have to be able to explain internal combustion to say "It's got something to do with combustion" (and be perfectly correct) when someone asks you what makes a car go.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody has asserted a mystical power source.

Best,

Chris

[Walter Martindale]

"It's Just Physics" Well... When I was studying biomechanics - post-grad - we were shown a film (not video) describing the study of the optimisation of a human movement.

The movement was kicking an object that was suspended at approximately waist height, about one straight leg's length away from the subject in the study.

Variables included (but were not limited to because I don't have the original document available) - neural transmission rates, muscular contraction velocities, position of the origin and insertion points of ALL the muscles involved in the motion, inertial characteristics of the limb doing the kicking, and on, and on, and on.

The computed "optimal movement" also required that the person have a weight tied to his foot so that he'd slow down enough for the available technology to obtain data (and the weight was included in the optimisation calculation). The subject in the study was standing on one leg, strapped in place so he could only move the leg being studied.

The optimization/model software was described something like - (more than 30) ordinary differential equations and (about 30) variables, requiring 27 hours computing with a PDP11 computer (it was the 1970s, a 1990s 386 could probably whip this off in an hour or so)

The subject in the study was able to learn the movement and actually match the movement predicted by the "optimised" model.

Now - take a free-standing human. 208 bones (IIRC), all them muscles (all them different contractile properties from fast twitch to slow twitch), neural transmission rates, reflex loops, ion channels for repolarization of a nerve or muscle surface, and it comes down to physics - from the neural depolarizations that happen in the brain when the decision is made to move, the action potential jumping down the axons via electro-chemical reactions (physics), to the chemicals crossing the synapses at the end of the nerves and stimulating the muscle, to the calcium ions travelling through the sarcoplasmic reticulum into the muscle fibre stimulating the muscle fibre to contract, to the ATP being split to ADP+P+energy which causes the muscle to contract at the microscopic level, to the tendon being pulled by the contracting muscle, and eventually to the surface of the limb that's being moved by the muscle contraction - all of it - ALL is caused at some stage by "physics" - the interaction of molecules (some call it chemistry, too, but even chemistry depends on the "physics" of the atomic and molecular shapes/sizes/bonds to make things move.

Just because ithe human body is a REALLY complex machine that is VERY difficult to explain in complete detail doesn't make it magic. It's Physics, but we humans haven't figured out how to explain it all in those terms - so we make up magical things about people who have achieved a standard of ability greater than ours. (or do we call them "gods"?)

[MM]

On the assumption that this is civil discourse, I think the word you want is "requested", not "required". The latter implies that he is somehow subject to your commands, and I'm sure that is not what you meant.


Hi Mary. Yes and no.

Yes, you're right in that overall for the topic, things are requested. In my sentence, I wrote that "I've asked Erick ..." That is my civil discourse request.

No, I actually did mean "required" -- but it is in regards to physics. The answer is required for anyone to use physics as a model to explain aikido. That answer and more. If someone cannot provide that answer, then their entire basis for using physics falls completely apart.


But the description is not the thing. For most of human history, there were no descriptions and no explanations of various phenomena in physics terms -- yet bumblebees still flew, and they didn't do so by magic. The fact that a comprehensive explanation isn't available (or, perhaps, just not accessible to a given audience, due to that audience's lack of prior/supporting knowledge) doesn't mean that things happen by magic, or "ki", or some other mystical "it's not physics" force.

I think that one day, physics will get advanced enough to explain things. But that day isn't today and tomorrow is highly unlikely. :D

In the interim, we come up with wonderful descriptive terms for training. Sometimes those terms are far outside the normal that it borders on hilarious. Bendy straw, for example. Anyway, using basic physics principles of levers and such can be used as a *descriptive* example for physical jujutsu level skills. Even then, it isn't that you are applying physics to explain what's happening, but you are using descriptive terms to get people to understand a function of training.

When you cross over into IP/aiki, none of the physics "descriptive" terminology works. And to try to use physics to actually explain what's happening ... requires far more advanced people than the entire world has today.

Sure, but that doesn't exactly make it an advanced topic, does it? The average person has no physics education whatsoever, and their understanding of physics is the worst of popular science. Why expect people to express themselves fluently in a language they've never been taught? And yet, not being fluent in physics doesn't preclude knowing enough about it to have a shrewd notion that that's where the answers lie to questions like "Wow, how does so-and-so do that amazing stuff?". You don't have to be able to design an internal combustion engine to drive a car, and you don't have to be able to explain internal combustion to say "It's got something to do with combustion" (and be perfectly correct) when someone asks you what makes a car go.

Cars, planes, trains are all inorganic metal. Physics has a much, much better grasp of explaining their functionality. Someone can use basic physics to understand levers, lift, friction, etc in the world of nonliving things. Someone can use basic physics to explain levers, lift, friction, etc in the world of nonliving things.

People are not the same. While you can use basic physics as a descriptive analogy/metaphor for certain aspects of physical training, that is nowhere near using physics to actually explain what is going on.

What Erick tries to do is use the nonliving metal physics to actually explain what is going on in living people. Something that even the best, brightest, most brilliant of all scientists/physicists/biologists/engineers/etc in the entire world cannot do. The human body is far too complex for our current understanding of physics to explain. And that's just normal, everyday, common things that people do, including aikido training. When you involve IP/aiki, that complexity is raised a thousand fold, possibly more.

As Chris said, no, it isn't some mystical energy/force. It is the body functioning in a very different, complex manner.

[DH]

Anyway, if people hate mystical explanations than I wonder what they think of Ueshiba? :D
Best,
Chris
They couldn't say much about him back then. That's because he proved it. Make no mistake they came to test him! Then, as now, once they put their hands on him all debate was over. No one could do anything to him in person... but there was no venue to discredit him. Now you have the internet. Pot shots, character assassinations, physics debates, athletic debates, credential debates....
All done from the safety of a computer, because in person..well..they know what has happened...what ALWAYS happens.

Personally, I am amused at reading so many people arguing that everyone is supposed to feel the same and actually wanting to feel and move like everyone else, and being happy about it.
I like it. It makes demonstrating the difference so easy.

It is weird since the history of Ueshiba kept referring-over and over- to how he...felt....different.
I haven't met the Shihan yet who has explained what he was doing, why he was doing it, where it came from, and how to do it.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

All done from the safety of a computer, because in person..well..they know what has happened...what ALWAYS happens.

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...

[Lorel Latorilla]

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...

Just a suggestion: the fact that you are making this personal is why Dan probably doesn't want to see you. Why does it have to be about Dan? To be fair, he has pointed to the work and that it is not him, but to the work he is pointing to. There are other guys that are doing this besides him. Sam Chin was out there in Oakland I believe in October..you can probably catch him there again. I think some California peeps are trying to get Ark to do a seminar out there. The point is to touch hands with people like this, and to get out there, not make it frigging personal, and avoid making conclusions on the intr4w3b.

Also, Dan, when the heck did you become a professional martial artist?? I didn tknow he was a professional martial artist.

[Patrick Hutchinson]

"I claim that all the "work" you have done is for not."

I suppose you mean "for naught."

So the entire thread was just a waste of time so you could call Dan out?
How disingenuous.
How childish.
Pathetic really.

[gregstec]

For those that really want to see and feel what Dan is doing and how it relates to Aikido, the best person to go see is Bill Gleason - I believe he will be on the west coast soon - so for those that have a hard time getting away from their keyboards and videos, get off your @ss and take a laptop with you :D

Greg

[jonreading]

To have a stab...

Aiki is a unification of center; a grafting of a dominated center onto a dominating center. I am not sure I would use the term "clash" because that implies there is a period of oppositional struggle. There is not. I believe Takeda sensei used to refer to this unification as defeating your opponent in an instant [by glancing at him]. I also believe Ueshiba sensei used a similar reference.

Atari is the point at which centers meet, a confrontation. I like this term better because it leaves out an implied action to follow. This is an older term and I think Endo sensei uses it well; to be fair, several of his students use it also with clarity too, Gleason sensei comes to mind (I think he talks about this topic in one of his books).

So yes, for me aiki has confrontation. Of confronted centers, one will become dominant and others will be dominated. For me, this is what I call kihon - the root of anything we will do in aikido must first begin by unifying and dominating my partner's center. The trick to it is making your center dominate without resorting to "doing" something to your partner.

[yugen]

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.

I claim that all the "work" you have done is for not.

:( wow, all this "work" is for not... why? There is another thread talking about Dan being the best martial artist, but it wasn't just based on skill, the other reasons given were the heart and spirit he has and his desire to teach and show.

Many of us don't have this IP/IS thing. So let's just say you're as good an athlete as Dan and can do what he does and you do have it. So now what? What other values are you portraying that would make people want to learn from you? If it is just good athletics then many of us want to learn it... therefore it isn't for naught. So who should we seek out? The difference maker is that there are a growing number of people who like Dan, Sam and Ark. The want to teach this stuff and are great at it and they're great people.

You come across as an angry child cause people aren't playing in your sandbox..

[DH]

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...
Chris
If you personalize everything to.....you...it makes it hard to have a meaningful conversation. Come on, man.
A few posts back you stated If I want to validate what I am saying here's my chance...by meeting you. Isn't that overly self-inflated as a value? Is that really an intelligent or fair response?
I have met 1,500 People who were both polite and professional over meeting you. I will also take the 17 Shihan and 6 6th dans and 52 go dans, Daito ryu Kyoju Dairi, Bjj regional and National champs Established fighters and Judo people...on an on. Shouldn't you mention that. I know you know that. Aren't you interested in open and fair discourse?
I don't need your approval for what I and hundreds of others are testifying to and writing about. Sorry, but your opinion has what kind of value in comparison to them? Speaking of which, why is it that you never...ever...mention all those other people who have met me, Sam, Ark or Mike and what they have written?
Do you think so little of them that their opinions have no value to you? For that reason alone I would walk away from meeting you. I met various teachers *precisely* because others were talking about them. I figured, they must know something I didn't.

