Perhaps we each define our personal felt experience differently making any discussion of it difficult or impossible.
I disagree. There is usually a difficulty in coming to terms between someone knows and someone who doesn't really know (or only has incomplete skills), but if two people really know, the descriptions can be straightened out in short order. If someone *really* knows, they can explain things simply.
"Groundpath" has always been an expedient descriptor which people who have some basic jin skills understand and agree with (generally) quite quickly. Invariably, people who have no idea of jin/kokyu skills get distracted or crack jokes about "groundpath", telling everyone who knows that they don't know.
A number of people have floated to me the idea that they "know" but that they just can't describe how to do things. I disagree. People who know how to do these things can hammer out a baseline set of terms very quickly. For instance Rob and Dan had no problem utilizing "groundpath" (a few years back) even though that wasn't a term native to what they were doing.
What I'm trying to do is not allow the conversation to follow the lines of some of the "Aikido" conversations in which everyone insists that there is no fixed definition of Aikido and thus anything they choose to do is bona fide "Aikido", thereby making it so that it's impossible for there to be such a thing a wrong Aikido. Internal strength you can know definitively and show definitively (levels and gradations are there, of course).