True contractive power is made possible only to the degree that one is able to access its corresponding decontracted pole. The greater the reception, decontraction, and compassion, the greater one's power is both manifest and non-manifest. It's described as differential in physics, yang cannot exist unless its yin is equally expressed. On a psychological level if one gets caught up in one's own projected images, the static feedback begins reacting to itself instead of to that which really is thereby shutting off the full dynamic spectrum of perception and action. Resistance of the mind and body are inversely related to one's power and freedom.
"We see others not as they are but as we are"
One hardly knows where to begin, but I suppose that one must give somewhere. I'll limit myself to four questions:
1. Why use nonsensical neologisms such as "decontracted," and "decontraction," when perfectly good words of longstanding usage such as "expanded," "expansion" are at hand?
2. Why implicitly posit a connection between mechanical qualities such as contraction and psychological orientations such as compassion?
3. On what basis can one assert a transparent one-to-one relationship between physics, taoist theory, psychological theory, and physiological reality?
4. Can we presume that your understanding of physics, psychology, physiology, and aikido is as impoverished as your badly cribbed abhidharma?
At a minimum, it strikes me as very odd to answer a specific question with a new line of ungrounded assertions.
At a maximum....no, I dare not go even halfway there, for there are certain standards of decorum that need to be reinforced, so I will stop here for now, and just ask a fifth question:
5. Why is it that so many posters with fixations feel obliged to answer questions about their gibberish with yet more gibberish, never pausing for a moment to reflect that neither the ideas they have expressed, nor the manner in which they have expressed them warrant the high regard in which the poster seems to hold both?
Offered, with my apologies to Ellis, as a metacognitive interlude which owes a debt to Gresham.