Try to be fair. Say this to yourself.
I and a few others have made Dan angry or not trust us, so he won't meet us. But he has met over 1,500 people world wide, so I guess he is open.
That's more fair and accurate Chris.
Then, go meet other internal guys. Try to find someone who can actually use it though.
Good luck in your training
Dan

[DH]

Just a suggestion: the fact that you are making this personal is why Dan probably doesn't want to see you. Why does it have to be about Dan? To be fair, he has pointed to the work and that it is not him, but to the work he is pointing to. There are other guys that are doing this besides him. Sam Chin was out there in Oakland I believe in October..you can probably catch him there again. I think some California peeps are trying to get Ark to do a seminar out there. The point is to touch hands with people like this, and to get out there, not make it frigging personal, and avoid making conclusions on the intr4w3b.

Also, Dan, when the heck did you become a professional martial artist?? I didn tknow he was a professional martial artist.
Thank you
All I seem to do...IS TO POINT TO OTHERS, AND TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THIS WORK IS OLD.
It was the work that produced giants age after age, culture to culture. It is NOT and never WAS about individuals. That is the mistake budo people keep making. Look at the individual and kiss the ring, and not look at the work that MADE them. Sigh!

I was supported by some famous people who agreed to meet me BECAUSE they read aikiweb and e-budo and saw that I ....REFUSED to point to myself, and I acknowledge that this work is old and produced many other peoplewith these skills. So, I am not too worried that a dozen or so readers out of thousands simply cannot process.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

If you want to talk about personal, look at any post where Dan talks to me. You will see him several times in each post making little comments and quips about me.

Here is a quote where Dan says some stuff about my teacher, and my teachers teacher. It doesn't get much more personal then that. These are people I care about, and Dan makes totally unsubstantiated claims.


This is in Taiji and Bagua. You keep telling us you learned *internals* from an expert. I had a physical discussion with three experts in their field who knew this. And FWIW, your teacher's teacher (his expert) bounced his own self off of me in an open room in front of his students when he tried to throw me using waza-I felt no internal power.

So Dan, which of my teachers teachers did you "bounce" around? What is his name? I am in his lineage, so I would like to know who it was. There is no need to keep his name secret, so who was it, I can ask him and learn what he has to say in the next few days.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to have a real discussion here on the internet, which is where you spend lot's of your time. Which is what we are here to do. Or you can get out from behind your computer and meet with me in person.

It is personal, I am from a fighting lineage. I am expected by those who taught me to stand up for myself and my school. Dan, I say you make up stories and are to scared to come out from behind your computer and show me what you claim to know. If you have any martial ability at all this shouldn't bother you, you should be happy to show me my error. Publicly in front of anyone who is interested in seeing what "real IP" looks like.

I've had enough of this.

[DH]

To have a stab...

Aiki is a unification of center; a grafting of a dominated center onto a dominating center. I am not sure I would use the term "clash" because that implies there is a period of oppositional struggle. There is not. I believe Takeda sensei used to refer to this unification as defeating your opponent in an instant [by glancing at him]. I also believe Ueshiba sensei used a similar reference.

Atari is the point at which centers meet, a confrontation. I like this term better because it leaves out an implied action to follow. This is an older term and I think Endo sensei uses it well; to be fair, several of his students use it also with clarity too, Gleason sensei comes to mind (I think he talks about this topic in one of his books).

So yes, for me aiki has confrontation. Of confronted centers, one will become dominant and others will be dominated. For me, this is what I call kihon - the root of anything we will do in aikido must first begin by unifying and dominating my partner's center. The trick to it is making your center dominate without resorting to "doing" something to your partner.

That part I still disagree on. I get it, I can do it...I don't want it. It makes good "Martial arts" but it's a disaster in a fight.
I aint ever, going to connect to your center. And you're never going to find mine if I can help it.

As I say to people who keep yaking about this "make connect" "center to center" make a fourlegged animal" idea.
"Okay, we are going to make an experiment. You are going to fight.
Lets pretend that the outcome is that if you lose the fight, you lose everythng you own.
Here is Morihei Ueshiba
Your mission is to "Make connect" to his center.

I'm going to go stand in the corner.
So, how's that working out for ya?

Personally I love it that ya''l keep thinking that connecting, center to center is a good thing.
You couldn't convince me to move that way for anything. And honestly once you experience the other way to move, I doubt you would EVER go back.

Aiki and clashing
You may not have to clash doing "Martial arts" You are going to clash when you fight. Anyone who doesn't think so has never been in a fight with someone who actually knows how to fight.
The contact point or points, will be the meeting place.
1. There are reasons that dantian is present at that point.
2. Because it is present the point is supported without localized muscle firing ans weakness
3. Because it is supported aiki can be created with In/yo which can be basic to sophisticated

Now, even if you somewhat suck
There are things you can even do without a developed dantian to pull off aiki to a degree.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

Waiting...

[DH]

Chris
What in the world are you doing?
This can be handled better.
This is not what Aikiweb is about.
Take this off line, as it is off topic.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

It was perfectly on topic when you wanted to bring up the supposed fact that you "bounced" one of my teachers teachers around. Who was he, what what his name. I am from his lineage, I would like to substantiate your claim.

So either you do want to meet with me, to show me my error or not. No more skirting around the issue.

[Krystal Locke]

A relevant and humorous link...
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/computers/science_and_magic.html

Yes, the science matters to me, it helps me understand how to do something, much like feeling it helps me understand how to do something. I am looking to bring all my tools to the project. Science is a great and useful tool for me. If someone else cannot put the lesson into scientific terms, I hope they dont mind me doing so myself while I feel what they have...

[DH]

A relevant and humorous link...
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/computers/science_and_magic.html

Yes, the science matters to me, it helps me understand how to do something, much like feeling it helps me understand how to do something. I am looking to bring all my tools to the project. Science is a great and useful tool for me. If someone else cannot put the lesson into scientific terms, I hope they dont mind me doing so myself while I feel what they have...
Of those I know, everyone who teaches this hands-on, teaches it logically using mechanics and "feel." That's why no one debates it who has felt it and goes to actually learn it. It's logical, sometimes obvious, but the way your mind controls your body, your movement is different.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

No answer Dan.

Okay, I think we can now all clearly see what your claims amount too.

[Patrick Hutchinson]

Yes, you're absolutely right, we can "all see clearly now."

[Gary David]

It was perfectly on topic when you wanted to bring up the supposed fact that you "bounced" one of my teachers teachers around. Who was he, what what his name. I am from his lineage, I would like to substantiate your claim.

So either you do want to meet with me, to show me my error or not. No more skirting around the issue.

Chris
I have met you teacher, really nice guy and a gentleman.......is a public challenge what he would want you to undertake? The risk to reputations goes many ways. Take this offline and work it......
Gary

[DH]

Good for you, Chris. Now *everyone* knows!
I hope you feel better.
Anything actually on-topic to say?
I'll have about 7,800 opportunities next year to meet people-including many hundreds from here- make friends, train, and...well...be nice. :D
Good luck in your training.
Dan

[ChrisHein]

Dan, if my question is off topic, why is it that you brought up my teachers teacher? You chose to do that, what was your point? Who was this man? This was something you said Dan, not me. I just quoted you and asked who it was that you "bounced" around?

I can see you've already gone to work on your spin, I'm sure it's comfortable from behind your keyboard to tell stories. But when questioned, you can't come up with any names or facts. It's all very strange isn't it?

[Travers Hughes]

I love reading threads like this. This thread is all on public record, and a great information source for any poential new student wanting to do a little research on potential training places and teachers / training partners. Based on the "conduct" and communication type in this thread, I found at least one more person I have no desire to train with.
As a wise man once said, good luck in your training.

[ChrisHein]

I'm glad as well. If you are interested in training with me, I will give you solid skills that you can count on and back up. As my teachers did for me.

If you want to tell stories and skirt the issues you should train with someone else.

[akiy]

Folks,

Watch your tone. It's getting rather personal here on both sides of the discussion. I don't want this website being used for personal attacks, so stop it now.

-- Jun

[James Sawers]

Jon Reading wrote:
To have a stab
Aiki is a unification of center; a grafting of a dominated center onto a dominating center. I am not sure I would use the term "clash" because that implies there is a period of oppositional struggle. There is not. I believe Takeda sensei used to refer to this unification as defeating your opponent in an instant [by glancing at him]. I also believe Ueshiba sensei used a similar reference.

Atari is the point at which centers meet, a confrontation. I like this term better because it leaves out an implied action to follow. This is an older term and I think Endo sensei uses it well; to be fair, several of his students use it also with clarity too, Gleason sensei comes to mind (I think he talks about this topic in one of his books).

So yes, for me aiki has confrontation. Of confronted centers, one will become dominant and others will be dominated. For me, this is what I call kihon - the root of anything we will do in aikido must first begin by unifying and dominating my partner's center. The trick to it is making your center dominate without resorting to "doing" something to your partner.

Dan wrote:

That part I still disagree on. I get it, I can do it...I don't want it. It makes good "Martial arts" but it's a disaster in a fight.
I aint ever, going to connect to your center. And you're never going to find mine if I can help it.

As I say to people who keep yaking about this "make connect" "center to center" make a fourlegged animal" idea.
"Okay, we are going to make an experiment. You are going to fight.
Lets pretend that the outcome is that if you lose the fight, you lose everything you own.
Here is Morihei Ueshiba
Your mission is to "Make connect" to his center.

I'm going to go stand in the corner.
So, how's that working out for ya?

Personally I love it that ya''l keep thinking that connecting, center to center is a good thing.
You couldn't convince me to move that way for anything. And honestly once you experience the other way to move, I doubt you would EVER go back.

Aiki and clashing
You may not have to clash doing "Martial arts" You are going to clash when you fight. Anyone who doesn't think so has never been in a fight with someone who actually knows how to fight.
The contact point or points, will be the meeting place.
1. There are reasons that dantian is present at that point.
2. Because it is present the point is supported without localized muscle firing and weakness
3. Because it is supported aiki can be created with In/yo which can be basic to sophisticated

Now, even if you somewhat suck
There are things you can even do without a developed dantian to pull off aiki to a degree.
Dan

**********************************************************

Ah, finally. I've been following this debate with interest, but was sometimes (!) unclear as to what was actually being said. However, the above dialogue with Jon and Dan made it much clearer, for me. Thanks.

