Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
until there is a physiological understanding of what the various factors are in the internal skills, it is difficult to have any kind of substantive discussion about what to train and how to train it. Otherwise we get stuck in the same situation where people all put forward their subjective (but probably relevant) phenomenological language.
|
The explanation of the physiological basis for "internal strength" seems to me to be
relatively unnecessary for the question of "
how to train it." For example, knowing that fascia is expanding or spiraling is an interesting thought, but is not of itself going to provide much useable precision to the specific training I am doing.
The "how-to" is my own primary interest. The "what is happening" descriptive element that a physiological understanding would bring might provide a basis for comparing/evaluating different methods or exercises purporting to develop internal strength, and for refining training methods, but I don't think it is absolutely critical in order to identify at least some people who have "internal skills" and who are willing to demonstrate what they think is important in their own training to develop internal skill.
If I encounter someone who can demonstrate aspects of what I consider to be internal strength skill, I will ask him/her to (please) show me what you do, how to do it . . . and I'll practice it as intelligently and perseveringly as I can, and test my progress. Ark, Mike, Dan and others have all shared their own approaches to this work, and it seems like a number of people who have worked with those teachers in the past few years are making some real progress--progress despite somewhat ambiguous terminology. The IHTBF paradigm provides a rough-and-ready utilitarian degree of empiricism for purposes of improving our practice.
It's not that a physiological (and neurophysiological) understanding wouldn't be of general benefit in the long run. I'm trying to interest some people with the facilities and experience to measure these kinds of physiological changes in designing ways to observe and document what is going on in skilled practitioners' bodies and brains during demonstrations or tests of internal strength skill. Scanning technology is growing increasingly comprehensive and accurate, but at this point it would be difficult to measure "internal" dimensions of a real-time demo of a full-range technique like a judo throw. Comparatively static, basic partner exercises like aiki age, or Ark's and Dan's different versions of the "push-out," and solo work like zhan zhuang (holding different stances with contradictory force) or Mike's "universal exercise" will probably be easier to observe and measure.
Since there is no pharmaceutical or biotech company eager to delve into the secrets of Aikiweb, though, it may be awhile before just plain ol' scientific curiosity frees up time and interest in one of the labs. There may be real interest for this kind of investigation in China, from what I know, and I wouldn't be surprised to see interest develop in Japan as well.
In the meantime, I practice the "how-to" as best as I can understand it.
