Thread: What is "IT"?
View Single Post
Old 09-30-2009, 02:49 PM   #45
Erick Mead
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,568
Re: What is "IT"?

David Orange wrote: View Post
Well, that's because the topic is not just wide open. The discussion concerns a very specific set of skills and the internal work that develops and allows those skills to work. Though Erick has commented extensively on many of these threads, he's said very little that compels me to think that he understands the topic at all.
That's because I am not writing to compel you. If I respond it is because I recognize something put forth in their terms and wish to work it through in mine, and it might tangentially be of value to someone looking at the physical issues involved, since I have kinda thought this through at this point. If it does not work for you -- then go with God ...

David Orange wrote: View Post
So it's the same with Erick's comments as with Buck's. They don't relate at all to the experience of the people who have trained with the top exponents of Internal Strength training and moreover give the feeling that the elaborate wording of his posts are an attempt to obscure their relative lack of meaning.
Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework. Certainly not those guys -- which is again NOT a criticism, simply a point of fact. Nor even some of the technically minded people they have worked with, who have been mentioned. The reason is that the categories of information involved on either side (East and West) do not map on-for-one between data sets. The traditional terminology and concepts in the history of these arts and the more common mechanical conventions and concepts that we would use (usually force-vector or f=ma) cannot be trivially substituted. To do so is meaningless and misleading. But they are BOTH coherent and they BOTH relate -- once you break them down into parts and definitions that WILL relate correctly . There are many more than one convention available to use in defining a physical problem or dynamic state. This is what I have done, and it does not take more than a knowledge of a certain branch of 18th c. mechanics and a little late 20th c. knowledge of neuro-muscular functions to grasp the essential working points on the Western side. I am frankly constantly amazed at the resistance to trying to look at it in this way. Amazed, I say. Who knows, they might even prove me wrong....

They are working on what they are working on, by all accounts successfully and satisfactorily to those who work on it with them. I don't criticize them. I do criticize the manner of criticism of others in discussion, but that is a different issue relating more the usefulness of criticism in a discussion -- which is very valuable if done right, and pointless if done wrong.

David Orange wrote: View Post
I'm sure Erick is well intentioned, but after all these years of discussion, I'm not aware that he has ever made any contact with anyone widely recognized to have internal strength skills.... I had read closely what they were saying and I recognized that I was "not" doing what they were talking about.
I have also read them closely. I will leave you to judge how closely I can read.


Erick Mead
  Reply With Quote