So far, what you described seems to fall largely in line with how Mike Sigman describes "suit". Would you say that the way you're training now, with a few nomenclature preferences (e.g. tuning the [drum] skin vs. removing wrinkles and pinches from the suit), embodies all of Mike's IP/IS fundamentals? For example, Budd mentioned breath, and Mike uses breath to change the suit (e.g. open the yin surface of the body), which moves the body; and do you use the "drum" in a similar way?
Hey Mert, I've trained with Mike, and he's great. The nomenclatures I'm working on actually come from audio engineering and music - which is an area I've gone pretty far down the rabbit hole in. There are some nomenclatures that Mike seems to have in common with Mantak Chia, who's books were a huge source of learning for me early on. So, to me when I hear "suit" it doesn't sound too far from "shirt." I'm not taking anything anyway from these men, they're huge in the internal world. But at the same time, I've come upon what I feel are more streamlined ways of looking at what we're doing, and wanting to do. It's my version of translating and working with acoustic energy.
I think there are a number of things when Chinese try to transfer, not only their culture, but ther nomenclature into English. And vice-versa from English to Chinese... and back and forth.
An example would be the idea of "rooting." If you look at Chia's idea of of the 9 points on the feet and being rooted, and the imagery of a tree, we should have a sense that we're rooted in the ground. That doesn't work for me with my understanding of energy as an audio engineer. And I've had long conversations with Pierre Sprey about this. And it's interesting to hear Dan Messisco talking about some of the same things. I just ran into Dan recently on the net, and what he's talking about agrees with my own findings.
There's what people do, and then there's their idea about how to teach that to others. I feel a lot of Mike's and Chia's nomenclature can be not only simplified, but re-engineered with many less parts.
One thing that Mike's done for me, is he gave a big permission slip by simplifying a lot of the quite flowery Chinese concepts by boiling them down. Like his idea of the ground path - and he doesn't care how you get it, because once you establish it, then things can grow from there. As some who grew up devouring Chia's work, what Mike offered was a huge breath of fresh air.
In my deep geekery and esoteric explorations into audio, my conversations with Pierre Sprey were a turning point for me. Along with Pierre going quite deep into audio, he also happens to have designed jet planes for the Pentagon. He was one of their "whiz kids." So, in my thinking about someone who would have insights into concepts like power, energy, motion - he wouldn't be the worst brain to pick. He also confirmed a lot of what I'd been working on. Even said that what I was doing was "science."
As I design the nomenclature to produce mental imagery, I'll be working more with decoupling, tuning, resonance, skin, draining, energy, vibration, tone, windings,...
For example, I agree with Messisco's idea that we don't have to connect, because we're already connected. I also won't use, and don't even particularly like the idea of suit, pressure, ground path, etc.. It's fine if it works for someone else, but I'm designing something new.
All this really just comes down to topologies. I'm working on other topologies that can allow for not only a more simple form of transmission, but also effective pedagogical methods for sharing through many-to-many communications.
I've only recently shared the idea of Skin IS Structure. And gotten the OK from enough people I respect that it's sound. The next thing I'm going to do is introduce the ideas of resonance and decoupling.
Thanks for your, and everyone's feedback. Cheers...