Thread: What is "IT"?
View Single Post
Old 09-30-2009, 03:36 PM   #50
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
Re: What is "IT"?

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
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.
Erick, the problem is that all your statements, whether you wish them to compel or not, simply show that you just don't understand what the major IS proponents are even talking about. It's like someone trying to get into a discussion between neurologists by talking about a Paul McCartney song. There's just no relevance. So when you post this stuff because you "wish to work through it" in your own terms, you just have to expect people to say (sooner or later) "Mmmm....I'm afraid you don't know what we're talking about."

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework.
First, your "this stuff" seems completely unrelated to the "this stuff" described by those who are recognized as having pretty deep mastery of "internal strength" and "internal training." I know they can do it and I have felt what they can do and it's not something you will find in any mainstream aikido dojo I've ever visited. In fact, most aikido places I've visited seem intent on watering down people's ability to have and express any kind of strength at all. You water it down to the teacher's level or you get out. With Dan and Ark, certainly, I can say that their strength is distilled to a more potent and higher degree than anything I've met, including in Japan.

and again

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
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.
But it's not a fact. It is clearly wrong because they have all discussed the precise internal mechanics involved in producing the awe-inspiring results of internal strength training. Dan, especially, in his seminar, went into great detail about the internal body structures used and precisely how they are used. They have also gone deeply into "intent," which I don't think you or anyone else has described in a "rigorous bio-mechanicalframework."

And the more important point is that you really seem to be talking about something entirely different from what they are describing. My five-year-old has rigorously explained to me why he has had a lingering cough lately: he swallowed a fly while his mother was talking to him and the fly is down in his knee, now, making him cough. He showed me very exactly how the impulse to cough originates in his knee, moves up his thigh, traverses his abdomen, moves into his lungs, and emerges in his throat as a cough. The doctor, needless to say, dismisses that explanation, but we did get an x-ray to see if there's an obstruction in his airway.

I'm afraid the responses you get are along those same lines for more or less the same reasons.

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
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.
Well, you know, you don't seem to be using any of the data sets they're using, but trying to substitute a lot of unrelated statements as "alternative" explanations.

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
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 .
Not if you're not using the same information they're using. And it seems clear that you are not. Mark's call to post videos of yourself is an offer for you to show that you're even in the same book, much less on the same page.

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
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....
It's not necessary to prove you wrong. You do that, yourself by addressing something totally unrelated in your tortuously elaborate rationalizations. But you are talking about something entirely different--maybe "ordinary" aikido technique, but not IS aikido. But if you don't accept that, you need to step up and put your hands on someone like Dan or Ark and you won't need more than a moment to understand why everyone has been telling you for months that you don't get the point. I'm constantly amazed at your resistance to doing that. It's easier than writing down a single one of your posts. Save yourself some years, man, and go find out the truth. If you can do a fraction (20%) of what Dan does, I will buy you a bottle of champagne.


"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"
  Reply With Quote