Mike Sigman wrote:
Hmmmmm. I know what he meant. So do a lot of people. It's probably closer to a force-couple than a true rotation, Erick, even though "rotation" is the more commonly used term.
If you really think that there is distinction between a force couple and "rotation" on a question of virtual work, then yes, you are right, we have nothing to talk about. I'll prefer to give Ushiro Sensei credit for knowing what he was saying.
Ledyard Sensei has demonstrated some of what he taken from Ushiro to me in seminar. I am buy no means speaking out of school here. I was struck by two things in that experience --
1) He was counselling to avoid doing what I try to get my students to avoid ("force" "collision", etc.), and counselling to work on unifying the body as a whole, which I also I try to get my students to do.
That in itself, confirms me that my line of thought on these topics is very much in concert with the "common conversation," even if I am trying to transalte thes ideas into a western framework.
2) He was catching me doing the same category of things in a far sublter manner as I try to get my students to avoid, showing that Ikeda has a powerful point about continual improvement and exploration, which I am the first to acknowledge as a necessity.
The only reason I can catch my students doing these things is that I recognized them first as mistaeks I have also made along the way.
Mike Sigman wrote:
... if we were talking about some sophisticated analysis of some of the cute offshoot tricks to these skills, I'd be open to "multiple, legitimate perspectives". But we're not. We're talking about root basics and you have a theory that you love... while tellingly don't understand the common conversation.
Fine. Quit carping about the irrelvancy of my little adventure, and explain "the basics" in purely mechanical terms ... That is my purpose. I welcome any input in those terms.
Mike Sigman wrote:
... if you're teaching this unusual and obscure meta-theory as the 'truth' to beginners. But that's your business, too, I guess.
I know my responsibilities and the limits of my authority. They do not include a surrender of my critical or observational faculties. There are several large bars full of helicopter pilots, aeronatucial engineers, and a few more roboticists thrown, that would find the idea of gyrodynamics, as an "unusual and obscure meta-theory" rather quaint. You should let your lighting fast judgment take a rest -- it is overtaxed and serious outrunning what has actually been said in this forum.
Please enlighten why my analysis of the mechanics from a gyrational perspective, is wrong and yours, which I would love to hear, is in fact correct.
Why the antagonism? I am hardly wedded to these particular expressions of the concepts, but no one is proposing a better aproach from a mechanical standpoint that I have seen.
Everytime I am challenged so far with new issues to address, I find that there is yet further evidence in the challenge itself to confirm me in continuing the approach with these mechanical concepts, as in Ushiro's recntly revealed statement on rotation, and the yiquan discussion (by the current Master) on the vibratory nature of jin in the joints.
If it is not disproven, and there is some evidecne for it then it is admissible as theory in any scientific sense. I very much welcome such challenges on this point, BTW, from any who care to prove a mechnical point or observation flat wrong. That's how knowledge advances
I am open. Give me yours if you prefer ...
Please do not bother to respond if it is again merely ringing changes on the theme of :: "I know -- you don't. Shut up and quit bothering us." I'll keep taking ukemi until you knock me down.
The subjective component of enabling mechanical control is not my question, the objective mechanics of the manipulation is. IN Western terms you cannot understand the requirements of the control system, until you know the mehcanics of the force system. I understand that Chinese thought does not make this distinction, (or at least not in this way). But it is the proper order of anaylsis for Western knowledge . You claim to be in position to know; please explain in those terms.
But trying to vet Ushiro's or Ikeda's statements for what they "really" meant, instead of what they said, is semantics -- not reasoned argument.