Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
Eric, regarding "natural", I cannot find any reason why you would call learning and adaptation any more "natural" than walking. As far as I can gather, this kind of "natural" is a fluke, something that comes to certain people without their knowing the process of having come to this point. To all other people (and to them if they try to teach it) there needs to follow a step-by-step process of training and improvement (self-realization). This applies equally to walking (whose differences in the minute useage of the body differ widely between individuals) as to learning the use of the mind for reasoning. IMHO.
Hi Gernot: The type of "natural" movement so often commented upon in Asia is sort of a misnomer (or at least a misleading term) in the same way that "harmony with the universe" can often be misinterpretted by westerners.
The "natural" movement idea is movement that is in accord with the "laws of the universe"... so it is in akin to the idea of "harmony with the universe". To cut a long story short, "natural" movement does not mean "intuitive" movement; it must be taught. True, there are segments of Asian thought that will attribute small segments of this kind of movement to babies, but that is in a very limited sense and, IMO, reflects a sort of logical filler to explain how a foetus is "natural" because it is curved over due to the yang nature of stresses up the back and the yin nature of forces closing the front. I.e., the foetal position in the womb.
My opinion, FWIW.