Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
If you just lay out your own exposition of it as you yourself have written and put it into the matching mechanical and physiological terms -- it really is nearly all right there. |
Chris has laid it out very well.
As far as "matching" mechanical and physiological terms, I think you're missing the boat.
How do you know they "match"?
And "nearly all there" can be quite far off base.
I was involved in a "discussion" on a LinkedIn group where, apparently, no one had any real training in any kind of actual martial art. They liked to discuss some kind of "bitch slap" as the ultimate martial arts technique and they all demanded "scientific proof" of anything, though none of them could even define the basic ideas they wanted "proven." Also, when I tried to bring them into some kind of scientific rigor, none of them knew what that was about, either. Things like "get all the people that does this and study them for sixty years." I said, "No, find people that have been doing it for 40-60 years and compare them to a control group..."
It was like trying to wade through monkeys.
The point here is that your ideas explain some mechanical things, but it's not IP/IS or aiki.
From what you say, it's clear you've never experienced what people are referring to.
You can spend another several years pushing your "explanations" that are about as useful as Jenny McCarthy's views on vaccines. You need experience much more than anyone here needs your "explanations."