What Jon describes is what we (well, me, anyway) try to achieve in Aikido. I understand this. Dan says he means something else. I think I get a faint glimmer of what he means; but, I guess I will have to seek out a qualified IP person to check it out personally. This I will do.

Thanks.....

[jonreading]

That part I still disagree on. I get it, I can do it...I don't want it. It makes good "Martial arts" but it's a disaster in a fight.
I aint ever, going to connect to your center. And you're never going to find mine if I can help it.

As I say to people who keep yaking about this "make connect" "center to center" make a fourlegged animal" idea.
"Okay, we are going to make an experiment. You are going to fight.
Lets pretend that the outcome is that if you lose the fight, you lose everythng you own.
Here is Morihei Ueshiba
Your mission is to "Make connect" to his center.

I'm going to go stand in the corner.
So, how's that working out for ya?

Personally I love it that ya''l keep thinking that connecting, center to center is a good thing.
You couldn't convince me to move that way for anything. And honestly once you experience the other way to move, I doubt you would EVER go back.

Aiki and clashing
You may not have to clash doing "Martial arts" You are going to clash when you fight. Anyone who doesn't think so has never been in a fight with someone who actually knows how to fight.
The contact point or points, will be the meeting place.
1. There are reasons that dantian is present at that point.
2. Because it is present the point is supported without localized muscle firing ans weakness
3. Because it is supported aiki can be created with In/yo which can be basic to sophisticated

Now, even if you somewhat suck
There are things you can even do without a developed dantian to pull off aiki to a degree.
Dan

You just went above my paygrade. Yes, essentially the guys I am after can simply prevent the connection and we just stand there while I look somewhat stupid. I am in the process of changing my thinking from the "doing to" mentality now that I have felt several people who can just prevent me from affecting them. It's a depressing feeling when you realize your waza is now useless.

[James Sawers]

Sorry. I could not get the multi-quote thing to work for me - like some of my waza........

[Garth]

You have insulted my teacher and my dojo, now you must pay!!?#@?%$

No seriously Chris,
Before we do bad Saturday afternoon kung-fu movie, I am approaching 50 fast and have played every sport under the sun(not professionally of course) but consider myself "athletic" . Considering, I can run circles in the dojo around people half my age. Dont think I can "run" a mile anymore as I have not trained that way in quite a while. So sport specific is important. And besides all the normal physical maladies a 50yo "athlete" can acquire, there is more that I will not acknowledge here. So, my question is....

What do you think 80+ Ueshiba was doing out there on the mat? Just curious, since he couldn't possibly be "athletic" as you mentioned. Were "all" his students being nice and just falling down for the old man?
Were they just fearful of the once legendary power? How was an 83 yo carried on the mat like a saggy old man and transformed into a "ball of iron". Or did the old man know the secrets of the NFL combine before there was a combine?

And the BTW , I just drove for a total of 7 hours to see Dan for 3, so besides no "official martial arts" credits to speak of , I think that gives me some hardcore "belief capital" to spend on this thread. So I would appreciate for you to get out from behind your keyboard and seek out ... probably someone else mentioned like Ark or Sam, because publicly bating Dan is bad idea. Also, I hope you dont think you are attracting quality people to your cause:yuck:

[gregstec]

You just went above my paygrade. Yes, essentially the guys I am after can simply prevent the connection and we just stand there while I look somewhat stupid. I am in the process of changing my thinking from the "doing to" mentality now that I have felt several people who can just prevent me from affecting them. It's a depressing feeling when you realize your waza is now useless.

This is the hardest part to get down because from early on all interaction was from an external perspective to do something to the attacker - with the internal stuff, all your focus is on you, and once that is accomplished, the external to the attacker is taken care of by it self in any numbers of ways -

Greg

[Cady Goldfield]

There was one on one of the Chen;s on aikiweb maybe 5-7 years ago too, by someone from Stanford, I think. I remember the authors being puzzled how the guy was generating forces 14x his body weight.

Is that the same person who was not just Chen, but also Xingyi? I have a link to a video or two of him somewhere, Hunter. IIRC, it was mentioned that it was his Xingyi-trained fajin that was being observed in a Stanford study done by kinesiology grad students. One video measured power output, and in the other they were using motion-capture equipment to try to figure out what kinds of movements he was making when he emitted fajin.

The sensors were able to pick up only gross motor movement -- the external manifestations of his internal power actions. Since the students evidently weren't aware that he was doing something other than conventional athletics-type movement, they wouldn't have considered that they'd need sensors that could track movement in his dantien, mingmen, diaphragm/torso cavity, etc. (dunno if the technology can do that). So they were just as baffled at his power after the experiment as before.

Hidden in plain sight. :D

[Cady Goldfield]

Found the study, still looking for the video clips. http://med.stanford.edu/mcr/2008/taichi-0507.html
Looks like it was "just" taiji, but I coulda sworn he also is a xingyi man. Brain must be getting fuzzy with age...

EDIT: Ah, here's one clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN88QIsMHqA

[phitruong]

Found the study, still looking for the video clips. http://med.stanford.edu/mcr/2008/taichi-0507.html
Looks like it was "just" taiji, but I coulda sworn he also is a xingyi man. Brain must be getting fuzzy with age...

EDIT: Ah, here's one clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN88QIsMHqA

this him? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3q9yCwU5zA that's not just taiji.

[Lorel Latorilla]

If you want to talk about personal, look at any post where Dan talks to me. You will see him several times in each post making little comments and quips about me.

Here is a quote where Dan says some stuff about my teacher, and my teachers teacher. It doesn't get much more personal then that. These are people I care about, and Dan makes totally unsubstantiated claims.

So Dan, which of my teachers teachers did you "bounce" around? What is his name? I am in his lineage, so I would like to know who it was. There is no need to keep his name secret, so who was it, I can ask him and learn what he has to say in the next few days.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to have a real discussion here on the internet, which is where you spend lot's of your time. Which is what we are here to do. Or you can get out from behind your computer and meet with me in person.

It is personal, I am from a fighting lineage. I am expected by those who taught me to stand up for myself and my school. Dan, I say you make up stories and are to scared to come out from behind your computer and show me what you claim to know. If you have any martial ability at all this shouldn't bother you, you should be happy to show me my error. Publicly in front of anyone who is interested in seeing what "real IP" looks like.

I've had enough of this.

I see you talking alot about spirit and about your teacher and all this...do you think this is the best way for you to represent your teacher and to show people your claim that you are in touch with your spirituality?

[Cady Goldfield]

this him? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3q9yCwU5zA that's not just taiji.

Yes, that is he. It looks like he started in Baji, but the lion's share of his training has been Taiji. One of his teachers trained with Chen FaKe.

I'm glad I dug up the study and clip again, because I'd forgotten the details. One other thing that's interesting is his ability to voluntarily control his peripheral vascular system -- "on command," he raised the skin temperature of his hands by 2 degrees F, then lowered the temperature by 6 degrees F. All this while surrounded by scientists and connected to data-recording equipment.

[Janet Rosen]

One other thing that's interesting is his ability to voluntarily control his peripheral vascular system -- "on command," he raised the skin temperature of his hands by 2 degrees F, then lowered the temperature by 6 degrees F. All this while surrounded by scientists and connected to data-recording equipment.

Most folks can learn to do that on a biofeedback machine although I admit I'm not sure how many degrees - I did some temperature shifting, yes demonstrated with a handheld thermometer, via visualization/somaticisation of moving ki specifically as part of migraine treatment (the idea being, in TCM, that there is a need to decrease blood flow/heat in the head and increase it in the hands when there is migraine present). I admit that I don't work on it that much since the migraine meds are so danged effective...but point holds, it isn't that hard to learn to effect your autonomic nervous system (which is what controls the peripheral vascular system)

[Travers Hughes]

I'm glad as well. If you are interested in training with me, I will give you solid skills that you can count on and back up. As my teachers did for me.

If you want to tell stories and skirt the issues you should train with someone else.

Hi Chris, this post was under mine, so I'll assume you're addressing me. If not, apologies.
Maybe I'm mistaken but what stories do you think I am telling and what issues do you think I'm skirting?
(Feel free to drop me a PM if you like, as per Jun's note if it's personal and note relevant to the discussion).
Cheers

[Carsten Möllering]

I am trying to figure out whether you think this is something specific for Aikido or for a specific style of Aikido or for Endo shihan, ...
I have never experienced atari the way Endo sensei teaches it with a teacher not having a background in Endo's aikidô.

... whether or not there is a difference for you between musubi and "blending".
For me there is a difference between blending and atari.

The video itself does not help to clarify the counter argument. Perhaps you care to elaborate?
atari to me means more or less connecting via "opposing" forces. (see the example I tried to give Mary: Pressing one's palm against one's fist.) This for me comes near to what can be called clash.
Short spoken there are two general types of atari: atari initiated by tori like shown In the video. (-> Excersices where uke "stands still" first and tori "presses" against him.) Or atari the atari can be initiated by uke. (-> Excersices where tori "stands still" first and uke presses against him. This is a setting like in most ki-Tests I know.)

musubi to me means more or less connecting via "adjusting" forces. Bringing different forces together and creating one new out of different ones. This to me has more of blending, merging, or - to use the direct translation - to knot together of different forces.

Sorry for answering so late: I overlooked your posting.

[Carsten Möllering]

Well.. IMHO I see slow but tremendous power is moving directly toward uke.
This is how it feels when this is done: Power coming toward me, being uke. Not being able to enter. tori. But interestingly he is entering me. Suddenly it is him who moves me. Most often I am not even able to withdraw myself.
Interesting enough this "slow but tremendous power" is not hurting, is not hard, is not fighting. Not at all. Becouse this power enters into uke and takes over the control of his movements.

[Carsten Möllering]

He may have said that but it is not what I saw.
Well, Endo sensei uses words very thoughtfully. He is very carefull about what he says, because it is often connected to certain thoughts or texts with a daoist or buddhist background. And he is revising the texts - both: Japanese and English - of his videos.

As I said before: Even if colliding is the right word, feeling still is very soft and the experience of this "collision" is not hard or hurting in any way. So maybe it is this softness that you see.

When I am talking about clash or blending it is not about hard and soft or things like that. But it is only about technical aspects, about how a connection is made.

