Thread: Ki vs. Intent
View Single Post
Old 02-03-2013, 04:28 PM   #9
JW's Avatar
Location: San Diego CA USA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Re: Ki vs. Intent

In my efforts to write something that reflects the untrained origin of trained "jin," I wrote poorly. My last bullet point above maybe should read:
- total, net force output. It is the resultant that gives us the ability to do some useful motor action. In some people it depends heavily on which force-generating muscles (see above) are flexing, in combination with the mysterious force-guiding tension described above. But in others it may have more to do with weight or the ground reaction force being combined creatively with attackers' input force, through a pliable, flexible body. That requires resilience and control of the mysterious force-guiding tension in a global, full-body way, rather than in zones.

Regarding Mary's post, if intent controls ki, and ki controls where force is exerted, an attacker grappling with someone should feel "weak spots" or openings depending on how the atackee uses his intent-- so that is one way you can offer openings.

Hugh regarding your last post - I hope my new paragraph here addresses the ability of intent to produce a change distal to the site of physical interaction ("atari," yes?).
My whole hypothesis is that the intent-ki system exists for the movement/force management purposes I wrote above, for normal people. Then in training, we co-opt that system to do something new. If you make your body into one big flexible but resilient ball of joints (which it is), then you can use intent to change the relationship of force input to force output. If you make your state of intent such that uke's body should get pushed to the left, then he should become pushed to the left as a result. You direct the net resultant state of the whole system (2 bodies) by using intent. Then movement follows - and if there is lack of support somewhere, kuzushi follows.

[sorry for the late edits... everyone's posting too fast!]

Last edited by JW : 02-03-2013 at 04:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote