View Single Post
Old 03-01-2005, 04:19 AM   #46
tedehara
 
tedehara's Avatar
Dojo: Evanston Ki-Aikido
Location: Evanston IL
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 826
Offline
Re: Functional Ki Skills

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
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.
Let's take this closer to home. The Japanese play baseball. They learned it from the Americans. However Japanese baseball is different from American baseball. They have developed their type of baseball in less than a century. How long have they had those things you mentioned from China? Does a katana look and function like the Chinese sword it was taken from?

There is a noticeable difference between the Chinese and Japanese, just as there is a difference between India and China. Even though they share a concept like prana/chi/ki, their definitions or manifestations of that concept are not the same.
Quote:
..."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?
You can think up/down or you can think to either side. What you don't want to think is towards you, because then you'll be receiving their power.
Quote:
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".
Certainly I would agree there are force vectors on the body. Yet the psychology of the person should not allow them to receive any of that power. That will maximize their effectiveness.
Quote:
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..
At the start of a chess game, there are a large number of moves. However if you want to have a playable middle game, your number of candidate moves becomes much smaller. As you start playing, the number of candidate moves can become very small.

Similarly, if you want a certain physical result, you begin a series of choices to obtain that result. This process may involve visualization. That visualization must take into account the changes that will occur during this process. Therefore the possible visualizations available for actual use, will be much smaller in number. e.g. All roads may led to Rome, but there are only a few practical routes to get there.

It is not practice that makes perfect, it is correct practice that makes perfect.
About Ki
About You
  Reply With Quote