[Tom Verhoeven]

this him? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3q9yCwU5zA that's not just taiji.
Wow - very beautiful to watch - nice music too. Thanks for sharing that!
Tom

[Carl Thompson]

Speaking of which, why is it that you never...ever...mention all those other people who have met me, Sam, Ark or Mike and what they have written?

Hello Dan

Just to clarify as a point of reference for those who (for whatever reason) can't get hold of you: Could you confirm that those named above, in your opinion, are "vetted" people who are working on the same kind of skills and in a similar league to how you are using them? Also, I can't tell for sure if you aren't saying you met these people in the above sentence. Did you?

Thanks for any response.

This is how it feels when this is done: Power coming toward me, being uke. Not being able to enter. tori. But interestingly he is entering me. Suddenly it is him who moves me. Most often I am not even able to withdraw myself.
Interesting enough this "slow but tremendous power" is not hurting, is not hard, is not fighting. Not at all. Becouse this power enters into uke and takes over the control of his movements.

Dear Carsten

Since there is a particular definition of "Aiki" being used here with regards to the question of forces clashing, would you say Endo Shihan has it? Do you think what he does is comparable to Dan Harden, Akuzawa Sensei, Mike Sigman et al?

Regards

Carl

[DH]

Hello Dan

Just to clarify as a point of reference for those who (for whatever reason) can't get hold of you: Could you confirm that those named above, in your opinion, are "vetted" people who are working on the same kind of skills and in a similar league to how you are using them? Also, I can't tell for sure if you aren't saying you met these people in the above sentence. Did you?

Thanks for any response.
Regards
Carl
Carl
Various people have ranges of skill when it comes to this work. I would say that any of those you mention are working on their versions of internal power, but they are different. There are others as well. The best thing for people to do is to go and feel, see who or what you like and go train with them. I would also say it is VERY wise to go train with a series of people who supposedly have something different. Some people have more tissue recruitment than others and this can be tested and felt. They will have more "whole body movement from Dantian" than others. People accent and work on power differently. If you get out there with hands on unusual people you will see what I mean. So the best way for anyone to make a decision that benefits themselves is to go test and feel.

Dan

[Carl Thompson]

Carl
Various people have ranges of skill when it comes to this work. I would say that any of those you mention are working on their versions of internal power, but they are different. There are others as well. The best thing for people to do is to go and feel, see who or what you like and go train with them. I would also say it is VERY wise to go train with a series of people who supposedly have something different. Some people have more tissue recruitment than others and this can be tested and felt. They will have more "whole body movement from Dantian" than others. People accent and work on power differently. If you get out there with hands on unusual people you will see what I mean. So the best way for anyone to make a decision that benefits themselves is to go test and feel.

Dan

Thank you.

[Erick Mead]

Well, Endo sensei uses words very thoughtfully. He is very carefull about what he says, because it is often connected to certain thoughts or texts with a daoist or buddhist background. And he is revising the texts - both: Japanese and English - of his videos.

As I said before: Even if colliding is the right word, feeling still is very soft and the experience of this "collision" is not hard or hurting in any way. So maybe it is this softness that you see.

When I am talking about clash or blending it is not about hard and soft or things like that. But it is only about technical aspects, about how a connection is made.

The blades of scissors are opposing forces that clash, and collide in a sense, but if they actually impact one another they jam and are obviously working wrong. They have a still point of connection where one is fixed and the other in rotation -- and a moving point of connection that advances on a line. Their action is soft, connected, meshing, blended and they do not harm one another at all, --- but they destroy anything that comes between them.

[DH]

The blades of scissors are opposing forces that clash, and collide in a sense, but if they actually impact one another they jam and are obviously working wrong. They have a still point of connection where one is fixed and the other in rotation -- and a moving point of connection that advances on a line. Their action is soft, connected, meshing, blended and they do not harm one another at all, --- but they destroy anything that comes between them.
As a physical interaction they describe perfectly what NOT to do to make aiki. On contact; it's tenkan or irimi, not aiki.
Dan

[Mary Eastland]

The blades of scissors are opposing forces that clash, and collide in a sense, but if they actually impact one another they jam and are obviously working wrong. They have a still point of connection where one is fixed and the other in rotation -- and a moving point of connection that advances on a line. Their action is soft, connected, meshing, blended and they do not harm one another at all, --- but they destroy anything that comes between them.

What a profound description. Thank you.

[Erick Mead]

Now, if you can use physics to validate the walk-run cycle or use physics for animated human movement, or use physics in robotics, then you've just earned a nobel prize for doing something other physicists can't explain.
...
I disagree. Reference the above walk-run cycle above. There is no basic physics involved in that.
Actually -- there is. Humans are a multiple inverted pendulum -- and you stabilize a multiple inverted pendulum by bouncing it vertically from the support at a certain range of frequencies of simple harmonic oscillation (can we spell -- "furitama"?). See here for a triple- pendulum, stably inverted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3Ylw7ukJ0&feature=related) -- stability of this system requires no feedback control whatsoever -- just the pure physics of motion. The stability parameters (frequency range etc.) are given by a diffy-q Mathieu function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_equation).

Walking is just moving the pendulum from one support to the other (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816028/) in an alternating series (a second oscillation -- at right angles to the first) -- which now makes it complex harmonic oscillation -- and thus a potentially chaotic system -- in the technical sense.

The existence of this basic oscillatory stability regime and mechanism was demonstrated empirically in 1908, though the dynamics -- even of the simple pendulum -- were not successfully analyzed until the 1950's. Chaos as a fundamental principle arrived in the 1970's, but the chaotic aspects of this kind of stability were only grasped beginning in the 1990's. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs004220050483?LI=true) But I doubt any prizes are being handed out (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:I4_jzfS2OSIJ:www.ihmc.us/dwc2012files/McGrath.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjvRl0IztFegaEDwT9bqiYNLkKhLvG4pBEd3iiJactHjTAgRptMi1FsEM4WE9SMA7Zetl P5s9sJizr58mXp6BDMIiacpAg38YdBldzt27ffF7Zz1u34xbsGCPdiTCNz_JRmePPx&sig=AHIEtbRVUr_5M6HAeBVuE_GliDpDwwrRZQ)at this point. Although some kinks remain. (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-personal.umich.edu%2F~artkuo%2FPapers%2FESSR05.pdf&images=yes)

Walk/run transition is simply a change of the frequency range of the system's oscillation and which also drives a change in the series structure of the number of alternating supports (a bifurcation point -- in chaos terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period-doubling_bifurcation)), The number series of supports changes from the walk series (1,2,1,2,1, ...), to the jog series (1,1,1,1,1... ) to the run series (1,0,1,0,1, ...) -- but we'll leave those three loops of the resulting chaotic attractor (and their additional lateral sway components - forming a third oscillation) for another day, shall we?

All the neuro-muscular stuff is involved in slewing any disturbance outside the stability range back within the broad limits of the stability regime. All props to the IS/IP crowd for what they work on doing within it -- this is the sandbox of stability that they play in. The physics says so.

The oscillatory component dynamic or (what is missed by those who resist the physics on this point) its physical equivalent in potentials -- formed by poising moments within the body ) -- is the inherent basis for aiki manipulation of stability. The physics AND Ueshiba said so -- and showed so ...the spirit of bees and of the demon snake, the red and the white tidal gems, in-yo ho, and the chinkon-kishin (furitama, funetori, udefuri, tekubi-furi, ibuki kokyu, etc. etc. etc.)

[Erick Mead]

The blades of scissors are opposing forces that clash, and collide in a sense, but if they actually impact one another they jam and are obviously working wrong. They have a still point of connection where one is fixed and the other in rotation -- and a moving point of connection that advances on a line. Their action is soft, connected, meshing, blended and they do not harm one another at all, --- but they destroy anything that comes between them. As a physical interaction they describe perfectly what NOT to do to make aiki. On contact; it's tenkan or irimi, not aiki.
Dan Considering all of the above I find that interesting in view of the following:
Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state ... a continuous flow of tangents outside of you that never allows force on you Now I was giving an example of a simple system that met the otherwise paradoxical-seeming description of Endo Sensei on the point of atari rather than aiki as such. But this statement is worth exploring also -- since I did not attempt to apply any direct correspondence to anything else in terms of aiki -- but you seem to have done so implicitly albeit as opposites. The theologians call that via negativa -- the negative way.

So how would you describe more explicitly the negative of the definition of aiki that you see in the components of the scissors image in your terms ? I have some observations from what you have said that you might comment on in that regard or others I may have mentioned:

Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, This comment seems to be relatable to the fixed point of rotation and support of the advancing point of contact in the cut and the tangent nature of the blades' action...

These descriptions seem also to find some relation in the scissors figures-- even if only negatively -- but perhaps usefully...
Projection first occurs once again from the management of opposing forces creating a state in your frame and structure. This can expand outward or contract inward.
The focussed point of the scissor cut projects from the opposing forces driving the structures in a rotating tangent. While the scissors advances the point of cut outward -- similar mechanisms are used as a linear sliding cam action to contract or draw a point of attachment inward toward the center of rotation -- or to project a component away from it. Suriage, and kiriotoshi use this manner of action in something close to two axes (like scissors), but suri-otoshi uses it in three axes.

It may expand outward in 360 degrees. it may be focused to a point, or it can be applied in a rotating tangent, or it can be applied expanding *around* a contacted point supressing or dampening all vectored resistance... You can make two spherical spirals (http://regularpolygon.org/plugins/images/loxodrome-2-620.png) mesh just like scissors -- they can do this either in placing two spirals turning through one another (gearlike) on different axes, passing linearly through one another on the same axis, (turning like a screw or simply passing though both with a moving point of action -- like the scissor cut) or even collapsing and expanding in opposition to one another on the same axis and with the similar points of contact action.

The simplicity of ordinary scissors is the linear equivalent. It is less complicated to visualize the immediate action. The sphere spirals and rotations is what Ueshiba spoke of -- but they are not as different as they seem from the simple scissors. Rotations -- even potentials bring up another related point:

This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on. ... "non-sourced change" ... a valid way of describing a coupled action that lies 90 degrees out of phase to the actuating change -- that kind of thing can be felt in a gyroscopic system -- and also in coupled pendulums or their static potential equivalents of poised moments. FWIW.

