Thread: What is "IT"?
View Single Post
Old 10-06-2009, 11:56 AM   #157
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,502
United_States
Offline
Re: What is "IT"?

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
Conveniently vague and suggestive.
It should be enough to say that the results are running something like 98% against you, 1.5% pitying you and Buck and David Skaggs supporting you.....which really ought to make you do a double-take on your position.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
Why do I want to doggedly climb up to a high vantage on the geological accident of a pile of ash called Fuji, if I can "do a few calculations according to some theory" and eventually fly above it,and see a much larger context of the terrain?
And there you go. That's the same thing you're trying to do with this thread and I think that should be a good enough place to leave it.

Fuji is "the skills". The only way to get to the top of that mountain is by physically absorbing the skills and changing the body in the process. But you prefer to give us "calculations" involving gyropscopics and resonance frequencies and other things that are worth baloney in your shoes when the sword is coming down.

Can you see why you would be ignored at a table of people who just climbed up and down Mt. Fuji and you drop in and tell everyone that you had the same experience as they did because you flew over Fuji. Moreover, your experience was better because you saw a wider landscape than they.

Your reaction from that group of people would be about the same as you receive from all experienced people on this board: note that this excludes your main supporters....

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
See -- that is the difference. I don't care if you talk about me, good or bad.
Well...since no one is talking "good" about you (at least in terms of IS skills) and you simply deny reports of any other nature...you're pretty well bullet-proof.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
The reasons why these discussions remain so tied up in individual personalities and presumed conflicts is that the ideas themselves have not been developed adequately.
Au contraire. The ideas have been deeply and intricately developed for thousands of years and there are two groups of people: those who understand those ideas as they are, and those who don't understand the ideas and think that we need clearer ideas, involving gyroscopics and resonance. The only place "personalities" come in is when someone like yourself insists that his misguided thinking is perfectly equal to the original and well-understood thinking that developed the IT skills.

I got my pilot's license when I was seventeen, flying little Cessnas and Pipers. If I sat down at a table full of fighter pilots, I would have very little to say, especially when they began speaking of aerial combat. Sure, F-16s and Piper Cubs have some common characteristics and performances, but I'd have to be an idiot to think that my flying experiences qualify me to judge the statements of combat-experienced pilots. And though I might be too dumb to recognize that fact, myself, everyone else at the table would know it and if I tried to talk like one of them, they'd either invite me to leave or they would move to another table.

And that's where you are in this discussion of IT.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
At one point you had some thoughts on that score -- and while you may have concluded from your experience that the approach of your thinking at the time was misguided, the impulse to develop generally thought-out concepts was not.
Well, there are "thought-out concepts" and then there are other things. Bank robbers always thoroughly think-out their plans before they rob the bank. Custer "thought-out" his plans before he went to Little Big Horn. Heck, W. thought out his plans before abandoning Afghanistan to go after Saddam. The point is, if your thinking is based on a slanted foundation, you're not going to be able to keep it lined up.

My biggest concern early on in these discussions was just exactly what people were talking about: a martial art, a method of chi gung, meditation...what? I gradually understood that they were talking about physical methods of doing things inside one's own body to manipulate incoming force and neutralize it: physical things--not intellectual frills. The big turning point for me was when I realized that the "suit", or the fascia of the body is a "whole-body-permeating" system of tissue that has very different functioning than muscles, nerves or bones and that the use of the fascial system was a major component of the IS skills. When I recognized that, while you may have "internal strength" it's not much good if you can't intentionally control it--and that control is demonstrated by the "baseline skills" described elsewhere on this board.

To now, the "baseline skills" of aikido might be said to be timing, tai sabaki, posture, distance and technique. All those skills can be demonstrated strictly through muscular action and alignment of the bones to be able to "brace" the structure in the direction one wants to apply power.

In the new paradigm, the "baseline skills" cannot be enacted through mainly muscular actions. In this paradigm, are use of the body's internal structures (not the muscles) to redirect incoming power such that the body does not lose its equilibrium and can return that force to the provider without muscular effort--which is to say, not using the muscles to drive the force but only to maintain the body's own organization, which is a far smaller effort than actually throwing someone with your muscular effort (even if you do it by "leading" them off balance first).

That's the real gold we're digging and we're not concerned about someone's personality nearly as much as we are that person's approach to using those factors to create internal strength.

Your personality becomes an issue because you make every effort to substitute alternate concerns (gyroscopics, etc.) for the truly meaningful problems of the internal connections of the bones, muscles, nerves and fascia of the body.

It's like a Newtonian physicist trying to correct a bunch of Einstein scholars about quantum reality.

In your case, it's more like a quantum physicist trying to tell a carpenter how to build a house according to quantum physics: it does not relate to his need. It doesn't solve his problems. It does not get the house built.

When everyone else is discussing bone alignment and the use of the fascial structure to convey intent, you come in with elaborate narratives that are strictly mental and, moreover, are not applicable to the human dimension when one is actively dealing with an attack. No degree of mathmatical calculation can apply when the other guy is trying to pound your face in.

That's the big difference. Nothing Dan or Mike says will get in the way of dealing with the weight, momentum and ill intent of another human being trying to kill you. But the stuff you go on about?????

It seems to be very pleasant and enjoyable for you....but very distatsteful for everyone else....

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
It is precisely NOT about me when I write about the idea. My approach in that regard is only maddening because your focus is so narrowly on the person(s) -- not the concepts -- I am concerned with the thing itself and the ideas that describe it.
Again, "the persons" are not my focus. The physical methods and skills are my concern and your ideas and descriptions are like a bogus driver's license a check passer uses to make himself appear acceptable to those who accept or reject. Why not just get on the right page if you want to discuss this topic? Understand that it is already very well defined and developed and that it requires physical movement based on "feeling" and not on schematics, charts and diagrams.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
The fact that everyone who engages this discussion as you are, tries so urgently to MAKE it about me, or about them, or about me vs. them, or them vs. them -- or whatever -- is pointless and inane.
Try reading one of these threads with your own comments ommitted. You will find that, when you're not talking and people are not talking to or about YOU that we get into some deep discussions of methods and your name does not come up. You "make it about you" when you come in with such skewed comments and irrelevant ideas. It's the same reaction you'll get anywhere you try to interject the "concepts" of an inexperienced person into the discussions of experienced people. Plain and simple.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
The title of the thread is "What is IT?" not "Whose is the baddest whupass mojo thingy ?" or some other sixth appendage length stretching sessions.
That's at least twice recently that you've mentioned that. You are the only one bringing that concept to the discussion, so if you want it out of the discussion, you should stop introducing it.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
Explaining the concrete reasons for your view would better advance the idea, even if -- and especially if -- I were wrong....
See above. I'm sure if you drop the "gyroscopics" references and deal with the real-world-real-time-human-body-in-movement considerations, everyone's attitude toward you will change.

Good luck with that.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 10-06-2009 at 12:10 PM.

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

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote