View Single Post
Old 03-01-2005, 07:53 AM   #48
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Functional Ki Skills

Quote:
Ted Ehara wrote:
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.
Maybe their baseball is slightly different, Ted, but the basics are still the same. Otherwise, U.S. teams wouldn't be recruiting some Japanese players.
Quote:
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?
Er, Ted.... you haven't shown "time=radical change", particularly in relation to the topic at hand, so this is all off-topic.
Quote:
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.
That's simply an argument by assertion, Ted. Besides, the basics of prana, ki, qi are indeed the same, just as jin, kokyu, and shakti are basically referring to the same phenomenon that arises because the human body essentially functions the same in these relationships.
Quote:
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.
Make no mistake, Ted... in the example we're talking about, you ARE receiving the power, no matter what you think or don't think. The question is what happens to that power, not what you think. Something affects that power and causes the pusher to feel a solid resistance.

Let's take it a step at a time. Generally speaking, the laws of physics say all force, energy, and matter are in a balanced equation. When you say "energy", in essence you are talking about bookkeeping in which the books must always stay balanced. "Energy" is measureable and if you postulate a "resisting force" on one side of the equation, you have to show cause on the other side of the equation. So my first question is: "how do you explain the cause of the resistance the pusher-on-the-forearm feels?" in terms of what is actually causing that particular solidity?
Quote:
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.
So if someone punches me in the face I can use "psychology" in such a way that it doesn't "allow" the punch to have any effect on me??? But we're getting closer to the real discussion, Ted. HOW does psychology negate a push to the forearm such that the pusher feels a tangible resistance?

Good discussion.

Mike
  Reply With Quote