[Cady Goldfield]

Most folks can learn to do that on a biofeedback machine although I admit I'm not sure how many degrees - I did some temperature shifting, yes demonstrated with a handheld thermometer, via visualization/somaticisation of moving ki specifically as part of migraine treatment (the idea being, in TCM, that there is a need to decrease blood flow/heat in the head and increase it in the hands when there is migraine present). I admit that I don't work on it that much since the migraine meds are so danged effective...but point holds, it isn't that hard to learn to effect your autonomic nervous system (which is what controls the peripheral vascular system)

I remember reading something about that in an article on biofeedback, years ago.
I wonder whether there's a point in here... that once you know the components of the "what" and the "how," it "isn't that hard to learn..." Sokaku Takeda said something along those lines with aiki - that it's too easy to learn, so don't tell any foreign folk how to do it.

[Garth]

Okay, WHAT????
Besides the MIT like explanation. Comparing scissors to the movement of the human body is a poor comparison indeed(one joint compared to many) and a linear 2 dimension movement to spherical 3 dimensional movement for starters. Last time I checked linear and spherical were two distinct concepts, granted they can be combined when talking about a three dimensional being such as ourselves, but good luck trying to get people to follow that one. I think I went blind in my left eye trying to reread that .:freaky:

[phitruong]

Walking is just moving the pendulum from one support to the other (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816028/) in an alternating series (a second oscillation -- at right angles to the first) -- which now makes it complex harmonic oscillation -- and thus a potentially chaotic system -- in the technical sense.


"potentially chaotic system" - you meant exploding? so your walking model would potentially causing a person to explode as he/she/it takes the first step? would that not be messy to clean-up? wouldn't their internal be external? :)

[Krystal Locke]

Considering all of the above I find that interesting in view of the following:
Now I was giving an example of a simple system that met the otherwise paradoxical-seeming description of Endo Sensei on the point of atari rather than aiki as such. But this statement is worth exploring also -- since I did not attempt to apply any direct correspondence to anything else in terms of aiki -- but you seem to have done so implicitly albeit as opposites. The theologians call that via negativa -- the negative way.

So how would you describe more explicitly the negative of the definition of aiki that you see in the components of the scissors image in your terms ? I have some observations from what you have said that you might comment on in that regard or others I may have mentioned:

This comment seems to be relatable to the fixed point of rotation and support of the advancing point of contact in the cut and the tangent nature of the blades' action...

These descriptions seem also to find some relation in the scissors figures-- even if only negatively -- but perhaps usefully...

The focussed point of the scissor cut projects from the opposing forces driving the structures in a rotating tangent. While the scissors advances the point of cut outward -- similar mechanisms are used as a linear sliding cam action to contract or draw a point of attachment inward toward the center of rotation -- or to project a component away from it. Suriage, and kiriotoshi use this manner of action in something close to two axes (like scissors), but suri-otoshi uses it in three axes.

.. You can make two spherical spirals (http://regularpolygon.org/plugins/images/loxodrome-2-620.png) mesh just like scissors -- they can do this either in placing two spirals turning through one another (gearlike) on different axes, passing linearly through one another on the same axis, (turning like a screw or simply passing though both with a moving point of action -- like the scissor cut) or even collapsing and expanding in opposition to one another on the same axis and with the similar points of contact action.

The simplicity of ordinary scissors is the linear equivalent. It is less complicated to visualize the immediate action. The sphere spirals and rotations is what Ueshiba spoke of -- but they are not as different as they seem from the simple scissors. Rotations -- even potentials bring up another related point:

... "non-sourced change" ... a valid way of describing a coupled action that lies 90 degrees out of phase to the actuating change -- that kind of thing can be felt in a gyroscopic system -- and also in coupled pendulums or their static potential equivalents of poised moments. FWIW.

Now we're talking.... Can you two PLEASE keep this part of the thread going? I can see the potential mechanics of dual opposing spiral movement much more clearly having considered and expanded the scissors model, and the model strongly reminds me of shearing movements I can use directly and immediately in my aikido, but I still dont know what it is that is moving in the dual opposing spirals in IP. Is it my limbs, a sequence of internal muscles/physical structures contracting/activating, or is it something else?

[Krystal Locke]

"potentially chaotic system" - you meant exploding? so your walking model would potentially causing a person to explode as he/she/it takes the first step? would that not be messy to clean-up? wouldn't their internal be external? :)

I think it is more like dancing to dubstep than actually going asplode. Check this out.

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

Interesting movement qualities, especially in light of recent questions about motion capture vs reality, physics vs biology, and damn, he can freaking move.... What would aikido/life be like if I had that much awareness and control over where my body was in space?

[DH]

Now we're talking.... Can you two PLEASE keep this part of the thread going? I can see the potential mechanics of dual opposing spiral movement much more clearly having considered and expanded the scissors model, and the model strongly reminds me of shearing movements I can use directly and immediately in my aikido, but I still dont know what it is that is moving in the dual opposing spirals in IP. Is it my limbs, a sequence of internal muscles/physical structures contracting/activating, or is it something else?
I laid out my ideas a few pages back. Neither I or anyone who has trained with me, Ark, or Mike, recognizes anything that Eric talks about. He uses different parts and pieces that work in opposition to his own other pieces to make theories that contradict themselves and cancel each other out in whole body movement.
But we could "talk about it" for years. Are you really interested in something that works? Really?
Want to get past talking about it?

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

[Carsten Möllering]

Because you cited me, I think you refer to what I said about atari and how it is explained by Endo sensei?
The blades of scissors are ....
If so I can clearly state that this image does definitely not match what is practiced when learning or using atari the way Endo sensei teaches it.
atari on the contrary is about forces moving towards/against each other. atari means sort "impact". That's even part of the word meaning. Like can be seen in atemi.

As I said above:
I did only find this concept in the work of teachers having a background in Endo sensei's aikidô.

... would you say Endo Shihan has it? Do you think what he does is comparable to Dan Harden, Akuzawa Sensei, Mike Sigman et al?
I am simply not qualified to answer this question:
I only met Dan. And I only met him once.
I don't know what Endo practices in private. Whether he does solo work and if so what sort of.

Feeling Endo and feeling Dan has some similarities. And both feel different from most other teachers I know.
Endo's excercises for learning atari have some similarities with some exercices Dan showed us.
The "background" - trying to understand what Ueshiba did and said using the chinese internals as kind of translator is indentical.
Some principals are identical.

But what struck me most: When I attended a seminar of a very near student of Endo sensei, he let us have our hands on his back to feel where and how he generates ellbow power.
(He did not use the word then, but did, what he did.) I Dan remembers how he showed us is back in Spring in the Netherlands he will exactly know what this gyu tried to make us feel. Being asked, what he felt, one student said: Your back kind of "opens up" ...)
He let us extend arm up and leg down, center in the middle of both "intents".
He let us move one side down to bring the other side up.
He let us bring our center in our hands using our intent connecting both via our back.
And so on.

So I think, what Endo does is comparabel. But different.
It was him who made me listen up when I started reading Dan's texts here on aikiweb.
And it was Dan who gave me some clues to better understand and better being able to do, what Endo teaches.
It was a near student of Endo who suddenly and - for me - totally unexpected but clealy used words and practices I knew from Dan and taught the aikidô of Endo.

I think they are heading in the same direction but walking on different paths toward the same aim.

[DH]

Hi Carston
And as you may recall I spoke favorably of Endo before you and I met. Why? From watching him move. It's nice to hear them using Chinese references , as Ueshiba always did, and to becoming more detailed.
Dan

[MM]

Actually -- there is. Humans are a multiple inverted pendulum -- and you stabilize a multiple inverted pendulum by bouncing it vertically from the support at a certain range of frequencies of simple harmonic oscillation (can we spell -- "furitama"?). See here for a triple- pendulum, stably inverted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3Ylw7ukJ0&feature=related) -- stability of this system requires no feedback control whatsoever -- just the pure physics of motion. The stability parameters (frequency range etc.) are given by a diffy-q Mathieu function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathieu_equation).

Walking is just moving the pendulum from one support to the other (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816028/) in an alternating series (a second oscillation -- at right angles to the first) -- which now makes it complex harmonic oscillation -- and thus a potentially chaotic system -- in the technical sense.


Actually, no. In fact, the reference you cited disproves your whole argument. Let me quote:

"Other considerations, however, reveal limitations to the pendulum model. It successfully explains differences in energy exchange between walking and running, but it does not quantitatively explain how they should vary as a function of walking speed. For example, as speed increases, there are changes in the kinetic and gravitational potential energy exchange34 and the stance leg appears to behave less like a pendulum, but the pendulum analogy does not explain why this is the case. It gives no reason why longer and faster steps (up to the theoretical maximum walking speed) should require a different amount of mechanical work and force than shorter and slower steps. Taken literally, pendulum mechanics predict that a step requires no work or force whatsoever.17 Once walking has commenced, there is no reason why work must be performed to maintain the conservative motion. The pendulum analogy also does not apply to double-limb support, where a pendulum (inverted or otherwise) clearly cannot swing. Although the pendulum analogy is important for understanding how walking can be economical, it does not explain why walking costs energy at all. In that respect, the inverted pendulum model is incomplete."

Your whole inverted pendulum model falls apart at just a cursory glance. As soon as you look at it in a complex model, especially the human body ... well, you have a better chance at winning the Powerball Lottery ... twice in a row.

Do you really want to get into "simple harmonic oscillation", which by its definition has no real forces acting on it? For example, "In real oscillators, friction, or damping, slows the motion of the system. Due to frictional force, the velocity decreases proportional to the acting frictional force. Whereas Simple harmonic motion oscillates with only the restoring force acting on the system, Damped Harmonic motion experiences friction." You are basing your theory on a simple model that is used in unrealistic conditions, let alone based upon the human model. Your "simple harmonic oscillation" falls apart at just a cursory glance.


All props to the IS/IP crowd for what they work on doing within it -- this is the sandbox of stability that they play in. The physics says so.

