Quote:
Phi Truong wrote:
one more thing to add. years ago, at a seminar, Hooker sensei said "teach the mind through the body, then teach the body through the mind." it applies here. doing physical things to teach your mind how to use intent, then use the intent to make your body to do physical things.
|
Amen to that. He never disappoints. But the same is true of the mind
understanding the action it wills/provokes/evokes (however you choose to express it)
in objective terms. Not merely subjective impressions, but what is going on that causes those impressions. Not that we do calculation(
pace Mark's legitimate objection) in the midst of performance, which is simply silly -- but that we have a sound ruler and categories to analyze our sense impressions and performance on objective measures -- to determine
what failed and how to correct it.
As Josh's example of shenfa/qi being in both columns (which FWIW, I agree with totally, in those terms) illustrates why a different set of conceptual categories of action is necessary to capture important distinctions that do not map into our more conventional conceptual suite about this type of action. Linear force/vector/ intent as such does not cut it for that reason -- not because it is wrong (it is not) but because it is dreadfully simplistic, ill-fitting and cumbersome. But that ain't the only wench in the physical mechanics toolbox, folks, and some other ones map EXCEEDINGLY well. Since my ruler works pretty darn well to help my mind identify and remove the sources of bodily failure and to explore depths of my body's natural tendencies that I had not initially expected -- I judge it to be genuinely describing an objective reality I can work with and more than a little useful in the terms Hooker describes.