View Single Post
Old 02-28-2005, 03:08 PM   #40
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
Re: Functional Ki Skills

Ted Ehara wrote:
This sounds like the Chinese mind. The Chinese love the baroque, shadows within shadows and variations within variations. The Japanese mind is just the opposite. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) drives much of the Japanese Arts.
Uh oh.... I can't resist this one. The "Japanese mind" is so different that they adopted the whole concept of Ki and how it works from the Chinese, but the Japanese do it differently? The same Japanese that borrowed the clothing, hair-do's, shoes, manufacturing methods, swords, alphabet, measuring system, etc., etc., part and parcel from the Chinese? That theory is not only baroque, but "gopher baroque", Ted.
You're not testing the stance or posture. You're testing mind and body coordination. It's not just physical.
Then why do they physically test it, if it's not physical, Ted?
Current thought I'm told from KNK is to think down where contact is made. If your arm is out stretched and a person is holding your wrist and pushing towards you, you should be thinking down from where they're holding. Their energy should be thought of as doing straight down, like following a plumb line into the ground. There is no path, no force going through your body down your legs and into the ground. Just think "down".
"Down" is a direction, implying a path, Ted. I.e., why not think "up" when someone pushes you, if there is no concern for a path and direction? Besides, the force does not dissipate within the body when someone is pushed; it is easily measured at the soles of the feet, so it ends up somewhere... ergo, there is a "path".
KNK has been using a point-to-point movement instead of thinking along a path. If your arm moves in an down-up-down motion, don't think of it as moving along a path, but just bring your arm to the down point then up point then second down point. KNK also uses an interesting visualization during the transition (up) point.
Oh, I don't quibble about "different visualization".... the thought I'd offer is that a number of different visualizations can lead to the same physical results. What we're after is the most effective visualizations, not a dogma about "acceptable" visualizations, IMO.


  Reply With Quote