The oscillatory component dynamic or (what is missed by those who resist the physics on this point) its physical equivalent in potentials -- formed by poising moments within the body ) -- is the inherent basis for aiki manipulation of stability. The physics AND Ueshiba said so


No, the physics doesn't say so. Your models have never shown any basis in the theoretical world for working, let alone the complex, real world of the human body.

AND THEN, when someone actually does gain the required knowledge (and wins a Nobel prize for it) of how the human body functions in relation to the physics world, that will only determine the majority of people, not those rare, unique martial artists who have IP/aiki. All real world tests to this date have shown that these people's body functions entirely differently than normal people.

And no, Ueshiba didn't say so. Current literal translations show that Ueshiba stated and restated ancient martial training theories in regards to IP/aiki.

But, all this is off topic. Please start a different thread if you want to continue trying to use physics in regards to aikido.

[Krystal Locke]

Actually, no. In fact, the reference you cited disproves your whole argument. Let me quote:

"Other considerations, however, reveal limitations to the pendulum model. It successfully explains differences in energy exchange between walking and running, but it does not quantitatively explain how they should vary as a function of walking speed. For example, as speed increases, there are changes in the kinetic and gravitational potential energy exchange34 and the stance leg appears to behave less like a pendulum, but the pendulum analogy does not explain why this is the case. It gives no reason why longer and faster steps (up to the theoretical maximum walking speed) should require a different amount of mechanical work and force than shorter and slower steps. Taken literally, pendulum mechanics predict that a step requires no work or force whatsoever.17 Once walking has commenced, there is no reason why work must be performed to maintain the conservative motion. The pendulum analogy also does not apply to double-limb support, where a pendulum (inverted or otherwise) clearly cannot swing. Although the pendulum analogy is important for understanding how walking can be economical, it does not explain why walking costs energy at all. In that respect, the inverted pendulum model is incomplete."

Your whole inverted pendulum model falls apart at just a cursory glance. As soon as you look at it in a complex model, especially the human body ... well, you have a better chance at winning the Powerball Lottery ... twice in a row.

Do you really want to get into "simple harmonic oscillation", which by its definition has no real forces acting on it? For example, "In real oscillators, friction, or damping, slows the motion of the system. Due to frictional force, the velocity decreases proportional to the acting frictional force. Whereas Simple harmonic motion oscillates with only the restoring force acting on the system, Damped Harmonic motion experiences friction." You are basing your theory on a simple model that is used in unrealistic conditions, let alone based upon the human model. Your "simple harmonic oscillation" falls apart at just a cursory glance.

No, the physics doesn't say so. Your models have never shown any basis in the theoretical world for working, let alone the complex, real world of the human body.

AND THEN, when someone actually does gain the required knowledge (and wins a Nobel prize for it) of how the human body functions in relation to the physics world, that will only determine the majority of people, not those rare, unique martial artists who have IP/aiki. All real world tests to this date have shown that these people's body functions entirely differently than normal people.

And no, Ueshiba didn't say so. Current literal translations show that Ueshiba stated and restated ancient martial training theories in regards to IP/aiki.

But, all this is off topic. Please start a different thread if you want to continue trying to use physics in regards to aikido.

Incomplete != wrong. Iterated, cumulative approximations are the foundation of learning and understanding anything, including human kinematics, aikido and IP. Basic models may not explain everything all at once, but they do describe portions of phenomena sufficiently to make confident, reliable conclusions and predictions. And, most importantly, the models themselves suggest improvements for creating future models that are more accurate, capture more reality, and lead to even better desciptions and predictions.

What will happen, what will the physics denier say, when someone does bother to do a broad and deep study of an IP practitioner's movement, and what the practitioner is doing is explained by biomechanics? There seems to be a strong need in some folk to keep very special what they do vs what other people do.

The moment the word "force" was first introduced into this conversation, physics stuck its head into the room. If we all train for different reasons and that's ok, we all also should have the freedom to understand and discuss what we do in different ways. Physics is an excellent framework for discussing movement in the real world. It absolutely belongs in this discussion.

[Carsten Möllering]

Hi Carston ...
Yes, I remember very well! :)

In fact I remember the whole weekend a lot, because it changed my practice. And because of the people I met.

[Chris Li]

What will happen, what will the physics denier say, when someone does bother to do a broad and deep study of an IP practitioner's movement, and what the practitioner is doing is explained by biomechanics? There seems to be a strong need in some folk to keep very special what they do vs what other people do.

No one's saying that it can't potentially be explained by biomechanics - they have said that existing attempts with current models don't work very well.

Also, IME, getting a very fine grained understanding of exactly what tissues are doing what only gets you so far. Past a certain point it's interesting, but it doesn't really help you to do - which is what most folks are interested in, I'd say.

Best,

Chris

[Tom Verhoeven]

Incomplete != wrong. Iterated, cumulative approximations are the foundation of learning and understanding anything, including human kinematics, aikido and IP. Basic models may not explain everything all at once, but they do describe portions of phenomena sufficiently to make confident, reliable conclusions and predictions. And, most importantly, the models themselves suggest improvements for creating future models that are more accurate, capture more reality, and lead to even better desciptions and predictions.

What will happen, what will the physics denier say, when someone does bother to do a broad and deep study of an IP practitioner's movement, and what the practitioner is doing is explained by biomechanics? There seems to be a strong need in some folk to keep very special what they do vs what other people do.

The moment the word "force" was first introduced into this conversation, physics stuck its head into the room. If we all train for different reasons and that's ok, we all also should have the freedom to understand and discuss what we do in different ways. Physics is an excellent framework for discussing movement in the real world. It absolutely belongs in this discussion.

Any change that you are related to the English philosopher John Locke ? Your argumentation is quite the same!

And I agree - although not an engineer or physicist myself, I would love to see the biomechanics of Aikido, T'ai chi chuan, and the IP/IS exercises explained through biomechanics.

It would certainly help demystify some of the things that come up repeatedly in discussions like this.

Tom

[Keith Larman]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C Clarke

Hey, I don't believe in magic, at least not in the sense some do (good sleight of hand is another thing entirely). So I think you, Krystal, are correct in many ways. However, I also agree with Mr. Li that the current models of how the human animal moves, can move, can develop are probably in their infancies. And then there's the fact that I really don't need to know that it is an electrical impulse that fires that informs my muscle to move in order to sit here and type.

The problem, of course, is explaining how this stuff works sufficiently well to allow for transmission and possibly advances in training. There's where I think the models have fallen apart. I think there are those who have developed some degree of these skills but the reality is that even they really don't know what it is they're doing on a higher level. Which makes for a devilishly difficult problem when it comes time to teach. Yes, we have the old, traditional Chinese explanations but hopefully at some point some additional clarity will be found. So I think we *do* need people to ask these questions, to push, to study, to try different things. And with increased clarity of *how* some of these things might be happening will hopefully come better methods for teaching and hopefully new insights.

But this will require an interaction between people to happen. And open minds. And cooperation rather than confrontation. And then also consider that much of this might be totally irrelevant to wide swaths of what is called the Aikido Community. Things evolved and many are quite happy with where they find themselves and I think that should be respected as well.

But it has to go both ways...

So find a place to train. Keep an open mind. Stay critical. Then train and train some more. The rest, well, it's all just discussion and debate. Proof is when the hands cross...

[Erick Mead]

" The pendulum analogy also does not apply to double-limb support, where a pendulum (inverted or otherwise) clearly cannot swing."

This is actually a bad analysis on the part of the author. Double limb support can be treated as just an inverted pendulum from the metacenter located between the supports -- which are not normally nearly broad enough to create much propping moment against an applied overturning force -- and when they are-- they are only in one plane and so the treatment is a perfect inverted pendulum in the perpendicular to the plane running between the feet on a long-base kamae.

In other words -- the human body has effectively zero static stability -- all stability is dynamic -- like a bicycle.

Plus we are talking about a system where we have some other object as a link in the pendulum chains -- be it q weapon or opponent. This makes me chuckle when I see the video of Ueshiba with the boar spear form of chinkon kishin starting at 4:50 where he points at his center -- and then watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CXzZPXgIE) what he does with the spear to illustrate the point he is making about his center. And the same again at 5:00. He also has this recurring little reflexive "pop and drop" to the balls of his feet and back to the flats. His performance of various techniques in other respects has always had a bit of "hop" to it, and I am hardly the first to have said it.

At 5:28 he shows a spherical spiral resolving to a vertical thrust up -- and then a reverse spiral ending in a vertical thrust down. Accident? OK, if you say so -- but I see what he is getting at.
It ends as it began in a vertical orientation of the body and spear. Zhan zhuang, anyone ? The entire exercise can be viewed as an exploded view of miniscule excursions of the balance center one can feel when doing zhan zhuang-- and which you will notice if you stand there long enough -- and which -- might just be the point of the exercise demonstrated....

What we don't usually recognize is that we have a normal tonic vibration which is -- as you say below -- normally highly damped. Essential tremor patients lose the neurological damping element of normal tone -- and so they shake involuntarily -- but at a characteristic frequency, ~5-10 Hz or so -- the resonant fundamental frequency and first harmonic of the human body -- and the latter is precisely the frequency of a proper furitama. This is hardly a coincidence in its relation to aikido -- as this vibration is characteristic of all the shaking forms of chinkon kishin or aiki-taiso, call it as as you prefer. "Spirit of bees" Ueshiba called it.

"Although the pendulum analogy is important for understanding how walking can be economical, it does not explain why walking costs energy at all. In that respect, the inverted pendulum model is incomplete." I believe that I said "some kinks remain." More importantly, the study was looking at energy-optimizing aspects of this system for locomotion -- we are talking about optimizing exploits of instability and structural damage -- and energy conservation is largely a secondary aspect.

For example, "In real oscillators, friction, or damping, slows the motion of the system." Too true, but the existence of damping can be modulated-- and normally IS modulated. By modulation, a moment (a kinetic potential) can be created and stored -- in the structure-- which I believe is a major point of the discussion ...

Control of the damping mechanisms is key to the release and deployment of such potentials. This has a strong component of reflex action that the chinkon kishin/aiki-taiso training is design to tune into the neuro-muscular system at a deep (spinal/cerebellar) level -- not voluntary motor control -- and thus extremely responsive -- spooky fast -- far faster than any voluntary action is capable of.

And no, Ueshiba didn't say so. Current literal translations show that Ueshiba stated and restated ancient martial training theories in regards to IP/aiki. This is probably so. I don't think any one is disputing that this line of empirical development goes very deep and has many branches -- but we are only just now starting the analytical examination of it.

When people can move things without moving anything physically -- I'll drop talk about physics. But until then -- "Il muove."

[Erick Mead]

... but I still dont know what it is that is moving in the dual opposing spirals in IP. Is it my limbs, a sequence of internal muscles/physical structures contracting/activating, or is it something else? My view, and others may certainly disagree, is that they represent stored shear stresses ("windings" some describe it) (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=210336#post210336).and dynamic pendular movement -- but the static and the dynamic are equivalently spiral as the points in the post show.

Similarly, if you look at the hand of someone with essential tremor the predominant shake is -- torsional -- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSH7jbGD5Ao) What is involved in the dual spirals may equivalently and dynamically, be seen as simply driving the inherent tonic frequency with a resonance (furitama). Tekubi furi, is likewise, a driven spiral pulse out the limbs, either continuously or out to a singularity and single snap reversal.

By their nature these stresses can alternate torsionally like a torsional pendulum -- think: udefuri (at about 0:55-1:47) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Rp29OWIgE)

That gentlemen also, FWIW, illustrates the difference that I see in the meaning of atari as "clash" in the impact sense and the different sense as illustrated by the scissors image -- and which I see, applied in a different way, in the Endo atari video exercise also...

[Carl Thompson]

Hello Carsten and Dan


I am simply not qualified to answer this question:
I only met Dan. And I only met him once.
I don't know what Endo practices in private. Whether he does solo work and if so what sort of.

Feeling Endo and feeling Dan has some similarities. And both feel different from most other teachers I know.
Endo's excercises for learning atari have some similarities with some exercices Dan showed us.
The "background" - trying to understand what Ueshiba did and said using the chinese internals as kind of translator is indentical.
Some principals are identical.

But what struck me most: When I attended a seminar of a very near student of Endo sensei, he let us have our hands on his back to feel where and how he generates ellbow power.
(He did not use the word then, but did, what he did.) I Dan remembers how he showed us is back in Spring in the Netherlands he will exactly know what this gyu tried to make us feel. Being asked, what he felt, one student said: Your back kind of "opens up" ...)
He let us extend arm up and leg down, center in the middle of both "intents".
He let us move one side down to bring the other side up.
He let us bring our center in our hands using our intent connecting both via our back.
And so on.

So I think, what Endo does is comparabel. But different.
It was him who made me listen up when I started reading Dan's texts here on aikiweb.
And it was Dan who gave me some clues to better understand and better being able to do, what Endo teaches.
It was a near student of Endo who suddenly and - for me - totally unexpected but clealy used words and practices I knew from Dan and taught the aikidô of Endo.

I think they are heading in the same direction but walking on different paths toward the same aim.

I've only taken ukemi for Endo Shihan a couple of times, but that is very interesting to read.

Hi Carston
And as you may recall I spoke favorably of Endo before you and I met. Why? From watching him move. It's nice to hear them using Chinese references , as Ueshiba always did, and to becoming more detailed.
Dan
Dan, have you been able to get hands-on with Endo? Have you felt anything like what you are doing in his students?

Thank you both for your replies.

Carl

[MM]

This is actually a bad analysis on the part of the author.


So, you put together some science and use research to try to cobble it together. When you're called on the research and it invalidates your theory, you reply that it's "a bad analysis" and "some kinks remain"? There are all kinds of questions after that. Why didn't you point it out? Why did you use bad research? Why do you believe you know more than a published author in a known journal? Etc, etc. Far too much to go into here.

Truthfully, your whole post seems like you tossed together a bunch of terms and scientific principles and hoped no one would really take the time to give more than a cursory glance at what you wrote. Now, that's what it seems like on my end. I really don't know what you're doing, I'm just saying what it appears like to me. I'm hoping that it's not the case. But I don't really want to get into "bad analysis" or "some kinks remain" anymore because, to me, it seems that it's mostly the bulk of your posts regarding IP/aiki.

Mark

[Erick Mead]

When you're called on the research and it invalidates your theory, you reply that it's "a bad analysis" and "some kinks remain"? ... Why didn't you point it out? I believe that the phrase "kinks remain" WAS -fairly - pointing that out. None of the "kinks" affect my analysis.

You want application-- Great. So do I. Go get some... I want understanding also -- so I can extend both my application and all applications.

Why did you use bad research? Why do you believe you know more than a published author in a known journal? The latter is a fallacy of appeal to authority -- the fact is that when an analysis of the model is objectively in error -- the fact is, it is in error. I just showed you the error he made in noting the nature of the supports in one plane but neglecting it in another plane -- it is not a matter of opinion.

But in fairness to his research issue, it was probably not a necessary condition to consider, either. The distinction matters for what I am doing -- but likely not for what he was doing. That's another reason we have to question the uses of any research or other source of "authority" it may not be well-fitted to our problem-- but that doesn't mean it is useless.

An item of bad analysis in a piece of research does not invalidate the whole thing. Galileo was not wrong conceptually or empirically about the nature of gravity just because he had not calculated the value of G -- he was just less precise. The thing about science is that there really is no "bad" research, and there is certainly no such thing as perfect research. Negative results are as valuable -- often more valuable --than results that confirm the hypothesis. Very often a key error -- once seen for what it is by good critical analysis -- can be of more value than either the premise or the result of the research. It's called serendipity.

Before you can go doing experiments or decide what data to gather or how -- first you have to look at things like this and think through the problems conceptually - or you have no idea what to go test for or what data to try and capture. You don't just pile up arbitrary measurements (or anecdotal reports or subjective impressions) and hope they tell you something. They can help frame your working concepts, however.

[DH]

I believe that the phrase "kinks remain" WAS -fairly - pointing that out. None of the "kinks" affect my analysis.

You want application-- Great. So do I. Go get some... I want understanding also -- so I can extend both my application and all applications.

The latter is a fallacy of appeal to authority -- the fact is that when an analysis of the model is objectively in error -- the fact is, it is in error. I just showed you the error he made in noting the nature of the supports in one plane but neglecting it in another plane -- it is not a matter of opinion.

But in fairness to his research issue, it was probably not a necessary condition to consider, either. The distinction matters for what I am doing -- but likely not for what he was doing. That's another reason we have to question the uses of any research or other source of "authority" it may not be well-fitted to our problem-- but that doesn't mean it is useless.

An item of bad analysis in a piece of research does not invalidate the whole thing. Galileo was not wrong conceptually or empirically about the nature of gravity just because he had not calculated the value of G -- he was just less precise. The thing about science is that there really is no "bad" research, and there is certainly no such thing as perfect research. Negative results are as valuable -- often more valuable --than results that confirm the hypothesis. Very often a key error -- once seen for what it is by good critical analysis -- can be of more value than either the premise or the result of the research. It's called serendipity.

Before you can go doing experiments or decide what data to gather or how -- first you have to look at things like this and think through the problems conceptually - or you have no idea what to go test for or what data to try and capture. You don't just pile up arbitrary measurements (or anecdotal reports or subjective impressions) and hope they tell you something. They can help frame your working concepts, however.
I think before *you* get into any analysis of IP/aiki, you should be called on to produce it. Those who have been vetted by thousands of people, pointedly deny your analysis has anything to do with what we do. And contrary to all the demands that were put on us.....
You have never shown up in a room of teachers, including shihans, and were judged as having any exceptional skills regarding IP at all.
So since you can't do what we do, and you can't discuss anything WE recognize...Just what are you analyzing and why hasn't it produced extraordinary IP skills in you? Or are you claiming you possess them?
I think fair is fair, Eric. You need to show.
Dan

[Lorel Latorilla]

I like this mathematical formula better: go out there, learn from people with skills, and train.

[Carsten Möllering]

Hi Carl
I've only taken ukemi for Endo Shihan a couple of times, but that is very interesting to read.
So what did you feel?
Do you comprehend what I said from your own experience?

[Krystal Locke]

I think before *you* get into any analysis of IP/aiki, you should be called on to produce it. Those who have been vetted by thousands of people, pointedly deny your analysis has anything to do with what we do. And contrary to all the demands that were put on us.....
You have never shown up in a room of teachers, including shihans, and were judged as having any exceptional skills regarding IP at all.
So since you can't do what we do, and you can't discuss anything WE recognize...Just what are you analyzing and why hasn't it produced extraordinary IP skills in you? Or are you claiming you possess them?
I think fair is fair, Eric. You need to show.
Dan

A kinesiologist does not have to be an Olympic sprinter to analyze and suggest improvement to a runner's form. I dont have to be a car to understand how an internal combustion engine works. As a matter of fact, not being a car makes it a bit easier to understand an ICE.

Why do so many of the folk who do have IP resist having the skill analyzed? What is it that these folks offer as analysis and explanation? Why is it that some of the IP folks say that yeah, it is just different biomechanics, and others say that biomechanics couldn't possibly explain what they do?

[Lorel Latorilla]

A kinesiologist does not have to be an Olympic sprinter to analyze and suggest improvement to a runner's form. I dont have to be a car to understand how an internal combustion engine works. As a matter of fact, not being a car makes it a bit easier to understand an ICE.

Why do so many of the folk who do have IP resist having the skill analyzed? What is it that these folks offer as analysis and explanation? Why is it that some of the IP folks say that yeah, it is just different biomechanics, and others say that biomechanics couldn't possibly explain what they do?

huh? Nobody is "resisting" skill being analyzed (check that one post where Stanford scientists did a test on a ICMA master). All the IP folks are saying is that no matter how much you use scientific language and all that, it won't help you get the skills that IP folks are going after.

[DH]

Creating a model of the exterior movement, won't help at all. It is the interior reorganization that is the factor that MAKES the difference in the external model. And that...will never be tracked. One example, is that study tracking how the ICMA made a punch. It tracked lines of force that anyone can copy. No one will equal it by attempting to mimic his movement.

Eric is not an engineer. I have PHD and and Masters degreed engineers I work with who cannot figure out how to model what is going on. and THEY? They train it and can do some things. Interestingly being taught the exact way to move, has not availed them.
Mimicing the form simply doesn't work. I can stick out my arm and have someone push on it, and then have someone copy me. Zip. I can tell them exactly what I am doing...zip. Then I can tell them how I am reorganizing inside and they can start to get a "feel" for what to do.

It has been taught by metaphor for generations for good reason. I have perhaps a few dozen bodyworkers, also doctors and chiropractors who train with me. They know all the body parts. It hasn't helped them one bit over anyone else.
Using intent to connect and motivate the body in accord with opposing forces is a mental challenge more than a physical one. It is also why virtually all of Eric's analysis fails. When you don't understand what you need to do to support what, and how to move what with what, that's one failure. When you don't understand how the mind has to organize it- you wind up with all these models, which virtually no one who understands this stuff has supported.

It sure as hell isn't some secret. there are thousands of people training this. Many of whom read Aikiweb. They just know that it is *intent* that makes the defining difference. It is the mind f#$%k that has challenged budo players for generations. There is a reason that entire martial systems are names after and include that single word; intent!
I offered to help the best and only way I know how.... in person. Even then it is a process you undertake, a different way to use the body that will take years.

[phitruong]

Why do so many of the folk who do have IP resist having the skill analyzed? What is it that these folks offer as analysis and explanation? Why is it that some of the IP folks say that yeah, it is just different biomechanics, and others say that biomechanics couldn't possibly explain what they do?

you have it in the opposite. the folks who do IP/IS stuffs wanted to analyze more than anyone else. we don't really care about the mystical stuffs. the thing that we stressed on is that folks who want to analyze it have to be able to produce it and not on the internet, behind some keyboard. that's the key. i wrote some stuffs on reverse breathing recently on aikiweb. did that sound like we don't want it analyze? we want to know how it work, why it work, what make it work, and most important how to train/reproduce the process. does that sound like unscientific to you? even Einstein, many of theories were/are theories until we can prove it. same here. this is a physical body skill. prove it = show me in person. prove it != long dissertation on the internet.

you might not be an olympic sprinter, but you have to prove that you can sprint and understand not just the physical, but the mental behind sprinting to get folks to listen. even if you are not olympic caliber sprinter, but you can show that your methodology produce much greater results than average sprinters, if i was an olympic caliber sprinter, i would have paid attention to your methodology. again show = prove it = sprinting results, not one, not two, but many for better statistical validity.

something that you need to understand about IP/IS. there is an old saying that governs the process: heart leads mind; mind leads qi/ki; qi/ki leads physical movements. lets make it a bit clear on that. emotions activate/affect the brain; brain/thought controls/activates various biochemical, electrical and mechanical processes; biochemical, electrical and mechanical processes control/activate physical movements. if you analyze the physical movement, you just got the tail end of the thing, i.e. 1/3 of the equation, i.e. incomplete analysis.

[Erick Mead]

We have a recurring disconnect here. The question is ways of knowledge -- and the topic of knowledge being discussed is whether "aiki is a clash of forces" -- That problem begs physical descriptions to discuss meaningfully -- It certainly may admit methodological descriptions as well.

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?

Not in physics. Not in engineering. Many different conventions exist for different purposes and each is judged on their usefulness of description or application. Methodological approaches ARE more useful for some purposes -- but so what? A magnetic field has two mutually irreconcilable conceptual conventions for its physical description -- and yet both are indispensably useful and one cannot be substituted for the other for certain purposes. Only one of them is for complex currents where there are objects in the field (and, FWIW the concept of torque is useful there too in relating things involving complex magnetic field currents).

Anyone is free to reserve their own judgment on the purpose of the knowledge and its utility -- but objective description is objective description. Unless a concept that fits the facts better is available, you work with and test the best concepts you can find with the facts that you observe. I work from my personal observations and experience to found my concepts. I presume everyone else does also.

This is an observation of the human body -- I have one -- and others at my disposal... :D

[Marc Abrams]

Ah! Finally out of the time out room for pointing out the obvious......

This might come as a surprise to some people: Dan Harden fought against the VERY STUFF that he is now teaching. He walked away from his training for awhile because he was stuck at a crossroads. He was as closed-minded as everybody else who gets to that point in their training experiences.

You try like hell to figure out what the hell is going on and why what you are doing does not work. You are trying like hell to fit what someone is struggling to show you into your closed-minded, preconceived parameters. You are facing the "cliff of paradigm shift". You can either walk off the ledge into the unknown and discover a new world that does not fit neatly inside of what you believe are the limits of our world experiences, or you will go back to the safety and security of what you know, while discounting and denigrating where you almost went.

Suddenly you recognize that you do not have a complete paradigm of understanding under the "old ways", BUT you do need to be able to do things in a very different way. My students use to ask me to explain how the hell this stuff was working. They stopped, because all they got was the same line: "I am a student myself. A complete understanding of this is above my pay-grade. The best that I can do is to share with you the explanations and the ways of my teachers. We are all in this struggle together." The amazing thing is that this stuff works. You change in ways that leave people scratching their heads trying to figure out how you did what you just did. We struggle daily to better understand what we are doing so that we can teach it better. Anybody who has been training with Dan Harden will tell you how his teaching paradigms and methods just get better. This is a reflection of that very process!

We are left at the same precipice that we started off at. Jun sent me to the proverbial time out room simply because I pointed out the obvious- WITHOUT ATTACKING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR AND WITH A GOOD DOSE OF HUMOR- The struggle between the closed-mind and the open-mind happens inside of ALL OF US! Getting hands on with someone who can actually do this stuff is only one aspect. If you are not able to make that paradigm shift, you will not continue to do the work and you will not make the substantial changes that this very, very hard work allows you to make. People need to really get off their "high horses" and stop relying on what they think they know. If you want to genuinely change through this work, you have to let go of where you are in order to make that crucial paradigm shift.

Simply ask Dan, Ark, etc..... how many people they have taught and how many of those people have actually made that critical paradigm shift and stuck with this work. Then again, we can continue debating things from perspectives that will get you no closer to any real understanding, let alone real change. When the posts become personal, we are far beneath the level necessary to accomplish anything positive- that was why I asked that the thread be closed. A lively debate can take place with people vigorously putting forth their ideas. If those people are not open to considering something different and even changing their perspectives based upon different information, then it is not really a debate of open-minds. Just more of what we have too much of in our world.

Marc Abrams

[Carl Thompson]

Hi Carl

So what did you feel?

I've commented about the encounter on another thread (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20756&page=2). We can PM if you need more detail.

Do you comprehend what I said from your own experience?

Not with regards to Endo Shihan. I get the impression that there is no clash of forces in atari because there is no force to clash. I consider it a sensitivity exercise. I think Sensei may sometimes "talk similar talk", but the walk he is walking is in a completely different direction to what I think the IP/Aiki people are doing. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it's what surprised me about Dan's comment.

Regards

Carl

[Chris Li]

Why do so many of the folk who do have IP resist having the skill analyzed? What is it that these folks offer as analysis and explanation? Why is it that some of the IP folks say that yeah, it is just different biomechanics, and others say that biomechanics couldn't possibly explain what they do?

No resistance - but you're late to the party, most of the folks have training it have already gone through the stages of trying to describe it with existing physical models and realized that it doesn't work that well.

That doesn't mean that we don't talk about it - we do all the time, but it doesn't really make sense until you get some hands on.

Of course, biomechanics can potentially explain everything happening in the body at some level, nobody's denying that. I don't think anybody said that it "couldn't possibly explain what they do" unless they're talking about existing models.

Best,

Chris

[Keith Larman]

Just to blather a little more... I am very sympathetic to trying to figure out a better model of what's going on. However, I read some posts and see descriptions that seem to be capturing what would be at best only a small part of the necessary parts of what I've experienced. What I mean by that is that reading Erick's threads, for instance, eventually make me glass over, and I've got a fairly solid scientific background. The reason isn't just the elaborate complexity of it, but that it seems to me completely missing something I've found within my training in the stuff that is required -- both the intent driven aspect of some of this but also that there appears to be a different form of conditioning (physical and mental) that seems to allow this stuff to manifest itself.

So much of the physics explanation could be to some extent accurate, however, the question is whether you can get the same results as what I've felt solely by doing those things on an "external" level. And in my experience has been a resounding "no".

So to try to better classify my understanding of what's happening, let me propose this. Some of this stuff seems to involve being able to manifest a very subtle degree of intention driven internal control across the entire body, recruiting a vastly larger percentage of the overall structure and strength to control, and, if necessary, generate power. That ability to control across the entire structure in this complex and subtle fashion as well as being able to "wind" and engage long connections in a continuously dynamic fashion allows for a sort of counterbalancing internally that creates a tremendously powerful and stable structure that can both redirect incoming forces and generate new forces virtually instantly. Hence when the person who has these skills is touched there is an instantaneous "melding" with that structure (blending?) and the practitioner can still move with tremendous subtly or power all depending solely on what they choose to do.

The point here is that for me, at least, this requires a great degree of focus and "expanded awareness". Although I find the more I practice and train the more things just seem to happen "automatically".

So if we accept something along these lines (and I'm not claiming I'm right, it's just sort of in a nutshell how I'm thinking today) then the external "physics" explanations aren't really terribly important as they miss the underlying "operating system" of how the body is being used. The external physics explanations also seem to assume that everyone is "the same" in some sense or another and that there is nothing "extra" that needs to come to the table. And no one I know of who is legit in any way in the IS/IP camp would say that. There is a tremendous amount of work that goes in to developing the sensitivity and fine control. Without those skills and that development the rest doesn't really matter. Or to put it another way, it ain't what you're doing, it's how you're doing it. So it would be like describing the trajectory and pivot points of swinging a bat. Yeah, that's all important for hitting a ball a long distance. But you'll never get any distance until you can learn how to use your body in such a way as to swing the bat strongly with good follow through and then do it at exactly the right time to hit a 95 mile per hour fast ball. There's lots of skill and practice that enables the end result. I'm a big guy and I can swing a bat hard and fast. And if I manage to hit the ball cleanly I could hit it a long way given my size and strength. The problem is that I don't have the skill to hit the damned ball in the first place, especially if it's being thrown by a major league pitcher.

There, clear as mud now I'm sure.